The role of a finisher is a highly specialised job in T20 cricket, but is it time to introduce greater flexibility in how teams use these players within the batting order?
The idea of the T20 finisher has always carried a certain romance. The player arrives when the match is delicately poised, often with little time to settle, with the potential of altering its course in a handful of deliveries. They walk in to noise swelling around the stadium, hope concentrated into a single figure. Sometimes it ends with five towering sixes to overturn what once looked like a lost chase. Other times, the finish is quieter and heartbreaking.
Yet that very identity can also become limiting, often restrictive. Once labelled a finisher, a batter is rarely viewed as anything else.
Is the definition of a finisher limited?
Over the past two days, contributions from Shimron Hetmyer and Harry Brook in the T20 World Cup have prompted renewed discussion around the precise role of a finisher within a T20 side. Hetmyer in particular has long been seen as a player best suited to the death overs, but are certain players being underused when confined to the role of a finisher?
Hetmyer’s T20 career is interesting. For years, he was deployed largely as a designated finisher, batting at Nos 5 and 6 in 152 T20s, more than half his innings. Statistically, the role appears to suit him. He averages 27.14 while striking at 151.53, comfortably higher than his overall career strike rate of 144.20. Much of his effectiveness came from his ability against pace. Between overs 16 and 20, he struck at 156.09 against fast bowlers, a huge asset given that teams often hold their best seamers back for the death.
Even so, there was persistent talk about whether he should bat higher. Commentators such as Ian Bishop repeatedly advocated for his promotion during his time with the Rajasthan Royals, where he batted above No.5 only four times in 50 innings and was often pushed as low as No.7 or No.8. The argument was straightforward: If a player can influence a game in, say 10 balls, there is reason to believe he could do so across 20.
West Indies have recently explored that possibility. Hetmyer was moved to No.3 in July 2025, batting there for the first time in four years in T20Is. The results have been striking. Since the promotion, he averages 52.14 with a strike rate of 184.3, emerging as one of the West Indies’ most dangerous batters during the ongoing T20 World Cup.
A similar conversation surrounds Tim David, and to a more limited extent, Brook. Ahead of the World Cup, Australia experimented with pushing David up the order, despite him usually being slotted at No.5 or lower. The move was partly driven by Australia’s own batting concerns, but the short-term returns were encouraging. Since being promoted to No.4 in August 2025, he has struck at 174.22 across eight innings. His strike rate at No.5 and 6 remains even higher at 175.4, which explains why he has been viewed primarily as a finisher. Still, it demonstrates that finishers can sometimes adapt when given greater time.
England explored a similar idea with Brook during their match against Pakistan. For the first time in 61 T20Is, he batted above No.4. He responded with 100 from 51 balls in a successful chase that carried England into the semi-finals. The innings immediately reignited discussion around whether batting roles have become too rigid.
Why finishers aren't promoted...
The underlying strategic dilemma is understandable. Finishing is among the most specialised skills in the format. The death overs are dominated by pace, yorkers, and boundary protection. Players capable of scoring almost instantly, without needing time to adjust, are rare. When teams identify someone who can perform that role reliably, the instinct is to protect it. Promoting such a player risks weakening the death overs, which often decide matches.
That logic explains why many finishers remain anchored to the same positions for long periods. Yet it also raises an important question. If a batter possesses the ability to strike from ball one against high pace, could that same ability create advantages earlier in an innings?
The contrast becomes sharper when viewed alongside the career pattern of Rinku Singh, who has seldom been afforded sustained opportunities higher up the order, whether in franchise cricket or internationally. His role has remained remarkably consistent, almost predetermined. Across 158 matches, he has batted above No.4 only twice and above No.5 just 24 times. The distribution of balls faced tells an even clearer story. He has faced fewer than 15 deliveries in an innings on 96 occasions, and when unbeaten at No.5 or lower, he has struck at 190.46.
Rinku’s strongest attribute is his effectiveness against pace in high-pressure death overs, where he strikes at 172.53 against pace in the death overs. Teams may therefore see greater value in retaining him in that specialist role. However, there could be some moments that invite reconsideration.
... and when they could be
Against South Africa, when they were in a spot of bother in the run chase, India promoted Washington Sundar to No.5, a decision that sparked debate. Both Sundar and Rinku have comparable returns against spin in the middle overs. Rinku strikes at 111.26 against the slower bowlers between overs 7-15, while Sundar strikes at 97.34 in the same phase. However, Rinku is widely regarded as the stronger batter, which makes it curious as to why they didn’t decide to give him time to get his eye in on a wicket that was holding up.
However, the logic behind keeping him back is clear: you want someone who can consistently score quickly, and if he perished earlier, India had no other alternatives who could keep them alive if it reached a pressure situation.
But finishing is also a job with inherently volatile outcomes. A short run of low scores, such as his recent returns in the World Cup, can quickly trigger questions about his place in the side, with India’s assistant coach Ryan ten Doeschate suggesting that other batting options might be considered going forward in the competition. But isn’t trying him in a different role, that gives him more time, a more valuable option, than discarding him altogether, especially if his lack of runs is not necessarily due to a lack of form?
The issue is not whether all finishers should be promoted, but whether teams are sufficiently open to identifying which ones could succeed outside the role. Hetmyer’s recent success illustrates the potential rewards. Rinku’s situation highlights the opposite possibility.
As roles become more specialised, the risk of over-specialisation increases. Death hitting remains one of the rarest skills in the game, but so too is the ability to recognise when a player might offer more than the role he was first assigned. And in a format built on innovation, the willingness to test those boundaries may prove to be as valuable as holding onto them.
Follow Wisden for all cricket updates, including live scores, match stats, quizzes and more. Stay up to date with the latest cricket news, player updates, team standings, match highlights, video analysis and live match odds.
