Email Us Forum Mail Article Print Article

Review of England in Sri Lanka

Monday, December 22 2003

Sri Lanka vs England - A personal view

If the final margin of 1-0 to the hosts was not unexpected, the manner of it was not quite what had been predicted. Before the tour, the smart money was on a series of high scoring games. England's top order batting as if it should put enough runs on the board not to worry too much about a less experienced lower order. Their bowling, on the other hand, always looked weak, especially with Giles' confidence reportedly hitting new troughs in Bangladesh, and few could see them dismissing the home side for under 500. Of course, the presence of a certain record-breaking off-spinner would always gave Sri Lanka a cutting edge that England could only dream of, so a home win in at least one of the tests was always on the cards, and so it eventually proved.

Muralitharan's record is so extraordinary that it is tempting to take him for granted, but his figures deserve some attention. In claiming 26 of the 56 English wickets to fall, at an average of 12.3, he has utterly dominated this series. His economy rate of 1.4 owes something to England's approach, but much more to his excellence. In addition, he could probably claim a few assists when batsmen have tried over-ambitious shots against lesser mortals. Whatever queries persist about his action, we are watching someone who is almost certainly re-writing the history books. Given the current standard of test match bowling, I would argue that his presence in is a very good thing indeed.

Mike Atherton commented towards the end of the third test that if Murali were playing for England instead of Sri Lanka, the series result would almost certainly have been reversed. This may be true, but I hope that it will not blind the tourists to their faults which, if not addressed, will continue to cost them test matches. The biggest disappointment was unquestionably the performance of the top 5. None of them averaged over 40 during the series, and most of them were well below that figure, so we don't have to look much further for why they rarely had the home side under any serious pressure. Vaughan's match-saving knock in Kandy was arguably England's only innings of substance in the whole tour, which is a damning statistic for what is an experienced and, on the whole, highly rated combination at the top of the order.

The worst under-achiever was probably Trescothick, given that so much was expected of him beforehand, and especially as opening in these conditions effectively gives him a sighter before you-know-who comes on. It didn't help that about half of his innings were ended by soft shots that seemed to owe as much to boredom as anything else. Thorpe also was far less productive than anticipated, although this seemed more due to having been comprehensively worked out by Murali. Butcher battled better than some, but still struggled, as we feared he would. Hussain must just wish that the illness that caused him to miss the first test had lasted for a couple of weeks longer. Even Vaughan will be disappointed with his series, Kandy not withstanding, but will be even more disappointed that his average of 37 was the highest in the side. Whilst no one expects wholesale changes for the Caribbean, Collingwood's unwillingness to sell his wicket cheaply may just lead to a longer run in the first XI. If nothing else, he looked as if he wanted to be there, which is more than could be said for some of his more established colleagues.

Given that combined averages of the first choice top five were fewer than 140, it seems extraordinary that England didn't lose all three. That they didn't was due to the tenacity of the bowlers, who batted far more adhesively than anyone had any right to expect and, until Dilshan got after them at Kandy, just about kept the Sri Lankan batsmen in check. They're not great, and I still don't think I have ever seen a weaker attack than the one we fielded in Kandy, but they do deserve some credit for making the series competitive, if only by sheer willpower.

Flintoff eventually found himself at the top of his side's bowling averages, which wasn't expected, but was just reward for some sterling efforts. Whether he's a top 6 batsman is still anyone's guess, but we'll leave that for another time. Giles' return to form should not be written off as an automatic consequence of bowling in more helpful conditions. He was also bowling at guys who have seen a bit of spin in their time, and he actually managed a better average than any of the home side's other spinners. We can only hope that he now has the confidence to forget the negative approach that has blighted him since the Indian tour two winters ago, as he could yet play a significant part in the Caribbean next year. The same probably cannot be said of Batty, although he can now tell his grandchildren that he batted at number 6 for England. I'm grateful for his part in saving the first two tests, so I'll be kind and say nothing about his bowling.

As for the other quicks, as far as I can see, England appear to have no more idea how to replace Gough and Caddick than they did 18 months ago. Partially that is down to this year's unprecedented run of injuries, but the selectors do seem to have been guessing this winter. Was Kirtley really a better bet than Hoggard or Johnson? Is Anderson still the automatic selection he was during the English summer? Are the rumours about Harmison's fall from grace true? And that's before we even start to think about the possible returns of Jones and Caddick.

If the jury's still out on the subject of the opening bowlers, then the same can be said for the wicket keeper, who rarely batted effectively, but is unlikely to be jettisoned just yet. However, a repeat performance in the West Indies will probably bring the curtain down on his test career.

This was a series between two ordinary sides that was completely dominated by one extraordinary individual. Whilst England would be wise not to over-react to a 1-0 loss in challenging conditions, I hope that they will not allow the Murali factor to excuse the weaknesses we have seen this winter. Some changes are needed for the West Indies, even if they're as much in attitude as in personnel.




Posted by David