I'm fairly sure most batsmen don't, but the runs he scored today would look so much more impressive if they were counted as FC runs and got the recognition they deserved. Would look good on his CV, if you know what I mean? As it is, people will just say "Bah, just a 16 man practice game" and not care.
Not necessarily. The SL selectors will be very aware of the fact that Tharanga & Kapu made tons against England's bowlers, irrespective of the fact that they don't count towards their career averages.
I know the Sri Lankan selectors will know what's happening, but I think Kapugedara and Tharanga would be much more grateful if these were FC games, as it would improve their record and show they can score runs against decent attacks. I just feel as though batsmen in particular are getting robbed when it comes to these games, because they don't count for too much other than selection.
Blame those responsible for the schedule, sure, but I honestly think it's far better to play 11-vs-11 even if you only have 1 game. 16-vs-12 is nothing more than a glorified net. People would be far more likely (likely, not certain obviously) to take things seriously if it was a proper game.
) be.I wouldn't take much heed to anything he says, you'd only have to go back and read some of his posts circa Tom Moody's appointment as coach.
I've always wondered how he'd go as an opener in ODIs.
Well however many play as it is a 3 day game on flat wickets there isn't going to be a result other than a draw. Maybe if they arranged for 2, four day games it would be better. You would think they would pick the same 11 from the last Test but the players in the ODIs and players returning from injury come into the equation. How would you find your best 11 if you don't give everyone a chance?Reprisenting your country in some mickey-mouse 16-vs-12 game is pretty meaningless. It's no more reprisenting your country than netting at a session organised by The ECB is.
And I'd hardly expect anyone to take such a game that seriously, nor worry overtly about how they did in it. If it's a proper game of cricket, though - the way tour-games were until very, very recently - there's a far higher chance of it.
Nonetheless, we know *certain people* are, shall we say, less interested in the importance of good-quality classification-of-matches than they should (
Representing your country in a 16-v-12 means as much as representing your country in 11-v-11 against a BP XI - next to nothing as it is all about the Test matches.Reprisenting your country in some mickey-mouse 16-vs-12 game is pretty meaningless. It's no more reprisenting your country than netting at a session organised by The ECB is.
And I'd hardly expect anyone to take such a game that seriously, nor worry overtly about how they did in it. If it's a proper game of cricket, though - the way tour-games were until very, very recently - there's a far higher chance of it.
Nonetheless, we know *certain people* are, shall we say, less interested in the importance of good-quality classification-of-matches than they should (
Please drop Jayawardene.
It's not though. International level is not, contrary to some belief, all that there is in cricket.
If Sangakkara keeps, he cannot bat three. And what's the latest on Kaushal Silva?
Why can't he? He averages 47.93 batting at #3 and keeping wicket. Obviously there will be a strain on him, but he has managed it in the past.
Someone's become a Grammar Socialist in the interim. Clauses everywhere.Neil Pickup said:
Sangakkara & JK Silva > Sangakkara & Prassana, in terms of runs
Of course he's managed it in the past, but on several of those most recent occasions (and the reason Prasanna Jayawardene was recalled in 2006) practically everyone has commented on how tired he tends to look when coming off a long day in the field, and the last thing you need in that eventuality is coming in to bat three.
Indeed, it was the Sri Lankan batsmen who didn't perform. Not being able to chase 234 in the second game, all out for 164 in the third and only putting 211 on the board in the fourth. Murali not being there had very little to do with SL losing that series, the batsmen looked flat and uninspired for quite a bit of the series, the times that mattered anyways.