***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[wpdavid]

Vandort & Jaywardene are looking increasingly secure - you feel that if a couple of batsmen get in on this track then they can stay there all day, especially given the limitations of the English attack

 

[Stapel]

Vandort & Jayawardene are looking increasingly secure - you feel that if a couple of batsmen get in on this track then they can stay there all day, especially given the limitations of the English attack

I had the same idea. So, maybe it isn't a bad idea for England to keep a good economy and try to strike tomorrow in the early morning. Van Dort (that's how we should spell it ) and Jaya are good batsmen who both average somewhere in the high 40s. But, arguably, Sri Lanka's tail begins with batsman number 5.

Getting Sanka out for 1 really might be decisive

 

[gettingbetter]

I had the same idea. So, maybe it isn't a bad idea for England to keep a good economy and try to strike tomorrow in the early morning. Van Dort (that's how we should spell it ) and Jaya are good batsmen who both average somewhere in the high 40s. But, arguably, Sri Lanka's tail begins with batsman number 5.

Getting Sanka out for 1 really might be decisive

Is that some sort of subsidiary business of Van Dutch?

 

[Richard]

Ouch.

I dunno why Harmison always gets it so bad, from everyone. Everyone from the cricinfo writing staff to the commentators to cricketweb pundits love to rag on him. I mean he's not the best, but he's not the worst bowler out there either. I'd pick him before Anderson any day.

Harmison really is one of the worst bowlers out there. It's been 3-and-a-half years since he did anything of any note, and last summer he provided - along with his Durham team-mate - one of the worst spells of bowling you'll ever see. To see that sort of stuff at Test level was, well, beyond embarrasing. It's the sort of stuff you'd expect from a bowler who blows hot-and-cold at club level.

Harmison's Test career might have been a more notable one than Anderson's, due to those 7 Tests in early 2004 which Anderson has never had an equivalent of, but as of now they're both as bad as each other.

 

[Richard]

And that's one of the worst bits of fielding I've ever seen from the deadly duo of Broad and MSP. 'Least there was no injury, I guess.

 

[Stapel]

Is that some sort of subsidiary business of Van Dutch?

Nah,
Obviously, Vandort has Dutch ancestors. Van Dort is a common surname over here.

 

[Stapel]

Harmison really is one of the worst bowlers out there. It's been 3-and-a-half years since he did anything of any note, and last summer he provided - along with his Durham team-mate - one of the worst spells of bowling you'll ever see. To see that sort of stuff at Test level was, well, beyond embarrasing. It's the sort of stuff you'd expect from a bowler who blows hot-and-cold at club level.

Harmison's Test career might have been a more notable one than Anderson's, due to those 7 Tests in early 2004 which Anderson has never had an equivalent of, but as of now they're both as bad as each other.

I think it's fair to mention the 2006 tests vs Pakistan. Taking 6/19 is something of any note, not?

 

[Richard]

It's just 1 game, though - anyone can have the odd good game, even James Anderson's done that. Since July 2004, Harmison has had 3 - said Old Trafford match in 2006, Lord's against Australia (most of which was resulting from end-of-innings wickets anyway) in 2005 and The Oval against West Indies in 2004.

Other than those 3, it's been almost roundly awful.

 

[Richard]

And that's the Close - 11 overs lopped off today, bit of a shame, but hopefully it won't make too much difference.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Andrew Strauss is looking very red around the eyes on Sky. He's either drunk or hasn't slept for three days.

 

[TheLad]

I had the same idea. So, maybe it isn't a bad idea for England to keep a good economy and try to strike tomorrow in the early morning. Van Dort (that's how we should spell it ) and Jaya are good batsmen who both average somewhere in the high 40s. But, arguably, Sri Lanka's tail begins with batsman number 5.

Getting Sanka out for 1 really might be decisive

Take Van Dorts performances against Bangladesh out of the equation and his average drops dramatically, as in less than 30. He is an improving batsman and when he gets set he can bat with a rhythm but there are flaws in his technique he needs to sort out before he is going to consistently impact on test matches against good opponents.

I would be trying to get another break through tonight to feel you have regained the ascendancy at stumps.

 

[Richard]

It's rather alarming when one's average against Bangladesh is better than one's in Sri Lankan domestic cricket. Says there's a lot wrong in several ways, not least with Vandort himself (so please DON'T start that again Jamee ).

 

[shankar]

It is? Do tell...

Have you ever seen it happen?

It's a bit technical. Basically reverse-swing happens when the boundary layer (layer of air closest to the surface of the ball) ahead of the seam is turbulent. This is usually achieved by holding the ball with the seam direction for conventional swing but with the rough and smooth sides switched so that the rough side is now foremost. If the side is sufficiently rough then the boundary layer is turbulent and reverse swing occurs. But theoretically if you bowl the ball at a very high speed, then the boundary layer would be turbulent irrespective of the surface of the ball. I've not actually seen it happen, just read it on some article about reverse swing. I've not looked at the numbers also to see if the speed required is too much.

 

[Beleg]

It really does depend on the 'smoothness' of the surface. I guess I could do an analysis but I am terribly lazy.

 

[Richard]

Haha, had never heard any true scientific explanation of swing - either type - myself, TBH. So that explains that.

 

[tooextracool]

It's a bit technical. Basically reverse-swing happens when the boundary layer (layer of air closest to the surface of the ball) ahead of the seam is turbulent. This is usually achieved by holding the ball with the seam direction for conventional swing but with the rough and smooth sides switched so that the rough side is now foremost. If the side is sufficiently rough then the boundary layer is turbulent and reverse swing occurs. But theoretically if you bowl the ball at a very high speed, then the boundary layer would be turbulent irrespective of the surface of the ball. I've not actually seen it happen, just read it on some article about reverse swing. I've not looked at the numbers also to see if the speed required is too much.

As you have suggested, reverse swing depends on one side of the ball being sufficiently roughed up. As such, it is highly unlikely that a new ball is going to ever be sufficiently roughed up, certainly not 2.4 overs into it as was the case with Bopara, to be able to reverse. There have been cases where the ball has reversed 15 overs or so after it was sent down for the first time, but such an act requires an extremely abrasive surface to do so. As far the Bopara dismissal is concerned, i think its fairly obvious that the ball swung away from the shiny side, Malinga has infact never exactly bowled reverse outswingers in the past regardless.

 

[tooextracool]

You may be right. Admittedly I'm relying on Cricinfo for coverage (not withstanding the bit you quoted), but this actually reads like one of his better opening spells. The batsmen have only left about one ball an over, which is not what usually happens - even if he's not conceding wides, he's previosuly been guilty of allowing batsmen far too many leaves. And if he hasn't exactly threatened, not many have on this track. OK, so I wouldn't have picked him, but I'd prefer to see him judged on what he's actually doing in this game.

I think it might be better to say 'comparatively' for Harmison's spell was almost certainly not just unthreatening in terms of the pitch but also in terms of bowling on the stumps. He got more bounce out of the wicket than the other 2 bowlers did, but he rarely managed to bowl a ball that actually threatened the stumps. Bowling deliveries that are chest high outside the off stump are not going to put too many SL batsmen ill at ease on these wickets that is for certain.

 

[shankar]

As you have suggested, reverse swing depends on one side of the ball being sufficiently roughed up. As such, it is highly unlikely that a new ball is going to ever be sufficiently roughed up, certainly not 2.4 overs into it as was the case with Bopara, to be able to reverse. There have been cases where the ball has reversed 15 overs or so after it was sent down for the first time, but such an act requires an extremely abrasive surface to do so. As far the Bopara dismissal is concerned, i think its fairly obvious that the ball swung away from the shiny side, Malinga has infact never exactly bowled reverse outswingers in the past regardless.

Yeah, having now seen the dismissal, it was just conventional swing. I'm aware of what you say above. I was just pointing out that it's theoretically possible for reverse to happen even with a new ball under certain conditions.

 

[wpdavid]

Today's daft cricinfo headline is something along the lines of "dead wickets killing Murali", which is a bit odd in a game when MM claimed 5 victims on Days 1 & 2 on a pitch that has actually been too dead for everyone else.

I see no-one else has bothered to post about today's game. Is it really that boring to see Vandort & Jayawardene set up a another comfortable SL win? Perhaps it is.
A couple of questions passed through my mind this morning. Why has Vaughan not bowled himself at all? And if we do go on to another whitewash, will there be another inquest/review with further new posts created to ensure that it never happens again? Those who heard Hugh Morris blathering on about accountability & responsibility on TMS yesterday wil know exactly what I mean.

 

[Richard]

I see no-one else has bothered to post about today's game. Is it really that boring to see Vandort & Jayawardene set up a another comfortable SL win? Perhaps it is.

Thought exactly that - 1 new post from Shankar, plus yours, since yesterday evening when I last read.

But I'd have posted something (including "quiet today" probably) but for the fact it's so damn cold I preferred to stay in bed.

A couple of questions passed through my mind this morning. Why has Vaughan not bowled himself at all? And if we do go on to another whitewash, will there be another inquest/review with further new posts created to ensure that it never happens again? Those who heard Hugh Morris blathering on about accountability & responsibility on TMS yesterday wil know exactly what I mean.

Don't understand why Vaughan hasn't bowled himself either, and the Schofield report was the biggest waste of time I've ever heard, totally unneccessary. So I hope not.