***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[Steulen]

Bit of a damp squib this Test.

It was a good one if your name is Jayawardene though. Or suspiciously Dutch.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I was listening to TMS to the drive to work (until Radio 4 LW leaves for Yesterday in Parliament, the gits...) & Aggers & Vic Marks made the not unreasonable point that our conversion rate of 50s to 100s has been shocking in this game. We've had 7 (I think) batsmen now make 50 and none have gone on. Prior might be excused blame as he'd clearly received a message to get on with it just before his ugly heave, but not the others.

Something to work on, clearly.

 

[Richard]

Everyone can be excused in the first-innings, Vaughan with the freak catch, Cook with the decision (though he should've been gone on 8, obviously that's not a half-century) and Prior with being left with the tail.

The 50s-to-100s question is one that's been raised non-stop ad-bloody-nauseum on Sky. I guess there's something in it, but I'm really getting heartily sick of people bashing-on about it. Cook and Bell will get centuries eventually, but no-one can convert every god-damn innings. Equally, it's very obvious that neither are Sangakkara or Jayawardene - it's fruitless to say "they should improve their talent". You might as well ask me to improve mine and stop getting out for 2s and 3s against nothing club bowlers.

 

[archie mac]

Everyone can be excused in the first-innings, Vaughan with the freak catch, Cook with the decision (though he should've been gone on 8, obviously that's not a half-century) and Prior with being left with the tail.

The 50s-to-100s question is one that's been raised non-stop ad-bloody-nauseum on Sky. I guess there's something in it, but I'm really getting heartily sick of people bashing-on about it. Cook and Bell will get centuries eventually, but no-one can convert every god-damn innings. Equally, it's very obvious that neither are Sangakkara or Jayawardene - it's fruitless to say "they should improve their talent". You might as well ask me to improve mine and stop getting out for 2s and 3s against nothing club bowlers.

Good article mate, who did you give the MOM?

 

[Richard]

Ah, crap, forgot about that. 'Twas hardly a vintage article though TBH, one of the most boring match-reports I've ever done. Only interesting bits were the broken records (I like the Stats Spider linkage stuff, never done that before ).

Will edit it in adding the MOTM. Presume it must've been Jayawardene, will check.

 

[archie mac]

Ah, crap, forgot about that. 'Twas hardly a vintage article though TBH, one of the most boring match-reports I've ever done. Only interesting bits were the broken records (I like the Stats Spider linkage stuff, never done that before ).

Will edit it in adding the MOTM. Presume it must've been Jayawardene, will check.

Pick your own mate, I always do

 

[Richard]

Well I think Jayawardene's the only case, really - Vandort actually scored quicker but played nowhere near as well.

But for that brilliant Jayawardene knock this Test would have seemed almost pointless. Hate Tests like this, makes me question why I ever get-up at 4:30AM.

 

[archie mac]

Well I think Jayawardene's the only case, really - Vandort actually scored quicker but played nowhere near as well.

But for that brilliant Jayawardene knock this Test would have seemed almost pointless. Hate Tests like this, makes me question why I ever get-up at 4:30AM.

Just on the off chance that you get a classic, like me in 2005

 

[wpdavid]

Ah, crap, forgot about that. 'Twas hardly a vintage article though TBH, one of the most boring match-reports I've ever done. Only interesting bits were the broken records (I like the Stats Spider linkage stuff, never done that before ).

Will edit it in adding the MOTM. Presume it must've been Jayawardene, will check.

I thought it was a decent piece anyway. Shame the comment on the front page is wrong though - I'm pretty sure we only lost 3 wickets

 

[Richard]

Jeys, I'm an idiot sometimes...

 

[wpdavid]

Jeys, I'm an idiot sometimes...

I shouldn't worry mate - I could list numerous folks who aspire to only occasional idiocy.

 

[Laurrz]

Mahela blaims England on draw
http://aus.cricinfo.com/slveng/content/current/story/325349.html

 

[Richard]

ITSTL, wonder whether he's playing the ye olde minde games there? Reckon if England had tried scoring quicker on that surface, Vaughan aside, they'd probably have got less than they ended-up getting.

Certainly reckon they'll struggle at Galle if they try to go too fast, and can see that playing right in SL's hands.

Mind, leading Lankan figures have made a habit of throwing back the "negativity" towards England on the last 2 tours when English have aimed it at themselves.

 

[wpdavid]

Mahela blaims England on draw
http://aus.cricinfo.com/slveng/content/current/story/325349.html

Yeah, I read that too, and thought it rather odd. Compare England's runrate when a large percentage of the overs were against MM to SL's, and you'd come to the opposite conclusion. SL certainly had the opportunity to step up a gear & declare earlier to give themselves more chance of a win, but they prefered not to.

Anyway, what do we think about Galle? Presumably soem FC cricket has been played there since the tsunami, even if there's been no tests, so what are we likely to see?

 

[Richard]

Four First-Class matches since the tsunami. If there's a pattern, it seems to be that batting is damn difficult for the first day or two, then eases out slightly though nowhere near as easy as in the just-concluded Test. Mostly it seems to have been spinners who've taken the wickets, so maybe it might be a typical modern-day subcontinent wicket that turns, but is at its best for spinners early on as it becomes slower and slower and slower and slower.

Have wondered more than once why this guy has never played so much as a single Test when the Upashanthas etc. have stayed around the scene for years.

Look at the grounds in Colombo list! How is it possible to have so many cricket grounds in one city?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Everyone can be excused in the first-innings, Vaughan with the freak catch, Cook with the decision (though he should've been gone on 8, obviously that's not a half-century) and Prior with being left with the tail.

The 50s-to-100s question is one that's been raised non-stop ad-bloody-nauseum on Sky. I guess there's something in it, but I'm really getting heartily sick of people bashing-on about it. Cook and Bell will get centuries eventually, but no-one can convert every god-damn innings. Equally, it's very obvious that neither are Sangakkara or Jayawardene - it's fruitless to say "they should improve their talent". You might as well ask me to improve mine and stop getting out for 2s and 3s against nothing club bowlers.

Fair points, but now watching the highlights of the 2nd innings and both Vaughan & Bell fell to what were, in the circs, pretty rash shots. Bell, perversely, seemed in rather more of a rush to get on with things with a game to save than when (in our first innings) we had a game to win.

It's a minor gripe, really, but Bell has passed 50 23 times in tests, but only 6 times has he tonned up. Strikes me as a fairly ordinary conversion rate.

 

[wpdavid]

Fair points, but now watching the highlights of the 2nd innings and both Vaughan & Bell fell to what were, in the circs, pretty rash shots. Bell, perversely, seemed in rather more of a rush to get on with things with a game to save than when (in our first innings) we had a game to win.

It's a minor gripe, really, but Bell has passed 50 23 times in tests, but only 6 times has he tonned up. Strikes me as a fairly ordinary conversion rate.

Yeah, Bell's the one I'd fault from this test for not going on to 3 figures. At least Vaughan could claim that he was trying to get runs on the board against bowlers who weren't Murali, but Bell's dismissal just seemed beyond any sort of reason. And didn't he do something similar in one of the innings at Kandy? It's one thing to be positive, but you don't have to kiss your brain goodbye in the process. The strange thing is that his stock has probably risen in this series, just as it did last winter, but he can't quite manage to go on with it and really hurt the opposition. Shades of Thorpe in the mid-1990's, I suppose.

Going on from here, even though his average at 6 is superior, I'd still have him higher than that - either 3 or 4 depending whether we pick an extra opener and play Vaughan at 3 in NZ and beyond. I know that means there's potentially less time for KP to build an innings, but he shouldn'r run out of time too often batting at 5.

 

[Richard]

Fair points, but now watching the highlights of the 2nd innings and both Vaughan & Bell fell to what were, in the circs, pretty rash shots. Bell, perversely, seemed in rather more of a rush to get on with things with a game to save than when (in our first innings) we had a game to win.

It's a minor gripe, really, but Bell has passed 50 23 times in tests, but only 6 times has he tonned up. Strikes me as a fairly ordinary conversion rate.

It is, and he'd hope to do better, especially when it's errors of thinking like earlier today rather than errors of impetuousity which are simply inbuilt. But with Murali he only bowls at 50mph, you've got time to think "right, I've got long-on back now, it'd be very, very stupid to try and loft massive Off-Breaks over mid-off, so let's keep it on the ground". TBH, I struggle to think of said other occasions, but I'd certainly prefer he make 60s and 70s than make 20s and 30s.

Vaughan, though, has always been a sucker for Fernando slower-balls, and it's inevitable when you front-foot drive as much as he does. That's the 3rd time in his career he's got out to a Fernando slower-ball and many times besides he's been deceived by the thing, some by Dilhara and some by Glenn McGrath who copied the delivery. But really, I don't want him to cut-out his driving completely for fear of getting-out to the odd brilliant slower-ball between 50 and 100, because I can't help but think it might rather lessen his impact instead of greaten it.

By-and-large, Vaughan's conversion-rate has always been superb by most standards, and I'm not going to overtly criticise him this Test. As already said, anyone can get out to a freak catch and I'm happy enough that he'll fall to a brilliantly disguised slower-ball every now and then if he routinely scores hundreds of runs with his front-foot driving.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, Bell's the one I'd fault from this test for not going on to 3 figures. At least Vaughan could claim that he was trying to get runs on the board against bowlers who weren't Murali, but Bell's dismissal just seemed beyond any sort of reason. And didn't he do something similar in one of the innings at Kandy? It's one thing to be positive, but you don't have to kiss your brain goodbye in the process. The strange thing is that his stock has probably risen in this series, just as it did last winter, but he can't quite manage to go on with it and really hurt the opposition. Shades of Thorpe in the mid-1990's, I suppose.

Going on from here, even though his average at 6 is superior, I'd still have him higher than that - either 3 or 4 depending whether we pick an extra opener and play Vaughan at 3 in NZ and beyond. I know that means there's potentially less time for KP to build an innings, but he shouldn'r run out of time too often batting at 5.

If Pietersen ever bats below four again barring injury and nightwatchmen in the immediate future I'll be surprised.

As regards Thorpe, Robert Key mentioned today that Thorpe had made the wholly valid point that in his day falling for 60 or 70 wasn't really such a likely case of batting carelessness, more that there were simply bowlers at that time who were every bit as likely to get you out for 75 as they were for 2.

As regards Bell - it's a fine line between "being positive" and "being reckless". TBH, it usually strikes me that the rule is "if it comes-off it's being positive, if it doesn't come-off it's being reckless". Simple as.

For mine, if you attack Murali on these surfaces, there's a limit to what you can achieve. It'll work sometimes, but not at others. Sure, he had a moment of poor thinking today, but at Kandy I don't really think he did much different. Basically, to me it smacks of "he should play shots that get him runs, but not shots that get him out". Well, against a bowler like Murali, it don't really work that way.

 

[simmy]

God Jayawardene should look in the mirror.

That game was a dull draw because of SL and SL alone. 2.5 rpo before declaring?!

They are consistently negative and its a shame that they will prob win the series playing in this manner.