***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[Athlai]

I don't understand how two SL batsmen can embarrass the English bowlers and then twenty minutes later, the same pitch causes England to fold like that?

WTH is going on?

Vaas better batsman than any English player? Yes IMO.

 

[Manee]

But it was alarming how little he swung the ball, and his only 2 wickets came from batsmen playing down the wrong line of straight balls.

I think you are being overcritical. He got a little bit of swing (mostly out, sometimes in) and a little bit is all you need to catch the edge and you only need a little bit more to beat a defence. Jason Gillespie could get the ball to move sharply off the pitch but all it often earnt him was plays and misses with the new ball whilst Mcgrath cleaned up at the other end.

His accuracy was also top notch from what I have seen. I reckon that Sri Lankan domestic pitches are very slow and low which is why a 140kph bowler like him may simply come onto the bat and go for runs.

 

[Dissector]

Vaas better batsman than any English player? Yes IMO.

Considering that Vaas outscored the entire England team, he might feel hard done by that comparison.

Incidentally in that 1984 Christchurch test Richard Hadlee pulled off the rather remarkable feat of outscoring England in both innings. (99 versus 82 and 93). Wonder if Vaas will manage that here.

 

[Richard]

I think you are being overcritical. He got a little bit of swing (mostly out, sometimes in) and a little bit is all you need to catch the edge and you only need a little bit more to beat a defence. Jason Gillespie could get the ball to move sharply off the pitch but all it often earnt him was plays and misses with the new ball whilst Mcgrath cleaned up at the other end.

Hmm, that's always been an overtly simplistic analogy (not yours I know) AFAIC. Gillespie still got loads of edges, as did McGrath. Very often when McGrath got the better figures it had little to do with the fact that Gillespie beat the edge more often and far more to do with the fact that batsmen simply played more bad shots (to balls that did not move a centimetre) at McGrath than they did at Gillespie.

I didn't watch every ball of Welegedara's effort today, so I might have missed some swing, but as I say - the two wicket balls both went gun-barrel straight and could easily have been avoided with better batting.

His accuracy was also top notch from what I have seen. I reckon that Sri Lankan domestic pitches are very slow and low which is why a 140kph bowler like him may simply come onto the bat and go for runs.

That could explain things to a certain extent, yes.

 

[Richard]

EDIT: as you were saying...

 

[Pup Clarke]

Was England's catching and outfielding really that bad?. No IMO, Collingwood admittidly dropped a sitter at slip, Cook's was very, very tough, Bopara's wasn't what I'd term "straightforward" as well and Prior's while his weight was on the wrong foot it was a toughish chance.

Bit of an overreaction me thinks.

 

[Richard]

Nah, they should all have been caught.

Sure, only Collingwood's was an absolute sitter but you won't win many Tests if you drop those sorts of chances ATT.

Prior has missed 5 chances off Sidebottom now which can be explained by his poor weight-transfer to left-armers, and he's even starting to make the same mistakes off Hoggard now too. He missed 3 this match that he should have taken, and a better wicketkeeper would, Bopara should have caught that one however quick it was going, and Cook likewise (but he's never been that good a catcher and I cringe whenever I see him in the slips and gullies).

If you drop 6 catchable catches per innings, you'd better bank on chasing lots and lots of leather. And it's happened far, far, far too often with England in the last 6 years now.

 

[NUFAN]

Shah > Bopara

 

[Richard]

Seems most people outside the England camp were always aware of that - I've often said that distance lends perspective.

 

[Manee]

At this rate of batting, could Ramprakash find his way to New Zealand for the Tests in March? Or should this line up be given time to mature?

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

ALl i need to add is at englands attempt at batting

and

Matt Prior is one of the most ridiculous player ever to pull on the gloves. You drop him and get someone who can use the gloves in your side will improve significantly.

 

[Richard]

Not if that player's useless with the bat and averages 18, no.

Obviously, though, if Prior keeps having games as execrable as this every 3 Tests, he's got to go. So far it's only happened twice, but the particularly bad thing is it's been exactly the same problem both times.

 

[Richard]

At this rate of batting, could Ramprakash find his way to New Zealand for the Tests in March? Or should this line up be given time to mature?

Shah should still be ahead of him IMO, and TBH I'd prefer Strauss to come back in, obviously, as I've never been a fan of Vaughan opening. Bopara's elevation currently looks hopelessly premature and he should be left-out for mine barring something big in this second-innings obviously.

 

[Manee]

Shah should still be ahead of him IMO

Why? (Honest question, not patronising responce)

 

[Richard]

Because he's played 2 Tests, and deserves more of a shot.

Whether Ramprakash does is, well, debatable TSTL. I was disappointed when he was dropped for the last time in 2002, not because I thought he still had a strong case for remaining in the side, but because I still believed he had it in him to perform.

Now, however, his time and all those who his career was played-out mostly with (Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Cork, Caddick, Gough) have gone. It'd feel odd to get a recall now, to me. Much as I'd be delighted if he were to have a year or 3 in the sun starting in New Zealand.

Let's not forget, either, that in Ramprakash's most recent spell as a Test-cricketer (1997-2001\02) the only team he failed against (as long as he wasn't opening) was New Zealand - twice. That too fills me with a little foreboding.

 

[nightprowler10]

Totally wish I was watching this. Love to see a Freddie-less England getting flogged.

 

[BoyBrumby]

England dropped catches, Sri Lanka caught them.

It really is that simple.

Well, it's helped, obviously, but given only 5 of our wickets fell to catches it's not the whole story. We've been poor in every discipline.

The run-outs were obviously the worst wickets to give away, because both were completely unnecessary, but Bopara's was a complete brain-fart too. Last time we'll see him in the test team for a long time to come, if there's any justice. He's had a series and has been found short at the highest level for mine.

It's been a capitulation and, sad to say, a seemingly pretty gutless one at that.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Could NZ-England in the new year see the world's first one-day Test?

 

[Woodster]

Ravi Bopara appears to be kopping a fair bit of grief on here, and while I can understand it I do not necessarily agree with it. We cannot expect everyone that is new to Test cricket to take to it like a duck to water, now whether anyone thinks he will be good enough or never be good enough is indeed a personal opinion and one in which only time will tell.

Whether Shah should have been selected over him is a good talking point but there are absolutely no guarantees he would have fared any better and people would be questioning why on earth they didn't go with Bopara, such is the fickle nature of a supporter.

I still believe Bopara will go on and become a decent Test cricketer and you can say this was not the time to bring him in, it's too soon, but there are numerous top players that begun with a tough introduction to top flight cricket for one reason or another, yet proved themselves to be quality cricketers. I think Bopara will do the same he is playing only his THIRD Test match. Personally I think the more experienced players need to take a look themselves rather than a guy in his first Test series.

 

[Richard]

Well, it's helped, obviously, but given only 5 of our wickets fell to catches it's not the whole story. We've been poor in every discipline.

The run-outs were obviously the worst wickets to give away, because both were completely unnecessary, but Bopara's was a complete brain-fart too. Last time we'll see him in the test team for a long time to come, if there's any justice. He's had a series and has been found short at the highest level for mine.

It's been a capitulation and, sad to say, a seemingly pretty gutless one at that.

Don't forget, we'd have had everyone bar Vaas, Jayawardene and Vandort out for single-figures if every catch had been taken and decisions had gone correctly (though obviously that is offset by "what might Vandort have got had he been correctly given n\o?"). That's 90 from Vaas, 69 (IIRR) from Jayawardene, and who-knows-what for Vandort. Could easily have been a small total.

There were some poor strokes from the England batsmen, sure, and the Lankan seamers bowled better than ours.

But it's highly unlikely Lanka would've got 300, never mind 500, if we'd held the catches. We'd almost certainly still have lost this Test, but it wouldn't look the absurd, inexplicable mismatch it has done thanks to our drops.

My post was not to say we've equalled the Lankans in all respects bar catching, merely to answer Manan's question about why such a horrific mismatch.