***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[Jono]

Vaas ball pitched on off, not outside off. I just watched it seconds ago so I'm 100% sure of that.

 

[JASON]

Excuse me, except for Aussie series, I could not remember any recent series they got smashed. Last English tour ws 1-1, New Zealand tour was 1-1, only place where they flopped was in India, even that was not a walk over for the Indians.

here was a chance to show how good they are ...at home conditions against a weak England Team...and an opportunity to rise to No.2 in Rankings...something that they will never ever get again...and they really failed to nail it...pathetic ..particularly if you can't nail it in hot conditions against visiting Teams (not used to those) by wearing them down through a 3 Test series with little recovery time....

IMO No.3 in the World over inflates this SL side's real position ...they are on par with England ...because at home England would in all honesty beat SL with the reverse score line 1-0 in England's favour..

 

[Migara]

here was a chance to show how good they are ...at home conditions against a weak England Team...and an opportunity to rise to No.2 in Rankings...something that they will never ever get again...and they really failed to nail it...pathetic ..particularly if you can't nail it in hot conditions against visiting Teams (not used to those) by wearing them down through a 3 Test series with little recovery time....

IMO No.3 in the World over inflates this SL side's real position ...they are on par with England ...because at home England would in all honesty beat SL with the reverse score line 1-0 in England's favour..

I am trying very hard not to think you are not an alien. . Last time SL toured England (with half fit bowling side) they managed 1-1 draw. With so much of rain around 3rd test never appeared to be result oriented until that bowling performances by SL seamers.

No 3 is an inflation. blah blah blah. Then who should be No 3? SAF? They just got blown away 2-0 in last outing in SL.

NZ? I'd rather not comment.
India? hwo failed similary according to you to get a 3-0 home advantage against depleted Pakistan.
WI? SAF A beats them. enough said.
BAN. ZIM - no hope,

 

[JASON]

I am trying very hard not to think you are not an alien. . Last time SL toured England (with half fit bowling side) they managed 1-1 draw. With so much of rain around 3rd test never appeared to be result oriented until that bowling performances by SL seamers.

No 3 is an inflation. blah blah blah. Then who should be No 3? SAF? They just got blown away 2-0 in last outing in SL.

NZ? I'd rather not comment.
India? hwo failed similary according to you to get a 3-0 home advantage against depleted Pakistan.
WI? SAF A beats them. enough said.
BAN. ZIM - no hope,

SL will struggle on current form against India and Pakistan who are both ahead of SL and thats the reality ...if you come out of the Glass house and take a decent hard look you will realise this ...India beat England in England 1-0 and Pakistan are only slightly worse off than India having just lost to India at home...SL struggle badly behind those 2 and thats a fact anyway you want to look at it...

 

[ohtani's jacket]

God, if only New Zealand were as good as Sri Lanka.

 

[BoyBrumby]

God, if only New Zealand were as good as Sri Lanka.

Meh. You'll get your turn at dicking the poms soon enough.

 

[social]

You know, it's interesting, consensus was that England were awful in the first-innings, but they weren't really. Could have been better, sure - awful, certainly not.

Vaughan got a pearler, anyone seriously contending that it was a large misjudgement doesn't know a thing about cricket really. To say Vaughan made a large misjudgement is doing a disgraceful discredit to a magnificent bit of bowling. We're talking about a ball that pitched outside off, from a left-arm-over angle, and would have hit middle.

Cook got another superb ball, though he was at fault for Bell's run-out.

Pietersen got an even more unplayable one than either of the last 2.

Prior got one that kept exceptionally low. No batsman in history would have tried to play that on the front-foot unless they were exceptionally poor.

Really, it's only the selection of an incredibly long tail (always something that's made me wince) and the nonsense of Bopara being picked over Shah, plus Collingwood's poor stroke and Cook's poor calling, that caused that collapse.

Had Prasanna Jayawardene caught Cook on 53 or whatever it was in the second-innings, meanwhile, it'd be interesting to see what'd have happened. For starters, there'd almost certainly have been no English century this series.

Richard,

They got 81 and were bowled ot by bowlers who couldnt hold their place in the last test series they played or were debutantes

Forget it!

They got 81!!!!!

They were freakin' horrible

 

[Dissector]

Vaughan had just seen Vaas get a prodigous amount of movement against Cook; he had no business leaving that ball. That dismissal was every bit as awful as it looks.

 

[Goughy]

Having not seen the ball, I looked it up to see what happened

Vaughan got a pearler, anyone seriously contending that it was a large misjudgement doesn't know a thing about cricket really. To say Vaughan made a large misjudgement is doing a disgraceful discredit to a magnificent bit of bowling. We're talking about a ball that pitched outside off, from a left-arm-over angle, and would have hit middle.

Vaas ball pitched on off, not outside off. I just watched it seconds ago so I'm 100% sure of that.

Vaughan had just seen Vaas get a prodigous amount of movement against Cook; he had no business leaving that ball. That dismissal was every bit as awful as it looks.

Firstly it pitched on middle/off-off. Certainly nowhere close to off. And secondly if people want to know why Vaughan gets bowled so often they only need to wach that ball.

A complete misjudgment in length. He should have been forward to that ball especially as you want to smother the swinging ball.

No way he should go back to a ball that pitches where it did. It was a good length ball

Given I think/know it was a misjudgement I guess I know nothing about cricket

 

[Langeveldt]

Meh. You'll get your turn at dicking the poms soon enough.

I don't think so.. Watching them against SA was absolutely horrible.. It will be like the "wooden spoon of world cricket who aren't the West Indies or Zimbabwe"..

 

[Langeveldt]

Is Bopara going to be the next Saj Mahmood? Again, I don't see how he was unlucky in this innings.. To me it looked like he got so excited that he hit the ball that he set off for a run, it was the kind of thing you see in under 9's cricket..

With his emergence it will be interesting to see if England go back to the bad old days of the mid 90's.. Without Pietersen firing, and Tres and Flintoff off the scene, they look like they could go to some really bad places yet..

Sri Lanka are not a side that I particularly enjoy, but mightily effective at home no doubt

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think so.. Watching them against SA was absolutely horrible.. It will be like the "wooden spoon of world cricket who aren't the West Indies or Zimbabwe"..

Yer Banglas have to be in the shake up too, tbf. No self-respecting "worst test side" list complete without the Tigers.

 

[Evermind]

Yer Banglas have to be in the shake up too, tbf. No self-respecting "worst test side" list complete without the Tigers.

Every time I read your posts the first few bars of "The Killing Moon" play in my head.

 

[JBH001]

Well played England for recovering from looking down 3-0 to come out with 1-0 and it could easily have been 0-0 if that last 30 minutes had been saved at Kandy...

For SL the failure to even win a convincing series result is pathetic...

Especially given the smashing they receive overseas time and again and the recent whipping by the Aussies...

Time for a change of Captaincy more than ever , IMO..

You know, Jason. Sometimes I really have to question whether you watched the same series as the rest of us.

Change the captaincy? Unconvincing series win?

 

[aussie]

Its really has been very frustrating watching England's test match progress since the 2005 Ashes win, especially with so much key players out through injury. Another big series gone where England could have done better but now have dropped down in the test rankings.

Not saying that if Trescothick, Freddie & Jones were in SRI the outcome of the series would have definately have been different, but lets say they were England may have lined-up like this:

Trescothick
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Swann
Jones
Hoggard
Panesar

Especially in the bowling we would have had the luxury of playing 5-bowlers with the 3-seamers very adept at bowling on sub-continental surfaces England could have put SRI's batting-lineup under a bit more pressure in this series. Hopefully for England's immediate test & ODI future Freddie & Trescothick are back fit & firing they are such key members its no joke.

Overall i don't think England played that badly especially with a weakened side it was always going to be though winning in SRI with a weakened bowling attack especially, but i guess guys like Cook, Vaughan & Bell who got so much starts should have gone on to make big hundreds.

One thing that surprised me about this series was the lack really big spin that the surfaces, remembering England 2 previous tours & Australia's in 2004 it was pretty odd to me. Murali was spinning them as viciously as i thought, so seeing that i guess one can be a bit leninat on Panesar for not being that effective during this series. But hopefully the past two series makes him a better spinner it would be tragic if he became another Tufnell.

Off to NZ next year, backing England to win that test series even if they get Bond back. Really the Kiwis batting to me wont be able to handle the England seamers in conditions where all will come into own. A few changes will obviously be made in the batting Bopara weird start to his career but will have to be axed for now but no doubt can come back, Strauss & Shah to come in. That leaves Prior's position up for debate well i willing to give him another chance TBH, he had two brilliant test i'm willing to feel that given the very though scheduling & conditions it affected him & the others in Galle.

 

[JASON]

You know, Jason. Sometimes I really have to question whether you watched the same series as the rest of us.

Change the captaincy? Unconvincing series win?

You know what. I didn't watch it but followed it closely ...and thats why I know for a fact despite all the efforts to hide it, it was pretty poor negative Cricket that failed to win SL the second Test and a resulting 2-0 series result that would've seen them at least briefly have an over inflated No.2 ranking ....Likewise I also question the delay in declaring on Day 3 in the third Test that may have given a result despite the rain interruptions....

I am smart enough to work out that this SL Captain doesn't have the drive or the enthusiasm to drive home the advantage where it matters.....take it any way you like, but the failure to Ram home the advantage even in home conditions when its there for the asking is blatantly obvious and clear as Daylight....

 

[Speersy]

Yeah batting and batting until the other team has only the option of a draw is pretty annoying. Why not just "risk" having to bat twice, or do they want murali to bowl the last innings of every match.

 

[Richard]

Vaas ball pitched on off, not outside off. I just watched it seconds ago so I'm 100% sure of that.

Having not seen the ball, I looked it up to see what happened

Firstly it pitched on middle/off-off. Certainly nowhere close to off. And secondly if people want to know why Vaughan gets bowled so often they only need to wach that ball.

A complete misjudgment in length. He should have been forward to that ball especially as you want to smother the swinging ball.

No way he should go back to a ball that pitches where it did. It was a good length ball

I don't know how anyone's got the impression it pitched on middle TBH. I've watched it about 5 or 6 times, with the blue line-of-stumps map, and it patently pitched outside off. Should he have been forward? Yes, that's quite a fair enough assessment (not that it'd have been any different had he padded-up on the front-foot to on the back).

Should he have played a shot? If he had, my bet's that it'd have been a shot aimed somewhere outside off, because that's where the ball was on a line to hit. I cannot believe the amount of discredit that ball's gotten, from knowledgeable people.

Given I think/know it was a misjudgement I guess I know nothing about cricket

And please read what I said before taking offence - a misjudgement it may have been - it was not, however, a large misjudgement the way people have talked as if it were. And it is this which I say that contending such portrays a lack of undestanding.

 

[Richard]

Richard,

They got 81 and were bowled ot by bowlers who couldnt hold their place in the last test series they played or were debutantes

Forget it!

They got 81!!!!!

They were freakin' horrible

No, they weren't, it doesn't matter how few you get if you're bowled-out rather than giving your wicket away. I couldn't give a flying &%$£ who the bowlers were or what they'd done in their previous series in conditions which bore absolutely no trace of resemblence to these. I judge the ball, not the bowler. And there were 4 deliveries bowled to the top-order batsmen which they had no realistic chance of playing.

 

[Evermind]

I don't know how anyone's got the impression it pitched on middle TBH. I've watched it about 5 or 6 times, with the blue line-of-stumps map, and it patently pitched outside off.

The only troll on the internet with almost 48,000 posts!!!!