-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs
- Thread starter Pratters
- Start date
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I always looked at Sri Lanka as minnows and it was not untill 1994-95 that they starting competing more fiercely. They were always a second rate team where I am concerned. And I would consider early India as minnows too, if some one is wondering if I have double standards and am just calling Sri Lanka minnows for the sake of it.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Even Kenya made the world cup semi-finals.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Sri Lanka were never minnows in the context that Bangladesh are. They were far far stronger than Bangladesh a good 20 years before they were even given Test status when they were still Ceylon.
Migara
International Coach
You are wrong. The name was changed Ceylon -> Sri Lanka in 1972. SL got test status in 1982.
SL had good batsmen even in pretest era. But no one can deny that they were minnows in 1982 - 90 period. The rise of de Silva, Ranatunga, Tillekaratne, Jayasuriya, Vaas and Muralitharan took them out of that status gradually from 1990 - 1994 era.
Migara
International Coach
ZIM were even bigger minnows then, and used to get thrashed badly. SL > ZIM when it comes to quality of cricket, since early 20th century. Pre Test SL (or Ceylon) had some great players like Sathasivam, FC de Saram, Tennakoon, Tissera and Kehelgamuwa, who would have walked in to the ZIM team in 1980s or early 1990s. But SL lacked professionalism, belief and captaincy then. Only Ranatunga brought that into SL team.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Somehow making him wrong when he says, "Sri Lanka were stronger than Bangladesh 20 years before they achieved test status when they were still called Ceylon"? Huh
Migara
International Coach
Never meant anything aggressive though. English is not my first language.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
A valid point. Add in Colly taking Viv's then unique feat of a century and a 5fer away and it's clear that it should be Colly V Bradman.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
For some reason when reading this forum I get the feeling that I've stumbled across the wreck of The Mary Rose.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
There is absolutely no comparison between Sri Lanka (even in their years before they became known as Sri Lanka) and Bangladesh. They were a far better side. If Bangladesh can get Test status, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) should have got it at least in 1965 when they became ICC's associate members.
Ceylon became associate members of ICC in 1965.
In the second half of the sixties they were a pretty good side. In Michael Tissera and Stanley Jayasinghe they had two near world class batsmen and in Anura Tennycon a very good one indeed. Neither Bangladesh nor Zimbabwe today have any batsman of their calibre and the first two would have contended for spots in most world sides.
They had two excellent spinners in Anirudda Polonowita (left arm orthodox) and Neil Chanmugham (off spin) and another very good off spinner in Abu Fuard. Their p[ace attack was decent and their new ball bowlers were all better than who ever shared the new ball with India's main bowler, Ramakant Desai.
They more than stood their ground against India both at home and away and gave a very good account of themselves against touring sides.
They have always had (as with the rest of our part of the world) a problem with facing fast bowling but that's not relevant for this debate.
Anyone interested can look up Sri Lankan records in cricketarchivesdotcom and you will see the calibre of sides they played and performed against, with credit.
Most of us were just not into criticising MCC (who ran world cricket then) as we do with ICC today and were thrilled to be given five Test matches at home by England. There was no question of anyone taking up the case for Ceylon's case for inclusion as a Test side the way India did for Bangladesh when it was clearly nowhere near a deserving candidate.
To say that Sri Lanka were a junior side in world cricket when they joined the Test ranks would be stating the obvious but then that has been true for each and everyone of the Test sides in the world barring the two who played the first Test match. To call them minnows and to compare them to Bangladesh (throughout their Test history) or Zimbabwe(in their more recent one) is, at best, to show one's ignorance of the historical facts.
I think India in 1932 and maybe even West Indies when they first got Test status are the more relevant comparisons of where Sri Lanka stood when they played their first Test.
Sri Lanka's problems then (and till date) have stemmed from lack of pace bowlers and the ability to play against them (as with India for most of its early history) and with a lack of self belief. India too suffered in this regard but events and people down their history have made them reach the stage of super confidence where they find themselves.
What Pataudi, Gavaskar, Kapil and the 1983 world Cup win and Tendulkar have done for India. Ranatunge, the World Cup Win, Jayasuriya and Murali have done to some extent for Sri Lanka. They just need to continue finding their super stars and their super-achievements on a more regular basis (away from home).
Zimbabwe too had the advantage of having had a very good past history of cricket as Rhodesia (inspite of apartheid) so they were a better side when they got Test status than are/were Bangladesh. Andy Flower and his set could have done more to take Zimbabwe to where Sri Lanka has reached but Bangladesh ??
What have they to commend them for God's sake? except the politics of world cricket in general and the sub-continent in particular?
Ceylon became associate members of ICC in 1965.
In the second half of the sixties they were a pretty good side. In Michael Tissera and Stanley Jayasinghe they had two near world class batsmen and in Anura Tennycon a very good one indeed. Neither Bangladesh nor Zimbabwe today have any batsman of their calibre and the first two would have contended for spots in most world sides.
They had two excellent spinners in Anirudda Polonowita (left arm orthodox) and Neil Chanmugham (off spin) and another very good off spinner in Abu Fuard. Their p[ace attack was decent and their new ball bowlers were all better than who ever shared the new ball with India's main bowler, Ramakant Desai.
They more than stood their ground against India both at home and away and gave a very good account of themselves against touring sides.
They have always had (as with the rest of our part of the world) a problem with facing fast bowling but that's not relevant for this debate.
Anyone interested can look up Sri Lankan records in cricketarchivesdotcom and you will see the calibre of sides they played and performed against, with credit.
Most of us were just not into criticising MCC (who ran world cricket then) as we do with ICC today and were thrilled to be given five Test matches at home by England. There was no question of anyone taking up the case for Ceylon's case for inclusion as a Test side the way India did for Bangladesh when it was clearly nowhere near a deserving candidate.
To say that Sri Lanka were a junior side in world cricket when they joined the Test ranks would be stating the obvious but then that has been true for each and everyone of the Test sides in the world barring the two who played the first Test match. To call them minnows and to compare them to Bangladesh (throughout their Test history) or Zimbabwe(in their more recent one) is, at best, to show one's ignorance of the historical facts.
I think India in 1932 and maybe even West Indies when they first got Test status are the more relevant comparisons of where Sri Lanka stood when they played their first Test.
Sri Lanka's problems then (and till date) have stemmed from lack of pace bowlers and the ability to play against them (as with India for most of its early history) and with a lack of self belief. India too suffered in this regard but events and people down their history have made them reach the stage of super confidence where they find themselves.
What Pataudi, Gavaskar, Kapil and the 1983 world Cup win and Tendulkar have done for India. Ranatunge, the World Cup Win, Jayasuriya and Murali have done to some extent for Sri Lanka. They just need to continue finding their super stars and their super-achievements on a more regular basis (away from home).
Zimbabwe too had the advantage of having had a very good past history of cricket as Rhodesia (inspite of apartheid) so they were a better side when they got Test status than are/were Bangladesh. Andy Flower and his set could have done more to take Zimbabwe to where Sri Lanka has reached but Bangladesh ??
What have they to commend them for God's sake? except the politics of world cricket in general and the sub-continent in particular?
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Great Post SJS, very informative on the history of Sri Lanka/Ceylone cricket.
On Zimbabwe/Rhodesia cricket, just wanted to add that before Andy Flower (or Flower Brothers) there were guys like David Houghton, John Traicos, Kevin Curran, Duncan Fletcher (the Class of 1983 World Cup) who played International cricket and were very good. I don't think Bangladesh has produced any cricketers of their caliber. They used to be one of the best fielding side and even when they lost, they competed very well.
If one looks at the history of Rhodesia cricket, you will find the name of Brian Davidson who was one of their best first class cricketer ever.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
who is the guy who made that big 100 against Australia for Zim in the 83 WC?
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
No one
Zimbabwe shocked the world by defeating Australia in their opening match. Duncan Fletcher top scored for them with 69 not out in his teams score of 239 for six.
Fletcher wasn't dome yet.
When Australia batted he took four for 42 bowling fast medium stuff to earn a 13 run win for his side as Australia failed to reach the target in their 60 overs.
I think it remains the finest all round performance by a player from Zimbabwe in the World Cup till date.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Talking of Sri Lanka, much before the Jayasinghe's and Tissera's of the 1960's were even born a Sinhalese batsman was impressing the world with his exploits with the bat.
F. C. (Derrick) De Saram was born in 1912 in the house of a cricket enthusiast father (and uncle).
At the age of 19 he played against the visiting Indian team of Maharaja of Vizianagram (Vizzy). This team included legendary English openers Jack Hobbs, Herbert Sutcliffe besides very well known Indian stalwarts like CK Nayudu, Mushtaq Ali, Ghulam Mohammad, Prof Deodhar, Naoomal Jeoomal, Palia, Dilawar Hussain, etc. It was easily the strongest side to have ever made a proper tour of Ceylon and probably stronger than all those that were to follow in the next half a century.
The young Derrick scored 31, batting at number three (where he was to bat all his career), in the first innings before he was stumped off Nayudu.
In the second knock, facing a substantial deficit of 122 runs, Derrick scored a fluent unbeaten 77 to allow Ceylon to make a token declaration and make the Indians, who were ****sure of a win, bat again. In the next game he was out for a duck but for Ceylon LDS Gunasekara (67) his uncle CH Gunasekara (50) and BD Gunasekara (79) scored bulk of the runs. CH and BD also took six of the 11 Indian wickets that fell in another drawn game.
But this is the story of Derrick.
Derrick who was head prefect at the prestigious Royal College at Colombo went to Oxford for further education and in his very first game against an English county scored a massive 176 against Glamorgan in May 1934. He scored 32 in the second innings.
He scored 57 against Lancashire before facing the Woodfull led 1934 Australians at Christ Church ground in May. Blasted out by pacer Ebeling and spinner Fleetwood-Smith for 70 in the first knock, Oxford followed on still 249 runs behind.
They were bowled ot again, this time for a slightly better 216. Grimmett taking seven wickets. Derrick De Saram was the only one to be able to play the great Australian leg spinner. He scored a magnificent 128. The next highest score was 16.
De Saram kept scoring runs through the season.
He scored 1119 runs for the season at 50.9 each
... to be continued...
F. C. (Derrick) De Saram was born in 1912 in the house of a cricket enthusiast father (and uncle).
At the age of 19 he played against the visiting Indian team of Maharaja of Vizianagram (Vizzy). This team included legendary English openers Jack Hobbs, Herbert Sutcliffe besides very well known Indian stalwarts like CK Nayudu, Mushtaq Ali, Ghulam Mohammad, Prof Deodhar, Naoomal Jeoomal, Palia, Dilawar Hussain, etc. It was easily the strongest side to have ever made a proper tour of Ceylon and probably stronger than all those that were to follow in the next half a century.
The young Derrick scored 31, batting at number three (where he was to bat all his career), in the first innings before he was stumped off Nayudu.
In the second knock, facing a substantial deficit of 122 runs, Derrick scored a fluent unbeaten 77 to allow Ceylon to make a token declaration and make the Indians, who were ****sure of a win, bat again. In the next game he was out for a duck but for Ceylon LDS Gunasekara (67) his uncle CH Gunasekara (50) and BD Gunasekara (79) scored bulk of the runs. CH and BD also took six of the 11 Indian wickets that fell in another drawn game.
But this is the story of Derrick.
Derrick who was head prefect at the prestigious Royal College at Colombo went to Oxford for further education and in his very first game against an English county scored a massive 176 against Glamorgan in May 1934. He scored 32 in the second innings.
He scored 57 against Lancashire before facing the Woodfull led 1934 Australians at Christ Church ground in May. Blasted out by pacer Ebeling and spinner Fleetwood-Smith for 70 in the first knock, Oxford followed on still 249 runs behind.
They were bowled ot again, this time for a slightly better 216. Grimmett taking seven wickets. Derrick De Saram was the only one to be able to play the great Australian leg spinner. He scored a magnificent 128. The next highest score was 16.
De Saram kept scoring runs through the season.
- 59 against the Forresters
- 47 and 90 against Sussex
- 38 and 74 against Surrey
- 37 against MCC and
- 208 against HDG Leveson Gover's XI.
He scored 1119 runs for the season at 50.9 each
... to be continued...
Last edited: