**Official** Sri Lanka in England / Scotland - 2011

[GIMH]

Weather is bad

 

[four_or_six]

Urgh, that wasn't the best day of test cricket I've ever seen.

 

[zaremba]

This game's probably heading nowhere now. Which is a bit of a shame because at this point, but for the weather making the draw the favourite, the result would be impossible to call.

Would SL have been happy about the lack of play in the afternoon session? On the one hand, they would have been looking to power past the England total and to set up a potentially match-winning lead, but on the other hand in gloomy and damp conditions you'd expect that England would have taken wickets and potentially got into the long-ish SL tail.

Lessons to be learnt, IMHO:

1. Please spare us any more of these moribund Lord's pitches.

2. 3 identikit giant fast bowlers is almost always a bad idea. If you're playing in golf-ball-on-concrete WACA style conditions, there might be some sense in it, but otherwise there's just a horrible lack of variety and versatility.

 

[Jacknife]

This game's probably heading nowhere now. Which is a bit of a shame because at this point, but for the weather making the draw the favourite, the result would be impossible to call.

Would SL have been happy about the lack of play in the afternoon session? On the one hand, they would have been looking to power past the England total and to set up a potentially match-winning lead, but on the other hand in gloomy and damp conditions you'd expect that England would have taken wickets and potentially got into the long-ish SL tail.

Lessons to be learnt, IMHO:

1. Please spare us any more of these moribund Lord's pitches.

2. 3 identikit giant fast bowlers is almost always a bad idea. If you're playing in golf-ball-on-concrete WACA style conditions, there might be some sense in it, but otherwise there's just a horrible lack of variety and versatility.

Completely agree with No.1 but at HQ, they do love the tests to go 5 days. But I've lost count on the amount of times, I've said, the natural conditions, that they're are in England, that bowlers can exploit, like bounce, seam and just generally a green, fast pitch, there's not enough of those around.

If all 3 fast bowlers bowled at best, I don't think the height thing or the lack of variety would have mattered. If they're the 3 best bowers you've got, you go with them, especially when Jimmy and the player, who would have replaced him, Bresnan, is injured also and tbf if the dollies were taken yesterday we probably wouldn't be talking about this.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah, I don't think we can rest the blame much on the lack of variety in the attack. They've turned out a poor performance, simple as that.

This attack is essentially the same as the one that took the Sri Lankans down for 82, plus Finn. So it's necessarily more varied than that. If Tremlett had bowled just as well as then, Broad had got the nick or two he deserved in his opening spell, and England had held their catches it wouldn't have been much of a problem.

But it's been poor. C'est la vie. Mustn't forget to credit the Sri Lankans either.

I agree that I don't think this match is going anywhere, and that the rain sort of killed it off, but I was saying that at Cardiff.

 

[zaremba]

This attack is essentially the same as the one that took the Sri Lankans down for 82, plus Finn.

When assessing the strength of a 4-man attack you can't really extrapolate anything from a freak performance when we only needed 3 bowlers to bowl a team out. The point about having a 4th bowler is that in most circumstances he will be necessary, and in some circumstances his performances will be decisive. This most often happens when things aren't going freakishly well, and when there's a need to dig in in difficult circumstances.

Now, Jacknife makes the attractive point that you pick your best bowlers, full stop. I can see the logic in that. But in reality we shouldn't pretend that our 3 big seamers are head and shoulders above the competition in anything other than an anatomical sense. Is Finn a better bowler than Dernbach? Maybe, yep, maybe, but if so the difference is pretty slight and probably outweighed by the variety that Dernbach might offer. (Actually just typing the name Dernbach makes me less persuaded by my own argument. But hey.)

Imagine you're playing on a turning pitch in India and you have 4 spinners, 3 offies and one SLA, and you want to play 3 of them. Would you choose the 3 offies even though there's very little to choose between the third and the SLA? In my view, this is the point at which variety should tell, and I'd choose the SLA every time, even though his figures might be marginally less good than those of the 3rd offie.

 

[Prince EWS]

When assessing the strength of a 4-man attack you can't really extrapolate anything from a freak performance when we only needed 3 bowlers to bowl a team out. The point about having a 4th bowler is that in most circumstances he will be necessary, and in some circumstances his performances will be decisive. This most often happens when things aren't going freakishly well, and when there's a need to dig in in difficult circumstances.

Well to be fair you were doing something very similar when you put forward the idea that one innings - or rather, part of an innings - taught us a valuable lesson about the merits of variety. The second innings in Cardiff is just as valid a piece of data as the first innings here; they're both one innings and illustrate, above all else, that one innings is a poor and inconsistent measure of basically anything.

Now, Jacknife makes the attractive point that you pick your best bowlers, full stop. I can see the logic in that. But in reality we shouldn't pretend that our 3 big seamers are head and shoulders above the competition in anything other than an anatomical sense. Is Finn a better bowler than Dernbach? Maybe, yep, maybe, but if so the difference is pretty slight and probably outweighed by the variety that Dernbach might offer. (Actually just typing the name Dernbach makes me less persuaded by my own argument. But hey.)

Imagine you're playing on a turning pitch in India and you have 4 spinners to choose from, 3 offies and one SLA. Would you choose the 3 offies even though there's very little to choose between the third and the SLA? In my view, this is the point at which variety should tell, and I'd choose the SLA every time.

Yeah, it's always a balancing act. Variety plays its part but there's a tipping point where it's not worth it. Personally I think the gap between Finn and Dernbach is big enough to outweigh the variety the latter offers. I do think we naturally over-estimate the merits of variety when we sit back and watch the game as well - it just "seems" worse when all the bowlers are bowling the same crap as opposed to bowlers sending down different varieties of crap, but in reality there's little real difference. Variety is a factor but IMO it should only really come into the equation when there are two bowlers of very similar quality.

Just to confuse matters I'll put it out there that I probably would've picked Onions, myself, although he was outbowled (on paper anwyay) by Dernbach in the Lions game and hasn't been a stellar performer since his return from injury, so I'm not exactly sure where he's at.

 

[Jacknife]

Just to confuse matters I'll put it out there that I probably would've picked Onions, myself, although he was outbowled (on paper anwyay) by Dernbach in the Lions game and hasn't been a stellar performer since his return from injury, so I'm not exactly sure where he's at.

With the injury of Jimmy, it would have been good to see Bresnan bowl, obviously he's also injured but I think his style of bowling, would have been ideal for the pitch, accurate, swing and he would have, at least made the batsmen play a lot more.
Incidentally I reckon Jimmy would have been a huge handful on the pitch, just through the amount of swing he would have generated, especially today he would have cause the batsmen huge problems.
Personally, instead of going anywhere near Dernbach, I'd have preferred to see James Harris have got a game, at least in the Lions game, to see how he went because he's potentially a future England standout and to be honest he's a much better bowler than Dernbach will ever be.

 

[tooextracool]

Not entirely sure why Onions wasnt picked IMO. Head and shoulders a better bowler than Finn and its easy to forget that he never got dropped, was in our first choice attack before Tremlett came around. Hes proved his fitness this season and has had a good start so it just seems like a logical decision. Dont know enough about Dernbach to comment.

 

[TT Boy]

Streamed about 7 hours of the entire test series so far, seen 3 wickets and a crap load of runs. What a load of ****. Last year in England we had Aus out for less than 100 in a test match, Pak routinely out for less than 100 and most of the English batsman looking right Mickey Mouse as well. Was a refreshing sight.

 

[social]

Not entirely sure why Onions wasnt picked IMO. Head and shoulders a better bowler than Finn and its easy to forget that he never got dropped, was in our first choice attack before Tremlett came around. Hes proved his fitness this season and has had a good start so it just seems like a logical decision. Dont know enough about Dernbach to comment.

At least Finn creates chances!

Whilst I dont expect the English selectors to agree with me, I'd prefer him to guys that always bowl too short or only turn up when everything is in their favour

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I'd be tempted to drop Broad for Southampton, as Social says, Finn creates chances. Broad bowled dross for most of the Cardiff test and has backed it up with another crap performance here at Lords. Not as though we are desperate for his batting so pick Anderson if fit or Onions if he isn't to give us a more balanced attack.

Finn bowled a very good spell after lunch yesterday and got a wicket, he may go for runs as he bowls too many 4 balls but he bowls wicket taking deliveries, Broad has just been ordinary all series so far.

 

[Howe_zat]

Broad's been the best of the three in this Test, his opening spell was excellent.

 

[Spark]

Agreed. Finn was actually starting to outbowl Tremlett, who again I thought was pretty meh yesterday. It's not so much that he bowled more dross, he just didn't look threatening.

EDIT: Timezone confusion.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah, it's always a balancing act. Variety plays its part but there's a tipping point where it's not worth it ... I do think we naturally over-estimate the merits of variety when we sit back and watch the game as well - it just "seems" worse when all the bowlers are bowling the same crap as opposed to bowlers sending down different varieties of crap, but in reality there's little real difference. Variety is a factor but IMO it should only really come into the equation when there are two bowlers of very similar quality.

Excellent points, and I agree, and I suppose the real question is where the line should be drawn.

I just don't know to what extent, if at all, variety in itself will unsettle a well-set batsman; probably not all that much. But there are other reasons why you're in trouble if you pick a bowling attack which is purely composed of people who are good at doing one thing and that thing isn't working. Eg if you pick swing bowlers and the conditions are just not right for swing bowling, or tall guys and there's no real bounce or pace in the pitch, or quick men and one batsman gets in who has no trouble with dealing with out-and-out pace, or whatever it may be. In those circumstances variety means that you have all bases covered.

Anyhow I suspect I'm talking bollocks again so will stop now.

 

[four_or_six]

Broad's been the best of the three in this Test, his opening spell was excellent.

Really? I thought live he looked rubbish yesterday, spraying it both sides of the wicket. Tremlett and Finn both looked more dangerous.

 

[social]

Broad's been the best of the three in this Test, his opening spell was excellent.

I thought his opening spell was crap as did all of the commentators

He simply allowed the batsmen to get their eye in by bowling short and wide

 

[Howe_zat]

Really? I thought live he looked rubbish yesterday, spraying it both sides of the wicket. Tremlett and Finn both looked more dangerous.

I thought his opening spell was crap as did all of the commentators

He simply allowed the batsmen to get their eye in by bowling short and wide

I didn't see what happened yesterday but he was far better than Tremlett with the new ball on Saturday. Beat the bat plenty of times.

 

[Woodster]

Have only seen the highlights of the Sri Lankan innings so far, so cannot make any judgement on the stand-out seamer debate so far. I am looking forward to seeing how they go today, a decent length of time in the field will do our bowlers no harm in the long-run and will help the management to assess their progress when things are not progressing as serenely as they have so frequently in the past.

Not Steve Finn's biggest fan, so if he is in reasonable rhythm, will hope to getter a better reflection of his potential today.

 

[four_or_six]

I didn't see what happened yesterday but he was far better than Tremlett with the new ball on Saturday. Beat the bat plenty of times.

It's funny to see the differing opinions, I didn't see him on Saturday, just on Sunday!