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

[Spark]

You also take the fact that England would have batted for much longer, though, and placed a lot more scoreboard pressure on. I reckon 1-0 is fair, tbh. They were most definitely the second best team on show throughout. Rose Bowl probably they were fortunate (what with England giving up the win very early and a huge amount of time lost, well over a day), but Lord's definitely deserved a draw.

 

[mono]

Think they came off second best almost throughout the Test series, really. It would likely have been 2-0 or 3-0 if not for the rain, and when the opposition is treating your bowlers like net practice you're losing the game, just as when you're collapsing.

the bowling sucked & we're second best. but to claim that england would have gone onto win 3-0 is just wishful thinking. The last ODI will decide who's better in the shorter format.

 

[four_or_six]

Cook is so ****ing awesome.

 

[Howe_zat]

the bowling sucked & we're second best. but to claim that england would have gone onto win 3-0 is just wishful thinking. The last ODI will decide who's better in the shorter format.

I'm not necessarily claiming that, that's just conjecture. I was simply pointing out that the rain played a large part in the 1-0 scoreline, so saying that it was only that one session that lost them the series isn't true.

Ftr think it would have been 2-0 without the rain, as Sri Lanka's batsmen were interrupted as much as England's bowlers in the second test.

And to qualify, I don't especially care about the distinction. It was what it was, 1-0.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not necessarily claiming that, that's just conjecture. I was simply pointing out that the rain played a large part in the 1-0 scoreline, so saying that it was only that one session that lost them the series isn't true.

Ftr think it would have been 2-0 without the rain, as Sri Lanka's batsmen were interrupted as much as England's bowlers in the second test.

And to qualify, I don't especially care about the distinction. It was what it was, 1-0.

Well, it is.

They were second best no doubt, but you take that session out and Sri Lanka come away with a creditable draw.

 

[Howe_zat]

Or, if you take out Dilshan's 193 they lose another match. I don't see the significance.

Sri Lanka had several lengthy periods of this series where they were losing. Cook & Trott's partnership at Cardiff, Tremlett's spells at the Rose Bowl, Prior's century at Lord's, etc. It's not just that one session.

 

[Jacknife]

Or if England had the full 5 days at the Rose Bowl, it probably would have ended 2-0, works both ways.

 

[mono]

I'm not necessarily claiming that, that's just conjecture. I was simply pointing out that the rain played a large part in the 1-0 scoreline, so saying that it was only that one session that lost them the series isn't true.

Your claim was pretty clear, an uninterrupted series would have ended either 2-0 or 3-0. But let's leave that aside.

But the bold is what is conjecture here, at no point in the in the 2nd innings of the 2nd or 3rd test did it look like sri lanka were collapsing. so i don't know how you can possibly say 5 full days would have made anything different.

 

[mono]

Or, if you take out Dilshan's 193 they lose another match. I don't see the significance.

Sri Lanka had several lengthy periods of this series where they were losing. Cook & Trott's partnership at Cardiff, Tremlett's spells at the Rose Bowl, Prior's century at Lord's, etc. It's not just that one session.

none of those were in the second innings of SL. and that's where you loose matches.

 

[Howe_zat]

Your claim was pretty clear, an uninterrupted series would have ended either 2-0 or 3-0. But let's leave that aside.

But the bold is what is conjecture here, at no point in the in the 2nd innings of the 2nd or 3rd test did it look like sri lanka were collapsing. so i don't know how you can possibly say 5 full days would have made anything different.

none of those were in the second innings of SL. and that's where you loose matches.

You don't need to collapse in the second innings to lose Test matches. I can't believe I'm having to state that.

 

[Jacknife]

Your claim was pretty clear, an uninterrupted series would have ended either 2-0 or 3-0. But let's leave that aside.

But the bold is what is conjecture here, at no point in the in the 2nd innings of the 2nd or 3rd test did it look like sri lanka were collapsing. so i don't know how you can possibly say 5 full days would have made anything different.

The 3rd test had nearly 2 days missing to bad weather, England had already bowled them out for 184 and they were down to the last 2 recognized batsmen in their second innings. It's not a stretch to say, with the full 5 days, England should have won.

 

[Jacknife]

You don't need to collapse in the second innings to lose Test matches. I can't believe I'm having to state that.

No, just one poor innings.

 

[Uppercut]

Or, if you take out Dilshan's 193 they lose another match. I don't see the significance.

Sri Lanka had several lengthy periods of this series where they were losing. Cook & Trott's partnership at Cardiff, Tremlett's spells at the Rose Bowl, Prior's century at Lord's, etc. It's not just that one session.

I didn't say it was significant, I only said it was true.

 

[Spark]

You don't even need to collapse in one innings to lose test matches...

 

[Uppercut]

The 3rd test had nearly 2 days missing to bad weather, England had already bowled them out for 184 and they were down to the last 2 recognized batsmen in their second innings. It's not a stretch to say, with the full 5 days, England should have won.

You're being selectively counterfactual. A full five days of play implies much sunnier weather and no constant interruptions for batsmen, so it's extremely unlikely that England still would have bowled Sri Lanka out for 184 in their first innings.

You just can't really say things like "with a full 5 days, England would have won" unless it's ridiculously obvious, like a thunderstorm arriving at nine wickets down in the final innings. What happened happened, nothing else is important.

 

[mono]

You don't need to collapse in the second innings to lose Test matches. I can't believe I'm having to state that.

no but your theory is conteingent on SL getting bowled out for under 500, and the english bowling looked particularly flat.

 

[Jacknife]

You don't even need to collapse in one innings to lose test matches...

True, just take 20 wickets and score more than the opposition.

 

[Jacknife]

no but your theory is conteingent on SL getting bowled out for under 500, and the english bowling looked particularly flat.

They looked flat, at the end of the game because they run out of time, they wouldn't, if they had another 2 days to go and where did you get 500 from.

 

[Howe_zat]

no but your theory is conteingent on SL getting bowled out for under 500, and the english bowling looked particularly flat.

No, I'm not trying to say what exactly would have happened. As Uppercut says, without the rain it's simply a different series.

However, I think that Sri Lanka were generally outplayed for the vast majority of the series, and saying they lost it just from one session is erroneous. They also lost it during all the sessions they couldn't win.

I was also pointing out that if you say they were one session from 0-0, they were also minor factors away from 2-0 or 3-0, as that's the way the game is.

 

[mono]

They looked flat, at the end of the game because they run out of time, they wouldn't, if they had another 2 days to go and where did you get 500 from.

They were flat all day. not just at the end of the innings. The 500 comes from the same place england would have gotten a healthy supply of vigor. Our imagination. Although scoring another 170 wasn't completely off the cards there.

In anycase, this is just endless speculation on my part as well. so, I'm zipping it after this post.