***Official*** Sri Lanka in England and Ireland 2014

[wpdavid]

Bit harsh, Jordan didn't do a lot wrong, caertainly not a pie-chucker. If you want to vent your spleen do it at Carberry for dropping him.

Thisara does this all over the world. He got a fair amount of edges too, but hey that's the nature of the game.

Happy to oblige, as one of my pet hates is professional cricketers who can't catch a ball with any sort of security. However limited we may be in other disciplines, we should be able to field effectively. Carberry's fielding was an embarassment in Australia IIRC, so he must be scoring vast amounts of runs to justiy his place in the side.

Only seen it since my first post, tbf.

 

[Watson33]

I agree with people saying England shouldn't be too disappointed losing to the T20 world champions, but it doesn't matter who you play you can still field well regardless. England's fielding yesterday was appalling, Carberry's drop swung the game Sri Lanka's way.

 

[viriya]

Not many other teams use their medium pacers the way SL do, Matthews has the same role each game pretty much, and it suits him well, so he is settled into that role. As for the fielding restrictions, it means batsmen often have to look to go through a ring field to put away a bad ball or over the top. Because Matthews can hit the spot pretty well for two overs, and given some batsmen are hesitant to take risks early as teams look to keep wickets in hand and they don't have their eye in properly, Matthews is rarely targeted and can get by cheaply, or induce a poor shot and pick up a wicket. Hence his record stands out.
If he was able to keep his average at 10 that is, and even so that stat is still skewed by the way he is used for the majority of his overs.
I didn't see this match, but generally Kula is the more attacking of the opening bowlers, and he looks to pitch the ball up and get a bit of movement, so he can go for runs early, especially at his pace. Matthews on the other hand bangs the ball in and can be harder to get away, with the field up and the batsmen new to the crease and weary of keeping wickets in hand, it's an easy time to bowl in terms of his style and the game situation.

What you wrote can be boiled down to:
- He knows how to bowl economically

Besides that claiming that international teams nowadays would not target him if they thought it was easy pickings is just naive.. There's no way batsmen just forgot to score of the supposed "easy-pickings" he dishes out for 100+ overs of international cricket.

Claiming that a bowler who averages 6.5 runs/over would get hit for more than 10 if he bowled another over is already a stretch, it's more likely that he gets hit for a 8/9 runs if he bowled an additional over than not.

I also disagree that Kula is more attacking than Mathews in the beginning - if anything Kula gets to get cheap wickets at the end when batsmen are attacking him, so his strike rate is lower but econ is higher. I'm not claiming Mathews is better than Kula - just that he is underrated.

 

[Maximas]

What you wrote can be boiled down to:
- He knows how to bowl economically

During the first few overs yes

Besides that claiming that international teams nowadays would not target him if they thought it was easy pickings is just naive.. There's no way batsmen just forgot to score of the supposed "easy-pickings" he dishes out for 100+ overs of international cricket.

Not as naive as thinking economical overs at the start of an innings will translate to effective death bowling, obviously the management agree as well, because despite good figures he rarely bowls out or comes back for an over or two near the end.

I also disagree that Kula is more attacking than Mathews in the beginning - if anything Kula gets to get cheap wickets at the end when batsmen are attacking him, so his strike rate is lower but econ is higher. I'm not claiming Mathews is better than Kula - just that he is underrated.

Just watch the length Kula bowls compared to the length Matthews bowls, Kula pitches it up and risks getting driven in the hope of finding some swing and getting an early breakthrough, Matthews bangs it in on a length and only takes wickets if the batsman fails to execute a rash shot normally.

Matthews is a little underrated, he does an extremely good job bowling in the pp but rarely gets the attention Malinga or the other bowlers get. However to say that length bowling at the start of a 20 over innings will translate to good death bowling is not all that accurate

 

[viriya]

During the first few overs yes



Not as naive as thinking economical overs at the start of an innings will translate to effective death bowling, obviously the management agree as well, because despite good figures he rarely bowls out or comes back for an over or two near the end.



Just watch the length Kula bowls compared to the length Matthews bowls, Kula pitches it up and risks getting driven in the hope of finding some swing and getting an early breakthrough, Matthews bangs it in on a length and only takes wickets if the batsman fails to execute a rash shot normally.

Matthews is a little underrated, he does an extremely good job bowling in the pp but rarely gets the attention Malinga or the other bowlers get. However to say that length bowling at the start of a 20 over innings will translate to good death bowling is not all that accurate

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying - I didn't claim he should bowl at the death, but he should finish his quota. If he bowls 3 over @ 6.7 runs/over there is no reason he can't bowl say the 14th over and finish his spell. In that game he deserved to over Lakmal.

Whether he can be a good death bowler - we don't know because it hasn't happened afaik. Death bowling is a lot of about holding your nerve, and I think he is probably the mentally strongest bowler in the team after Malinga.

 

[Maximas]

Perhaps, but if you take it on an over by over basis it might not be the best thing to do, Matthews often bowls three overs for about 18-23 runs, or 4 overs for about 25-30 runs. But his first two overs usually go for under 6 an over, so while his overall figures look good, and they are, his later overs often go for 8-11 runs (especially when he bowls after the 10th over), which is not that bad, but Sri Lanka obviously feel like they have bowlers who can do better.

Yesterday I think giving Lakmal his full quota had a lot to do with giving him some experience.

 

[viriya]

Perhaps, but if you take it on an over by over basis it might not be the best thing to do, Matthews often bowls three overs for about 18-23 runs, or 4 overs for about 25-30 runs. But his first two overs usually go for under 6 an over, so while his overall figures look good, and they are, his later overs often go for 8-11 runs (especially when he bowls after the 10th over), which is not that bad, but Sri Lanka obviously feel like they have bowlers who can do better.

Yesterday I think giving Lakmal his full quota had a lot to do with giving him some experience.

Agreed, but not sure Lakmal was a good fit for T20s in the first place considering Malinga, Kula and Mathews makes a solid pace battery already. Considering how well Malinga and Kula handle the death overs usually it's expected that Mathews wouldn't be preferred over them.

I brought up those stats in the first place to try to show that he was good enough to bowl his full quota in T20Is (considering he already bowled 3 overs on average) and that it wasn't a case of batsmen somehow ignoring his overs or him getting away with it by bowling in favorable situations. Considering a number of pace bowlers don't end up bowling at the death, his econ being the lowest is not insignificant and does show that he is skilled.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yep; there are two key reasons why Mathews isn't always bowled out.

1. He just bowls length on off stump. He's quite good at executing this, however his doesn't change his length at all; I don't think he's so much accurate as he is metronomic. When batsmen are looking to play relatively orthodox shots in the first few overs this works really well, but the further the innings goes along the more this is the exact sort of bowling they're targeting and the more runs he goes for. This means he becomes an increasingly worse option the further the innings progresses.

2. Batsmen get used to bowlers and line them up in T20 cricket. There's a reason so many bowlers bowl one and two over spells. It's all well and good to say he should just bowl out his quota in the first eight overs of the innings, but he'd really get lined up eventually if he bowled four in a row unless wickets kept falling.

He does often bowl out anyway; he averages three overs an innings which would include innings that didn't go for the full twenty overs. But sometimes he doesn't if the game is just flowing in a way that requires an early bowling change, and he's a poor option in the last five or six overs.

I think Sri Lanka use him really well. If anything I think other teams should look to go after a bit more in those opening couple of overs so they can't sneak him in quite as well.. He objectively doesn't really have the skill to be a well-rounded T20 bowler and Sri Lanka know this so they use him as a very defined role player, to very good effect.

Now, Lakmal bowls pies and I don't even think he should've been selected let alone bowled out, but they're trying to develop another bowler who can bowl in a wider variety of situations. Mathews is not going to be it.

 

[viriya]

Yep; there are two key reasons why Mathews isn't always bowled out.

1. He just bowls length on off stump. He's quite good at executing this, however his doesn't change his length at all; I don't think he's so much accurate as he is metronomic. When batsmen are looking to play relatively orthodox shots in the first few overs this works really well, but the further the innings goes along the more this is the exact sort of bowling they're targeting and the more runs he goes for. This means he becomes an increasingly worse option the further the innings progresses.

2. Batsmen get used to bowlers and line them up in T20 cricket. There's a reason so many bowlers bowl one and two over spells. It's all well and good to say he should just bowl out his quota in the first eight overs of the innings, but he'd really get lined up eventually if he bowled four in a row unless wickets kept falling.

He does often bowl out anyway; he averages three overs an innings which would include innings that didn't go for the full twenty overs. But sometimes he doesn't if the game is just flowing in a way that requires an early bowling change, and he's a poor option in the last five or six overs.

I think Sri Lanka use him really well. If anything I think other teams should look to go after a bit more in those opening couple of overs so they can't sneak him in quite as well.. He objectively doesn't really have the skill to be a well-rounded T20 bowler and Sri Lanka know this so they use him as a very defined role player, to very good effect.

Now, Lakmal bowls pies and I don't even think he should've been selected let alone bowled out, but they're trying to develop another bowler who can bowl in a wider variety of situations. Mathews is not going to be it.

He has a very good slower ball - he most definitely doesn't just bowl length and just hope he doesn't get slaughtered. There is no way an international team would not destroy a bowler with no real variation in a T20I match regardless of when he bowls.

 

[Prince EWS]

He has a very good slower ball - he most definitely doesn't just bowl length and just hope he doesn't get slaughtered. There is no way an international team would not destroy a bowler with no real variation in a T20I match regardless of when he bowls.

I said he doesn't have variation in length; not that he doesn't have variation at all. His slower ball is delivered on a length on off stump; everything he bowls is.

 

[viriya]

I said he doesn't have variation in length; not that he doesn't have variation at all. His slower ball is delivered on a length on off stump; everything he bowls is.

Just checking some of his over commentary proves that is not the case. He obviously bowls more length if he's the new ball bowler (as he should), but he varies length depending on the situation all the time. There is no way a bowler can get away with bowling the same length constantly even with a good slower ball.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just checking some of his over commentary proves that is not the case. He obviously bowls more length if he's the new ball bowler (as he should), but he varies length depending on the situation all the time. There is no way a bowler can get away with bowling the same length constantly even with a good slower ball.

Unless he's only used at the ideal times for such bowling and not over-bowled just because he has good figures...

 

[viriya]

Unless he's only used at the ideal times for such bowling and not over-bowled just because he has good figures...

Taking your comment seriously, the "ideal times" are any time between 1-15 overs, and "not over-bowled" is when he doesn't bowl 4 overs after bowling 3..

I'm sure a lot of bowlers fall into this category...

 

[ajdude]

so fox sports aren't showing this series at all, ffs.

 

[Dan]

And the thing with this whole Mathews discussion is, if he bowls 3-0-17-1, then gets hit for 12 off his last over, his figures are still pretty good. 4-0-29-1 is very acceptable for a fifth bowler.

But SL has options in their team who are more likely to bowl that given over for 7, not 12.

Having bowled 3 economical overs in a different situation doesn't suddenly make you the best bowler to bowl any given over.

If Malinga has 3-0-24-1 and Mathews has 3-0-14-1 going into the 20th over and hoping to defend 10, you'd give it to Malinga irrespective of Mathews' economy rate. It's a different skill set entirely.

 

[viriya]

And the thing with this whole Mathews discussion is, if he bowls 3-0-17-1, then gets hit for 12 off his last over, his figures are still pretty good. 4-0-29-1 is very acceptable for a fifth bowler.

But SL has options in their team who are more likely to bowl that given over for 7, not 12.

Having bowled 3 economical overs in a different situation doesn't suddenly make you the best bowler to bowl any given over.

If Malinga has 3-0-24-1 and Mathews has 3-0-14-1 going into the 20th over and hoping to defend 10, you'd give it to Malinga irrespective of Mathews' economy rate. It's a different skill set entirely.

Agreed, but Mathews should still bowl out - even if not the death overs (since SL has strong options for that already).

 

[Spark]

“A very good role model and he and his family are very much the sort of people we want the England captain and his family to be” — Giles Clarke on Alastair Cook

I think this one speaks for itself

yes this is the right thread

 

[Maximas]

Agreed, but Mathews should still bowl out - even if not the death overs (since SL has strong options for that already).

Why should he bowl out if our best XI has better options than him?

 

[Maximas]

so fox sports aren't showing this series at all, ffs.

That's bull****, why the **** have they given up on showing the whole english summer now? Surely they'll at least give us the tests

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think this one speaks for itself

yes this is the right thread

Ugh. Clark.

One instinctively knows he's exactly the kind of **** who put Lol and Lord Jardine up against the wall in the 30s because they weren't the sort of chaps who were "very good role models".