*Official* Australia in Sri Lanka 2016

[OverratedSanity]

It's a little sad that Sanga went his whole career without getting to beat Australia once

 

[NZTailender]

It's a little sad that Sanga went his whole career without getting to beat Australia once

Generally had a much stronger team, too.

 

[viriya]

It's a little sad that Sanga went his whole career without getting to beat Australia once

The 2003/04 series will forever haunt me. Murali helped us get first innings leads in all three tests, and our batsmen couldn't get the runs for him in in the second innings in any of the matches. Sanga (and Mahela to a certain extent) were not at their ATG levels back then though.

That series is remembered as Warne's comeback, and he did bowl very well. But Murali took 28 wickets in 3 tests @ 23 vs probably the GOAT team to tour the subcontinent. And he is remembered as being relatively ineffective, even though Warne actually took a higher percentage of lower order wickets (he had his quicks making inroads early).

 

[NUFAN]

Unless the pitch is green in Galle you would expect Holland comes in for O'Keefe. Any other changes? Probably not, but I think Warner's fractured finger injury is going to be talked about more if he fails again and perhaps Mitch Marsh might be under pressure if he doesn't do anything note-worthy with the bat.

I don't know how much credit Burns or Khawaja have. I get the feeling that if Burns made a pair next Test, Shaun Marsh would come in. Perhaps that isn't fair for a guy averaging 45 in Tests.

Tl dr - O'keefe out Holland in.

 

[NUFAN]

The 2003/04 series will forever haunt me. Murali helped us get first innings leads in all three tests, and our batsmen couldn't get the runs for him to defend in in the second innings in any of the matches. Sanga (and Mahela to a certain extent) were not at their ATG levels back then though.

I was thinking about this series and the fact the team trailing after the first innings won each time as soon I saw Mendis was batting well and Sri Lanka had a chance.

 

[Gnske]

I don't know how much credit Burns or Khawaja have. I get the feeling that if Burns made a pair next Test, Shaun Marsh would come in. Perhaps that isn't fair for a guy averaging 45 in Tests.

Have to make way for the middle-age boy-king.

Tbf in the second innings he was done in by a good ball, but he looked shocking with his boundary options. Was about to say his working of the single was terrible, but that was only in the prelude to his dismissal. Just needs to take his own advice and dig in when the bowling is tight, because his defensive technique was neater than most when he could read them.

 

[greg]

I was thinking about this series and the fact the team trailing after the first innings won each time as soon I saw Mendis was batting well and Sri Lanka had a chance.

It's proper test cricket when the real contest/meaningful comparison is 1st innings vs 4th innings and 2nd innings vs 3rd innings.

 

[vcs]

The 2003/04 series will forever haunt me. Murali helped us get first innings leads in all three tests, and our batsmen couldn't get the runs for him in in the second innings in any of the matches. Sanga (and Mahela to a certain extent) were not at their ATG levels back then though.

That series is remembered as Warne's comeback, and he did bowl very well. But Murali took 28 wickets in 3 tests @ 23 vs probably the GOAT team to tour the subcontinent. And he is remembered as being relatively ineffective, even though Warne actually took a higher percentage of lower order wickets (he had his quicks making inroads early).

That was an excellent series, Australia was an incredibly resilient team back then. 2nd match in particular was brilliant, I remember following it through scorecards. I only had access to the daily newspaper back then and the first thing I would do would be to turn to the last page and check the end of day score. Many of the Australian batsmen proved their credentials against quality spin on that tour and later that year in India.

As an aside, I always took you for an Indian.

 

[NUFAN]

Did Henriques get a CA contract? He just been named in our ODI squad, Maxwell dropped.

Steve Smith (c), David Warner (vc), George Bailey, Nathan Coulter-Nile, James Faulkner, Aaron Finch, Josh Hazlewood, Moises Henriques, Usman Khawaja, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Marsh, Shaun Marsh, Mitchell Starc, Matthew Wade, Adam Zampa


I would keep Holland on tour.

 

[Compton]

Also Nathan Lyon is so not good enough it's not even funny. Watch him get completely and utterly outbowled by John Holland in the next test.

Just like Steve O'Keefe did?

 

[Top_Cat]

The 2003/04 series will forever haunt me. Murali helped us get first innings leads in all three tests, and our batsmen couldn't get the runs for him in in the second innings in any of the matches. Sanga (and Mahela to a certain extent) were not at their ATG levels back then though.

That series is remembered as Warne's comeback, and he did bowl very well. But Murali took 28 wickets in 3 tests @ 23 vs probably the GOAT team to tour the subcontinent. And he is remembered as being relatively ineffective, even though Warne actually took a higher percentage of lower order wickets (he had his quicks making inroads early).

That just shows the limited nature of analysing wickets taken in that way (top-order vs tail, for example) because what the data doesn't show is that Murali was attacked early by Lehmann and Martyn after which he bowled defensively, allowing them to get back into and then control the flow of the game. By the time Murali took their wickets and then cleaned up the tail, was far too late.

Hard to be too harsh on a guy who destroyed so many other teams and took 800 Test poles but Murali's defensiveness against guys he didn't get early was a bit of a weakness in his game. If he got his tail up, was all over you, though, and that's what made him great. This is as opposed to the sheer delusion that made Warne great, always believing a wicket was around the corner. Even if going at 0/100, well, they'll get tired of smashing me into the stands soon, just one more over skip and I'll get him....

 

[mr_mister]

I want both Marshes to go away forever

 

[Dan Jamson]

I want both Marshes to go away forever

Mitch Marsh will be a good player in Aus conditions. Defo worth keeping around for the SA and Pakistan series.

Shaun Marsh is toilet.

 

[91Jmay]

Lyon was really, really poor in the 2nd innings. Probably the worst I've ever seen him bowl, although Steve Smith really has so little tactical knowledge when captaining to spin it is crazy. A huge area of improvement for him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just like Steve O'Keefe did?

I'd say O'Keefe was definitely outbowling Lyon before pulling up injured, and Holland is just about on a par with O'Keefe as a bowler IMO, albeit with less experience. Not as sure how he'll handle the "big stage", metaphorically speaking.

Lyon was really, really poor in the 2nd innings. Probably the worst I've ever seen him bowl, although Steve Smith really has so little tactical knowledge when captaining to spin it is crazy. A huge area of improvement for him.

I'd be happy for Australia lose the next couple of series if that's what it will take to get Lyon out of the team.

 

[Compton]

I'm sure it was an Ashes test where Smith came on for an over and took a wicket with a ****** long hop, then immediately marched over to Clarke to ask for a silly point.

Clarke of course told him to **** off

 

[andruid]

lol

 

[Dan]

I'd say O'Keefe was definitely outbowling Lyon before pulling up injured, and Holland is just about on a par with O'Keefe as a bowler IMO, albeit with less experience. Not as sure how he'll handle the "big stage", metaphorically speaking.

Holland's a serious bowler (especially in List A cricket), but I don't think he's "on par" with O'Keefe in red ball stuff. Similar in style and still pretty good, but quite comfortably a step down IMO.

 

[viriya]

That just shows the limited nature of analysing wickets taken in that way (top-order vs tail, for example) because what the data doesn't show is that Murali was attacked early by Lehmann and Martyn after which he bowled defensively, allowing them to get back into and then control the flow of the game. By the time Murali took their wickets and then cleaned up the tail, was far too late.

Hard to be too harsh on a guy who destroyed so many other teams and took 800 Test poles but Murali's defensiveness against guys he didn't get early was a bit of a weakness in his game. If he got his tail up, was all over you, though, and that's what made him great. This is as opposed to the sheer delusion that made Warne great, always believing a wicket was around the corner. Even if going at 0/100, well, they'll get tired of smashing me into the stands soon, just one more over skip and I'll get him....

Murali had the burden of being the main offensive and defensive weapon, and even when he was tired and the batsmen were getting used to him he had to keep bowling. I agree that his mindset was more defensive than Warne, but considering how effective he was at getting wickets I don't think it can be inarguably claimed that he would've had better results if he was more aggressive. With Warne, if he was proven to be relatively ineffective, the Australians usually had the luxury of not overbowling him and giving him a break. Murali did not have that option.

 

[91Jmay]

Knocking over the tail quickly is also an extremely valuable skill. So many series won because of runs after the 6th wicket