*Official* England in Sri Lanka

[Richard]

I think this series should be interesting and England should win by quite a margin both in the tests and ODI's simply for the reason that the Sri Lanakens have quite a few problems in their squad. Namely the middle order batting .... Jayawardena is a shadow of his former self and their brilliant Aravinda is no longer in the team. Sangakkara still has work on his concentration on the middle. Bowling wise Murali is no longer the threat that he used to be although he still is the best in the world. International batsman have formulated quite innovative defenses against him (like padding up )

I don't agree. Sri Lanka have always lost it playing away from home, just like India, their batsmen go to pieces and their bowlers lose all their penetration. Most of the time, anyway.
At home, they generally play much closer to their potential, and they, like India, fell victim to the nearly-men tag against New Zealand, not helped by rain and pitches that didn't help any bowlers enough.
Jayawardene's Test average has dipped a bit in the last 5 Tests, but no way would I describe him as a shadow of his former self. He was never that good in one-dayers IMO anyway, I don't know how he kept-up his scoring for so long, so the dip from The NatWest Series onwards hasn't especially surprised me.
Sangakkara might have problems on occasions, but he still averages in the high 40s in Test-cricket. Aravinda is a huge loss and was always going to be, but for me Vandort will be a worthy replacement if they ever pick him.
As for Murali, I'm staggered. It's not possible to "work him out"; he spins the ball too much and has too many variations. As long as he bowls well he'll always take wickets unless he's very unlucky (as he was against England last time we went there) or he's bowling non-stop at lefties (Thorpe took him very well last time, and even he had his fair share of fortune, especially edging Murali onto his pad just before Lunch on day-two at The SSC).
Chaminda is also due one of his good series. I still hope Nuwan may get his place back, too.

 

[Rik]

I think England should play one spinner when in Sri Lanka, I will givem y reasons later.

Awwww why not commit now and tell us why?

I quote Red Dwarf:

[Enter CAT. He takes in LISTER's dressing gown, cotton wool ears, and
dental floss arrangement]
CAT
Heyyy... nice outfit.
LISTER
Did you come in 'ere for a reason?
CAT
Oh yeah! Something's showing up on the long range scan which is *weird*
with a capital 'we'.
LISTER
Can you be a tad more scientific?
CAT
Come again?
KRYTEN
Er, is it a 'wibbly thing', or a 'swirly thing', sir?
CAT
At this early stage I'd hate to commit myself and wind up looking a fool!
Come see for yourself.
[Exit CAT]
<LISTER takes the slippers from the table and begins to put them on>
LISTER
'Wibbly thing', or 'swirly thing', and he refuses to commit himself...
He's losing it, he really is.
[Exit KRYTEN, LISTER]

 

[luckyeddie]

Doesn't work, Rik. A spinner is neither a wibbly thing nor a swirly thing - it's a 'twirly thing' and we haven't had a decent one since *cough*Underwood*cough*

 

[Rik]

Doesn't work, Rik. A spinner is neither a wibbly thing nor a swirly thing - it's a 'twirly thing' and we haven't had a decent one since *cough*Underwood*cough*

Tufnell could and probably would have been. Ask him about wibbly thing and swirly things, I'm sure he's seen a few.

 

[V Reddy]

SRL have picked a clone of Shoiab Akhtar named Malinga (?) . It will be interesting whether the ICC allows his action.

 

[marc71178]

Tufnell could and probably would have been. Ask him about wibbly thing and swirly things, I'm sure he's seen a few.

But that was the dope!

 

[Richard]

Tufnell could and probably would have been.

For me, Tufnell was rather overrated, he was no better than Croft and Giles IMO.

 

[Rik]

For me, Tufnell was rather overrated, he was no better than Croft and Giles IMO.

You show me a bowler with 1000+ FC wickets and who took 11-93 to win a Test match against Australia. Reports indicate he not only out-bowled Warne (4-89) in that game but also turned it further, more often. And that, for a finger-spinner, is pretty amazing. He's the best spinner England have had since Underwood and the least well-treated. If he had the same backing as Giles has, I'm sure he'd be averaging a lot better than his 37, or Giles' 42.

 

[Richard]

You show me a bowler with 1000+ FC wickets and who took 11-93 to win a Test match against Australia. Reports indicate he not only out-bowled Warne (4-89) in that game but also turned it further, more often. And that, for a finger-spinner, is pretty amazing. He's the best spinner England have had since Underwood and the least well-treated. If he had the same backing as Giles has, I'm sure he'd be averaging a lot better than his 37, or Giles' 42.

Poorly treated, right, but on some occasions he asked for it.
A bowler with his ability blessed with a more sensible(!) personality would probably have achieved more.
That game at The Oval was a good-'un, on a big spinning surface which Warne wasted.

 

[Rik]

Poorly treated, right, but on some occasions he asked for it.
A bowler with his ability blessed with a more sensible(!) personality would probably have achieved more.
That game at The Oval was a good-'un, on a big spinning surface which Warne wasted.

It wasn't the featherbed you imagine, Caddick took 8 wickets, Martin none and Malcom, 1.

He did ask for it sometimes, but remember he was playing through the Illingworth era, and old Ray was of the opinion that if he didn't like someone personally then they weren't good enough to play. Also one bad performance usually ment a big long sit on the sidelines.

His record shows a very talented bowler thrown in and out of the side, as shown by several fantastic performances and quite a few other very average ones, which is what tends to happen when your in and out of the side.

I do think he is the most talented spinner since Underwood, very few bowlers have such a domestic record to fall back on either.

 

[Legglancer]

I don't agree. Sri Lanka have always lost it playing away from home, just like India, their batsmen go to pieces and their bowlers lose all their penetration. Most of the time, anyway.
At home, they generally play much closer to their potential, and they, like India, fell victim to the nearly-men tag against New Zealand, not helped by rain and pitches that didn't help any bowlers enough.
Jayawardene's Test average has dipped a bit in the last 5 Tests, but no way would I describe him as a shadow of his former self. He was never that good in one-dayers IMO anyway, I don't know how he kept-up his scoring for so long, so the dip from The NatWest Series onwards hasn't especially surprised me.
Sangakkara might have problems on occasions, but he still averages in the high 40s in Test-cricket. Aravinda is a huge loss and was always going to be, but for me Vandort will be a worthy replacement if they ever pick him.
As for Murali, I'm staggered. It's not possible to "work him out"; he spins the ball too much and has too many variations. As long as he bowls well he'll always take wickets unless he's very unlucky (as he was against England last time we went there) or he's bowling non-stop at lefties (Thorpe took him very well last time, and even he had his fair share of fortune, especially edging Murali onto his pad just before Lunch on day-two at The SSC).
Chaminda is also due one of his good series. I still hope Nuwan may get his place back, too.

Well I agree that Sri Lanka plays better in the subcontinant just like India and their batsman are quite uncomfortable on fast bouncy strips.

However what I was refering to in my previous post was that the sri Lanken middle order is looking quite brittle and vulnerable. This has been the case for some time, but now the problem has been compounded with the retirement of "evergreen Aravinda". I firmly believe that england carry quite a more formidable bowling side than NZ (even with bond). And are quite caperble of exploiting the Sri Lanken batting vulnerabilities especially after their acclamatisation in Bangladesh.

Sri Lanka on the other hand are way short of match practice as they have not played internationally for the last 4 or 5 months. I took the oppertunity to have a look at their domestic scores and it seems only Attapattu and Jayasurya have done anything substantial and maybe Sangakkarra to a lesser extent. Tillkratne better fire for SL's sake !

My comments about Murali's effectivness is mainly focusing on his average and strike rate against England the last few years as opposed to others.

Vandort ???? Well he I havent seen much of him but he looks a little too defensive to me.

 

[marc71178]

For me, Tufnell was rather overrated, he was no better than Croft and Giles IMO.

I would definitely disagree here - this bloke had talent and attitude (a vital ingrediant for a lot of spinners IMO)

 

[Top_Cat]

Tuffers was potentially a great bowler. I thought he was a legend. Sure he had some personality quirks but I'm sure his long stints on the sidelines were due to his personality clash with the button-down nature of Illingworth and that Illingworth had a son who was also a left-arm twirler, albeit with about a quarter of Tuffer's raw talent.

Tuffers was a chain-smoking, womanising, bad-tempered, ****ney who could spin the ball miles, couldn't bat and couldn't field (although he improved after a couple of years) and was a talented mofo so clearly, he was never going to be popular in England. If he'd been born Australian, he would have been a frickin' national hero.

 

[luckyeddie]

I would definitely disagree here - this bloke had talent and attitude (a vital ingrediant for a lot of spinners IMO)

He had more talent than Croft and Giles added together - but Underwood was absolutely world class. Uncanny control once he got away from banging it in at leg stump at medium pace

 

[Craig]

Controvesy time (I know I didnt spell it right).

I believe England will be better served playing one spinner instead of to. You will ask why Craig? Then I must tell you.

I am going on the fact that Sri Lankans to play spinners better then anybody else and I am of the firm belief that youmust play your best bowlers and if they are seamers then so be it. 4 quicks and 1 spinner would be good enough for me with Michael Vaughan - who underbowls himself greatly, to bowl between 5-10 overs in a innings.

I have been proven correct in the past. Harbhajan Singh went there after his exploits in India against Australia and picked up 5 wickets and so I predicted the West Indies to play one spinner there when they toured and I was proven correct.

Vaughan underbowls so much I can believe it. He is no worse then Dawson and could be a quite a decent finger spinner if he wanted to.

I expect Marc to disagree with this comments completely and dismiss it as hogwash.

 

[marc71178]

Why do you expect me to disagree?

I would probably disagree if you named a side, but that doesn't mean I'd disagree with the shape.

 

[luckyeddie]

I doubt you would find many advocating that England play 2 spinners in Sri Lanka.

England selectors to name 2 spinners in side in 5....4....3....

 

[Richard]

It wasn't the featherbed you imagine, Caddick took 8 wickets, Martin none and Malcom, 1.

He did ask for it sometimes, but remember he was playing through the Illingworth era, and old Ray was of the opinion that if he didn't like someone personally then they weren't good enough to play. Also one bad performance usually ment a big long sit on the sidelines.

His record shows a very talented bowler thrown in and out of the side, as shown by several fantastic performances and quite a few other very average ones, which is what tends to happen when your in and out of the side.

I do think he is the most talented spinner since Underwood, very few bowlers have such a domestic record to fall back on either.

True, I'd completely forgotten about Caddick's performance at The Oval in 1997.
Most of his career was in the Ray Illingworth era, and true, Raymond wasn't the greatest when it came to player management, but Atherton did his best. So did David Lloyd when he took over.
Tufnell's last good performance was at The Oval in 1997. He wasted spin-friendly conditions in West Indies (which Croft, incidentally, exploited in his one Test), didn't play in the Stewart era, and played virtually every Test of the early Hussain one. Against New Zealand and South Africa his performances were distinctly ordinary, as was that in the recall Test at The Oval against Australia. I'll always maintain that the most recent performances speak loudest. Also, I only ever really started taking serious note of cricket in 1998 against South Africa, so maybe I could be accused of a slightly more one-eyed view than some who've been following closely for longer. I don't have any memories of matches Tufnell played a big part in winning, except a vague one of that in 1997.

 

[Richard]

Well I agree that Sri Lanka plays better in the subcontinant just like India and their batsman are quite uncomfortable on fast bouncy strips.

I don't think it's anything to do with extra bounce found in England, Australia, South Africa, Zimbabwe etc. that bothers Indian and Sri Lankan batsmen. They don't get out constantly gloving or splicing to short-leg or top-edging cross-bat shots. Their problem, IMO, is simply that they don't have the mental strength to cope with the idea of pitches with a bit more bounce.

However what I was refering to in my previous post was that the sri Lanken middle order is looking quite brittle and vulnerable. This has been the case for some time, but now the problem has been compounded with the retirement of "evergreen Aravinda". I firmly believe that england carry quite a more formidable bowling side than NZ (even with bond). And are quite caperble of exploiting the Sri Lanken batting vulnerabilities especially after their acclamatisation in Bangladesh.

Sri Lanka on the other hand are way short of match practice as they have not played internationally for the last 4 or 5 months. I took the oppertunity to have a look at their domestic scores and it seems only Attapattu and Jayasurya have done anything substantial and maybe Sangakkarra to a lesser extent. Tillkratne better fire for SL's sake !

Vandort ???? Well he I havent seen much of him but he looks a little too defensive to me.

He's no Aravinda, of course not, but he's good, you can tell that by his domestic record. Unlike this Jehan Mubarak they for some reason keep picking! There will never be another quite like Aravinda, and not too many as good as him, but Vandort is a worthy replacement IMO - I certainly can't see any better.
I don't think there's anything special whatsoever about England's attack on pitches we're likely to see in Sri Lanka. Anderson, Harmison, Flintoff, Hoggard, Saggers, even Johnson. All of them offer penetration on seaming wickets and when the ball's swinging conventionally, or when there's uneven bounce. None of these is likely to happen much, if at all. Sri Lanka, on the other hand, have Vaas and Murali.

My comments about Murali's effectivness is mainly focusing on his average and strike rate against England the last few years as opposed to others.

In England in 2002 Murali was injured so you can't set too much stall by that. He should never have played a Test. I seriously hope he doesn't regret that in 20 years' time. In Sri Lanka in 2000\01, while Thorpe played him well in the Second and Third Tests and helped England win, he still created plenty of chances and it's no reflection on him if he doesn't get a wicket to his name with them (Hussain, for instance, was out twice in his century - Hussain deserved the good luck but Murali didn't deserve the bad). If David Orchard had noticed Thorpe edge him to silly-point on 63 at The SSC the series would likely have gone the other way (Thorpe went on to an unbeaten century).
Circumstances have conspired against him for long enough. I think we may see more of the 1998 form (remember? 16 wickets in a single Test) this time around, much as I hope not for Hussain's sake.

 

[Richard]

Tuffers was potentially a great bowler. I thought he was a legend. Sure he had some personality quirks but I'm sure his long stints on the sidelines were due to his personality clash with the button-down nature of Illingworth and that Illingworth had a son who was also a left-arm twirler, albeit with about a quarter of Tuffer's raw talent.

Tuffers was a chain-smoking, womanising, bad-tempered, ****ney who could spin the ball miles, couldn't bat and couldn't field (although he improved after a couple of years) and was a talented mofo so clearly, he was never going to be popular in England. If he'd been born Australian, he would have been a frickin' national hero.

Tufnell was as popular as anyone - Dazzler included - with the public here, his enemies were in the high-up people he ****ed off, the manager especially but also, significantly, some tabloid journalists.