A much better days cricket than i was expecting yesterday. The rain never came which was a great relief and Sri Lanka played pretty well. Good to see Sangakara play, batted very solidly and Tharanga grew imensly as his inings progressed. Panesar was great but i must say i didnt like the crowds increadibly patronising cheering of any piece of fielding he did, its ok cheering him on but when he picks up a ball that is hardly moving its just needlesly derogatry.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Sri Lanka in England
- Thread starter nookie_lk
- Start date
Arjun
Cricketer Of The Year
Why are none of Dilhara and Malinga playing? They may have a few no-ball and loose delivery issues, but so do all the other seam bowlers playing for Sri Lanka. None of those other bowlers have the penetration and power that these two have shown, although intermittently. Even Vaas has looked out of sorts here. The English, with that extra pace, have been getting out this supposedly eight-strong Lankan batting lineup for not too many.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd suggest that he's probably trying to force the issue.andyc said:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Strauss shelled one - one fell short of Tresco a couple of overs before.BoyBrumby said:
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Aarrghh, if only Plunkett had as much luck as Mahmood he'd have had a hatful.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't want to jinx them here, but I do hope Sri Lanka can put up a good fight, as they have been today. I doubt they could secure a draw, given this is still the 4th day, but I do hope they can set England a competitive total and hopefully get a bit of encouragement going into the second test.
khandelwal
Cricket Spectator
watch match live at sportsheaven.org
a massive zebra
International Captain
IMO this attitude:
"Duncan (Fletcher) quite rightly sees at Test match level that you have to bowl with pace." (David Graveney).
held by the English selection committee and most cricketweb members may well cost England a win. The chances are we should still go 1-0 up but one has to say that if Lewis were in the side he would almost certainly have taken wickets this morning...last week proved that the Sri Lankans have real trouble against him.
Hoggard took several wickets and bowled very effectively at around John Lewis pace. It is nothing but a myth that pace is NEEDED to take wickets at test level and a DISGRACE that skilled bowlers like Lewis/Johnson/Kirtley/Saggers have never been given an extended chance to show what they can do. In the limited opportunities provided they all did fine, and had this attitude prevailed decades ago bowlers like Maurice Tate/Alec Bedser/Mike Hendrick/Angus Fraser would all have been overlooked for being 'too slow' and England would thus have been denied some of their greatest ever bowlers. I know there is no guarantee that Lewis would have performed but he would most definitely have stood a much better chance than England's quicker and less skilled bowlers have today.
For me it's inexcusable when they ignore effective bowlers like Lewis because they 'havn't got enough pace'. Especially when all the selectors played in an era when there were plenty of medium paced test match bowlers who took wickets. There was a time when you got selected on merit.
"Duncan (Fletcher) quite rightly sees at Test match level that you have to bowl with pace." (David Graveney).
held by the English selection committee and most cricketweb members may well cost England a win. The chances are we should still go 1-0 up but one has to say that if Lewis were in the side he would almost certainly have taken wickets this morning...last week proved that the Sri Lankans have real trouble against him.
Hoggard took several wickets and bowled very effectively at around John Lewis pace. It is nothing but a myth that pace is NEEDED to take wickets at test level and a DISGRACE that skilled bowlers like Lewis/Johnson/Kirtley/Saggers have never been given an extended chance to show what they can do. In the limited opportunities provided they all did fine, and had this attitude prevailed decades ago bowlers like Maurice Tate/Alec Bedser/Mike Hendrick/Angus Fraser would all have been overlooked for being 'too slow' and England would thus have been denied some of their greatest ever bowlers. I know there is no guarantee that Lewis would have performed but he would most definitely have stood a much better chance than England's quicker and less skilled bowlers have today.
For me it's inexcusable when they ignore effective bowlers like Lewis because they 'havn't got enough pace'. Especially when all the selectors played in an era when there were plenty of medium paced test match bowlers who took wickets. There was a time when you got selected on merit.
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Come off it, AMZ.
You often talk such sense, but that diatribe is a pile of old rot worthy of Richard on a bad day.
Can you just imagine an attack of Saggers/Lewis/Kirtley/Johnson wresting the Ashes from Australia or even winning in South Africa?
England have had one poor session (where frankly they could easily have taken any number of wickets if the fielders had been up to cratch) and you seem to be advocating a policy of selecting a side of journeyman plodders.
Edit....
I was on the point of changing this to totally agree with you, looking at the rubbish that Sajid Mahmood was serving up (not criticising Plunkett or Hoggard - they had bowled really well today) when suddently a wicket falls - and an excellent catch by KP of all things.
Funny old game, cricket.
double edit:
An easy catch by anyone else's standards - just excellent for KP
You often talk such sense, but that diatribe is a pile of old rot worthy of Richard on a bad day.
Can you just imagine an attack of Saggers/Lewis/Kirtley/Johnson wresting the Ashes from Australia or even winning in South Africa?
England have had one poor session (where frankly they could easily have taken any number of wickets if the fielders had been up to cratch) and you seem to be advocating a policy of selecting a side of journeyman plodders.
Edit....
I was on the point of changing this to totally agree with you, looking at the rubbish that Sajid Mahmood was serving up (not criticising Plunkett or Hoggard - they had bowled really well today) when suddently a wicket falls - and an excellent catch by KP of all things.
Funny old game, cricket.
double edit:
An easy catch by anyone else's standards - just excellent for KP
Last edited:
a massive zebra
International Captain
I'm not saying that they would win the Ashes for England. The point is that they have never been given a chance. Nobody knows whether they would be good enough to do so, although their limited opportunities suggest that they might well be. We do know, however, that they have all been excellent county players for many years, and in a meritocracy would all have been given an extended run. What we also know is that Lewis destroyed the Sri Lankan top order just last week - the same top order that England are facing in this match. That alone makes him easily worthy of an opportunity.
Honestly, if Fraser were bowling in the CC these days then I think the majority of people would say he's not quick enough to be test class. The speed gun has made people clueless.
Honestly, if Fraser were bowling in the CC these days then I think the majority of people would say he's not quick enough to be test class. The speed gun has made people clueless.
Last edited: