***Official*** Sri Lanka in England

[Autobahn]

Well, he does have a List A average better than most of the England team


















22.70

That comes from playing in a poor-day team with no idea of tactics such as kent.

Plus tres didn't have a great FC average when he started out

 

[benchmark00]

Cricbuzz has come up with the worst headline in the history of the world.

Murali d(oos)raws series level for Lanka

 

[marc71178]

The word is that Vaughan will not be fit for the start of the ODI series, but may come in for the last couple.

 

[Dasa]

Cricbuzz has come up with the worst headline in the history of the world.

Murali d(oos)raws series level for Lanka

That really is the worst headline in the history of the world.

 

[wpdavid]

My shout:

Trescothick (captain)
Prior
Strauss
Bell
Collingwood
Clarke
Jones (wk)
Loudon
Plunkett
Mahmood
Harmison

Reserves: Shah, Solanki, Batty, Broad, and Vaughan if fit to play one or two games.

That is a truly terrible lineup - Rikki aside.

Joking aside, Clarke shouldn't be near the side on present form.
I'd have Bell opening. I don't particularly want to see Prior in the side, but he'll probably be oicked in the circustances. I know Shah had a dreadful odi series in India, but he'd do better in the middle order, I think, and your XI's batting looks horribly weak. Someone suggested Carberry elsewhere, which is an interesting call. He was brilliant against Surrey in the C&G on Sunday, but we all know how weak their bowling is.

 

[Sanz]

You mean 50-50 as to wether England win or the match was tied?

No 50:50 England Lose/win. I

1 wicket remaining and say 50 overs remaining with say 180 to chase on the pitch at Lords after we had already scored 551 in the first innings. SL were delighted to have drawn that test and that says it all really.

Interesting Statistic:

England's tailenders scored 9% of Englands run total

Sri Lanka's tailenders scored 33% of Sri Lanka's run total

Thank You for providing the tailenders stats, it kinda tells me that Murali/Vaas could have added some more valuable runs for the 10th wicket or atleast played out some more overs. And what England did in the first innings doesn't really matter, they were terrible in the second innings in both the and and 3rd test and there was a good chance that Murali would have run through them in the 4th innings in the 1st test as well regardless of how the pitch was behaving.

England couldn't chase a decent score on a road in Pakistan, dont tell me that they were going to chase 200 odd runs in 50 overs against Murali. As I said I would give them a 50:50 win/loss and that's as fair as it gets.

 

[Sanz]

SL first innings totals 192 , 141 , 231 England first innings - 6 declared 552, 295, 229
You would be kidding yourself to stupidity if you said SL batting = England batting performance. SL's second innings batting performance at Lords was extremely fortuitous to say the least .And England did not reply to SL's second innings total (as the game ended) - so overall England equalled or bettered SL totals except in the last innings of the 3rd Test .

Err how did England bettered SL in the 3rd test in either innings ?It's funny to see how you bring up only the 1st inning score, SriLanka outscored England in both innings in the 3rd test, in the 1st test 2nd innings England couldn't get them all out. Yes in the second test SL batsmen did't do too well but neither did England with the exception of KP. And you cant use the 'fortuitous' exuse for SriLanka. If England dropped catches then it is a problem with them, Dont talk like RICHARD.I give credit to SL for making the most of those chances.

BTW carrying on with your type of logic , then SL drew with England at home, England drew with India at home ....... So SL must be >> India ..

??? What are on about ? When did I say any such thing ? England are still a better team, but in this series they were not and if they continue to play like this rest assured India, SA, Pak (provided they play better) all are going to catch up with them very fast.

Oh last time India Played England in england, we drew the series, We haven't lost a test series to England in a while.

 

[Gloucefan]

No 50:50 England Lose/win. I



Thank You for providing the tailenders stats, it kinda tells me that Murali/Vaas could have added some more valuable runs for the 10th wicket or atleast played out some more overs. And what England did in the first innings doesn't really matter, they were terrible in the second innings in both the and and 3rd test and there was a good chance that Murali would have run through them in the 4th innings in the 1st test as well regardless of how the pitch was behaving.

England couldn't chase a decent score on a road in Pakistan, dont tell me that they were going to chase 200 odd runs in 50 overs against Murali. As I said I would give them a 50:50 win/loss and that's as fair as it gets.

Wow you are jumpy little fellow aren't you?

As I said interesting statistic, I wasn't using it to prove anthing.

SL had a 50% chance of winning the first test? 1st innings at Lords does have bearing, like it or not. Lords was a very different pitch and Murali's figures were

M Muralitharan 48 10 158 3 3.29 in the first innings.

He may have run through England at Trent Bridge but it still took 68 overs, fair enough we weren't under pressure as far as time goes there. To say Murali would take the sort of figures he did at Trent Bridge, at Lords is a little bit hopeful.

 

[Sanz]

Wow you are jumpy little fellow aren't you?

As I said interesting statistic, I wasn't using it to prove anthing.

SL had a 50% chance of winning the first test? 1st innings at Lords does have bearing, like it or not. Lords was a very different pitch and Murali's figures were

M Muralitharan 48 10 158 3 3.29 in the first innings.

He may have run through England at Trent Bridge but it still took 68 overs, fair enough we weren't under pressure as far as time goes there. To say Murali would take the sort of figures he did at Trent Bridge, at Lords is a little bit hopeful.

It's not as hopeful as the English fan who thinks England would have won the first test easily. I would suggest you to watch England's batting in Multan where they cracked on FLAT Tracks to Kaneria and couldn't chase 196 runs. In Lahore where Pak scored @ will England couldn't put a decent score in 2 innings.

And Kaneria is no Murali. Anyone who has watched Murali bowl knows that Murali doesn't need absolute turners to get his wickets. He almost ran through England @ Edgebaston..Eng were 73/4 with top 4 batsmen back in the pavillion, all out to Murali. If Lanka had another 100 runs in the second test, England would have lost it as well.

I am not saying that SL would have won for sure, but considering how England have batted in the 4th innings in recent times and the fact that they were up against Murali, unlike you,I would give SL 50 % of chance winning.

 

[Gloucefan]

It's not as hopeful as the English fan who thinks England would have won the first test easily. I would suggest you to watch England's batting in Multan where they cracked on FLAT Tracks to Kaneria and couldn't chase 196 runs. In Lahore where Pak scored @ will England couldn't put a decent score in 2 innings.

And Kaneria is no Murali. Anyone who has watched Murali bowl knows that Murali doesn't need absolute turners to get his wickets. He almost ran through England @ Edgebaston..Eng were 73/4 with top 4 batsmen back in the pavillion, all out to Murali. If Lanka had another 100 runs in the second test, England would have lost it as well.

I am not saying that SL would have won for sure, but considering how England have batted in the 4th innings in recent times and the fact that they were up against Murali, unlike you,I would give SL 50 % of chance winning.

Fair enough to say England would have won it 'easily' is too much, however I do feel we had a better chance than SL... the fact is at Edgebaston SL didn't have 100 more runs so thats's a null point. Anyway despite the wickets Murali did get I don't think there was much worry. I don't think Murali would have run through England at Lords in the second innings, he does get wickets on non-turners yes but it's I think it's a bigger leap to say Murali would have bowled England out in less than 50 overs (or before they scored the runs) on that pitch than to say England could score 180-200 in 50. Well it's all conjecture now.

 

[Sanz]

I don't think Murali would have run through England at Lords in the second innings, he does get wickets on non-turners yes but it's I think it's a bigger leap to say Murali would have bowled England out in less than 50 overs (or before they scored the runs) on that pitch than to say England could score 180-200 in 50. Well it's all conjecture now.

If anything, the recent history goes in my favor. England (with a better batting lineup in better form ) lost Multan Test on 5th day and were bowled out for 175 in 52.4 overs. Kaneria 4 for 62 in 20 overs with 3 top order wickets. Multan pitch was flatter and offered no help to any type of bowlers. Lahore Test, 4th inning, England all out for 248, once again Kaneria 4/52. Murali is twice the bowler Kaneria(with all due respect to him) is. And it's not like @ TB ball was spinning miles, I was listening to the live commentry, there definately was some turn but not anywhere close to the kind you are saying. There was another spinner in Sanath who didn't get a single wicket until Monty came into bat.

180-200 in 50 overs means scoring 4 rpo, If england were going to try that, they would have had to play more shots and that would have offered more chances. May be England had better chance, but IMO it would still have gone to the wire.

 

[Gloucefan]

If anything, the recent history goes in my favor. England (with a better batting lineup in better form ) lost Multan Test on 5th day and were bowled out for 175 in 52.4 overs. Kaneria 4 for 62 in 20 overs with 3 top order wickets. Multan pitch was flatter and offered no help to any type of bowlers. Lahore Test, 4th inning, England all out for 248, once again Kaneria 4/52. Murali is twice the bowler Kaneria(with all due respect to him) is. And it's not like @ TB ball was spinning miles, I was listening to the live commentry, there definately was some turn but not anywhere close to the kind you are saying. There was another spinner in Sanath who didn't get a single wicket until Monty came into bat.

180-200 in 50 overs means scoring 4 rpo, If england were going to try that, they would have had to play more shots and that would have offered more chances. May be England had better chance, but IMO it would still have gone to the wire.

4 rpo is easier to do when you know that's all you need and fast scoring in the Test arena is something England are proven at doing. There was plenty of turn at Trent Bridge, Murali even admitted in a post match interview the pitch suited him well. I don't really see the relevance of Pakistan, your trying to apply what happened on a pitch in Pakistan last year and imply that because Kaneria took 3 wickets 4/52 in the 4th innings Murali would have swept through England at Lords 7 months later? I see what your saying but it's not exaclt sound. Anyway the series is over now.

 

[aussie]

Eng need back-up to, if nothing else, give the pacemen a rest. You seem to forget that this was Giles main bowling role in the side.

After all:

Jones may not even make the Ashes;

Flintoff is seemingly facing another operation; and

Harmy is only just recovering from a lengthy spell on the side-lines.

There is no way in the wide world, unless the Gabba is an absolute green-top, that you could have those guys making up 3/4 of the attack for the first Ashes test.

Imagine having to share 40 overs per test between part-timers like Colly, Vaughan, KP, and/or Bell. That's 150-200 runs down the tubes per test.

Note i'm suggesting this idea presuming all the players are fit, if not then the idea of playing the main spinner isn't such of a problem since the back-up behind the main four even though have talent aren't as good as the main four.


Plus once the 4-man attack is fully fit guys like Vaughan, KP & Colly/Bell even if they have to bowl 40 overs per test aren't the worst back-up options in the world especially in Collingwood & Vaughan (once fully fit) to give rest to the main bowlers. But thats another thing with Giles whats the sense having a spin bowler who aim is just to give your main bowling options rest & yet when conditions suit him he isn't effective.

 

[luckyeddie]

Note i'm suggesting this idea presuming all the players are fit, if not then the idea of playing the main spinner isn't such of a problem since the back-up behind the main four even though have talent aren't as good as the main four.


Plus once the 4-man attack is fully fit guys like Vaughan, KP & Colly/Bell even if they have to bowl 40 overs per test aren't the worst back-up options in the world especially in Collingwood & Vaughan (once fully fit) to give rest to the main bowlers. But thats another thing with Giles whats the sense having a spin bowler who aim is just to give your main bowling options rest & yet when conditions suit him he isn't effective.

England last year, with the big 4 all firing, still needed Giles to do a job, so don't give us this 'what's the sense.....'.

The biggest problem of all with having a 4-man attack nowadays is the fact that ODI's and forced ICC schedules eat into the calendar, so you now have this farce that is the 'back-to-back test'. Look at all the great injured pacemen in the last year - too much bowling, yet you want them to bowl more.

Madness.

 

[aussie]

Don't bring it up, then.

just because i brought it up means an uncontrolled debate will start..

 

[aussie]

So it's takne you 6 years to realise England play a spinner - quick on the uptake there....

why are you try to twist my words that not what i'm trying to say at all.

It was a similarly random comment about something that was obvious.

Kindly explain how that confusing statement even if it was random was obvious?

 

[Autobahn]

Note i'm suggesting this idea presuming all the players are fit, if not then the idea of playing the main spinner isn't such of a problem since the back-up behind the main four even though have talent aren't as good as the main four.


Plus once the 4-man attack is fully fit guys like Vaughan, KP & Colly/Bell even if they have to bowl 40 overs per test aren't the worst back-up options in the world especially in Collingwood & Vaughan (once fully fit) to give rest to the main bowlers. But thats another thing with Giles whats the sense having a spin bowler who aim is just to give your main bowling options rest & yet when conditions suit him he isn't effective.

Get your head out the clouds please.

Bowling 4 pacemen in today's packed calendars, with over rate requirements and expecting to make up the overs with part-timers is just asking for trouble.

Not only will your bowlers start breaking down more often, but sides will see how the part-timers are being used, hit them all over the shop and force you to bring back your pacemen exhausting them even futher.

 

[aussie]

Get your head out the clouds please.

Bowling 4 pacemen in today's packed calendars, with over rate requirements and expecting to make up the overs with part-timers is just asking for trouble.

Not only will your bowlers start breaking down more often, but sides will see how the part-timers are being used, hit them all over the shop and force you to bring back your pacemen exhausting them even futher.

My head is not in the clouds i know very well what i am saying

What you are saying is true but in England's case since you dont have an experienced spinner in Giles who is proven to be ineffective even when conditions assist him & a young spinner in Panesar who is still in his early days, plus you don't really have a test standard keeper batsman which will expose the lower half of the batting, so the idea of playing 4-seamers & 7 batsmen just cant been thrown away just because of this true fact. But i know it won't happen judging by how Fletcher & co does things.

 

[marc71178]

Kindly explain how that confusing statement even if it was random was obvious?

So it isn't obvious that Fletcher prefers Jones to Read then?

 

[aussie]

So it isn't obvious that Fletcher prefers Jones to Read then?

now tell me when have i stated or debated this in any way?, christ..