***Official*** Sri Lanka in England

[Sanz]

Not really, the main factor was the pitch. Produce a pitch which is completely devoid of assistance to your own strengths and has plenty of assistance to your opponent's strengths then it was somewhat inevitable once SL won the toss that they were likely to win - look at how strong India and SL are at home and how weak they are away. Even Jayasuriya would have bowled England out eventually if he was needed to take wickets - hell even Panesar took a 5-fer on it (amazing the hype surrounding Monty, he's still somewhat limited as a bowler and he'll struggle to do any better than someone like Vettori has in Test cricket)

Obviously Scaly forgot to see the first innings where England couldn't outscore SriLanka.
He also forgot to watch the second innings where Sanath took only one wicket (Last one).

 

[UncleTheOne]

hell even Panesar took a 5-fer on it (amazing the hype surrounding Monty, he's still somewhat limited as a bowler and he'll struggle to do any better than someone like Vettori has in Test cricket)

No one is claiming he's gonna be a Murali or Warne though, there's hype because he's a great loveable character, and a promising young attacking spinner *shock horror* for England that is. If he turns out to be as successful as Vettori then he'll be England's finest spinner for many a year.

 

[Scaly piscine]

No one is claiming he's gonna be a Murali or Warne though, there's hype because he's a great loveable character, and a promising young attacking spinner *shock horror* for England that is. If he turns out to be as successful as Vettori then he'll be England's finest spinner for many a year.

An average of 35 is nothing to get excited about and then we've still got his batting and fielding. Being England's finest spinner for many a year isn't saying much, at least Giles while being crap could bat and field competently. Someone like Robert Croft was the same. Panesar averaging 35 would in the end contribute no more to England than either of them.

 

[silentstriker]

An average of 35 is nothing to get excited about and then we've still got his batting and fielding. Being England's finest spinner for many a year isn't saying much, at least Giles while being crap could bat and field competently. Someone like Robert Croft was the same. Panesar averaging 35 would in the end contribute no more to England than either of them.

Come on, you know that a bowler's average in the first couple series rarely shows his true potential. Not to mention he was playing in India for his first series, and you know how foreign spinners fare there.

He did real well in his second series. I'd be suprised if his average is still above 30 after another year.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I was referring to Vettori's average with the 35. Panesar would have to be significantly better than Vettori to be really worth this spot in my opinion, although no doubt he'll be in as a variation (a variation which *should not* be needed at home - if he is then the groundsman has done a bad job, like at Trent Bridge).

 

[Autobahn]

I was referring to Vettori's average with the 35. Panesar would have to be significantly better than Vettori to be really worth this spot in my opinion, although no doubt he'll be in as a variation (a variation which *should not* be needed at home - if he is then the groundsman has done a bad job, like at Trent Bridge).

Stop blaming it on the pitch for christ's sake, do you want a return to the good old days at trent bridge where the pitches where basically snooker tables and hadlee and rice blew everyone away for sub-100 scores?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Stop blaming it on the pitch for christ's sake, do you want a return to the good old days at trent bridge where the pitches where basically snooker tables and hadlee and rice blew everyone away for sub-100 scores?

Would have been a hell of a lot better than one tailor made for the opposition. One of the concrete pitches used in the Ashes would have been fine, most other standard English wickets would have done. The pitch wasn't good enough for Test cricket anyway the way it detoriated (only on the fourth day) and if England have any sense they'll avoid playing Tests at Trent Bridge in future.

 

[social]

Would have been a hell of a lot better than one tailor made for the opposition. One of the concrete pitches used in the Ashes would have been fine, most other standard English wickets would have done. The pitch wasn't good enough for Test cricket anyway the way it detoriated (only on the fourth day) and if England have any sense they'll avoid playing Tests at Trent Bridge in future.

What utter drivel.

Trent Bridge a minefield

England's ODI team loses because they don't try

In other words, you'll say anything to avoid giving credit to the opposition.

 

[Autobahn]

Would have been a hell of a lot better than one tailor made for the opposition. One of the concrete pitches used in the Ashes would have been fine, most other standard English wickets would have done. The pitch wasn't good enough for Test cricket anyway the way it detoriated (only on the fourth day) and if England have any sense they'll avoid playing Tests at Trent Bridge in future.

OH MY GOD! A PITCH DETORIATING ON ONLY THE FOURTH DAY!? DEPLOY THE PITCH INSPECTORS!!!

And anyway it was turning pretty much last year for warney, but then again we won so who cares? And know why England won? They out scored Aus heavily pure and simple and failed to do the same against sri lanka

Face it not every ground is going to be fortress edgbaston and to not play at a ground because you don't have the perfect pitch you want all the time is just pettyness on a scale never seen before

 

[JBH001]

Would have been a hell of a lot better than one tailor made for the opposition. One of the concrete pitches used in the Ashes would have been fine, most other standard English wickets would have done. The pitch wasn't good enough for Test cricket anyway the way it detoriated (only on the fourth day) and if England have any sense they'll avoid playing Tests at Trent Bridge in future.

Jeez, talk about being a sore loser.
All your posts on this have been nothing but whine, whine, whine.

England lost the game on the 1st day and the second day, by failing to close out the Sri Lankan tail on Day 1, and then falling to pieces with their batting on Day 2.
(And in case you forgot the English wickets were shared among the Sri Lankan bowlers on the second day, and Vaas and Malinga especially bowled very well).

Turning to the much vaunted, so-called wannabe Mumbai turner much of the media and commentary was centred on the view that the pitch was not all that bad. (Something I posted about before the commencement of Day 4). A bit slow maybe, and two-paced, but not all that difficult to bat on if one applied oneself. The openers showed the truth of this with their opening stand (and they had usually been least successful against Murali) and at 84/0 an England win looked possible especially as there were plenty of time and overs in hand. Maybe the England collapse had more to do with the genius and greatness of the bowler, who was able to get something from the pitch as great bowlers often do, and with the weakness of the English batting, notable fragile since the first innings at Lords.

(But, of course, you could be right, the pitch really was a minefield which suddenly transformed itself in the space of a few minutes such that after 84/0 the batsmen suddenly could not put bat to ball, and lost their wickets due to the sudden deterioration of the pitch. The bowler and his team, of course, had nothing to do with it)

 

[Scaly piscine]

The pitch had uneven bounce on the middle of a fourth day - that much uneven bounce that early is not Test standard and it never will be. This is not the first time Trent Bridge has had uneven bounce either - the game against SA in 2003 was just as bad (http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003/RSA_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/RSA_ENG_T3_14-18AUG2003.html).

The Trent Bridge pitch was a minefield for spinners, anyone could see it. Neither side played particularly great by their own standards, just as the first 2 Tests - but this time the nature of the pitch significantly favoured SL and significantly favoured whoever batted first, so England had to play out of their skins to win. For a pitch to create to be as biassed as this is another reason why Trent Bridge should be shunned.

We already know England are rubbish in Asian conditions, so why replicate them in a meaningful Test at home? Don't think we're going to see green seamers when England play Tests in Asia - if they did we know the groundstaff would get strung up for doing so.

 

[Autobahn]

The pitch had uneven bounce on the middle of a fourth day - that much uneven bounce that early is not Test standard and it never will be. This is not the first time Trent Bridge has had uneven bounce either - the game against SA in 2003 was just as bad (http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003/RSA_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/RSA_ENG_T3_14-18AUG2003.html).

The Trent Bridge pitch was a minefield for spinners, anyone could see it. Neither side played particularly great by their own standards, just as the first 2 Tests - but this time the nature of the pitch significantly favoured SL and significantly favoured whoever batted first, so England had to play out of their skins to win. For a pitch to create to be as biassed as this is another reason why Trent Bridge should be shunned.

We already know England are rubbish in Asian conditions, so why replicate them in a meaningful Test at home? Don't think we're going to see green seamers when England play Tests in Asia - if they did we know the groundstaff would get strung up for doing so.

No actually Sri Lanka's batsmen finally put some overdue runs on the board, England didn't finish of the tail when they had SL dead in the water at 8-139 and with murail's malcolm-style slogging they posted a total they never should have, it wouldn't have been such a good toss to win if Sri Lanka had only got 150.

And i don't like this tone of taking Nottingham off the Test-match Venue list because of the pitch, maybe the poor parking and problems with traffic, and what's wrong with it helping spinners? The Oval in 1998 helped Murail and co, and there might have been howls of discontent at the pitch, but there wasn't calls for revoking test-status.

Face it Scaly, you can't admit that we where just plainly blown-away by one of the best bowlers of our time.

 

[superkingdave]

good to see Glenn will be playing for Lancashire tomorrow then flying down south by Helicopter to join the England squad

 

[Autobahn]

good to see Glenn will be playing for Lancashire tomorrow then flying down south by Helicopter to join the England squad

Almost like a cricket-version of Magnum P.I.

 

[Scaly piscine]

No actually Sri Lanka's batsmen finally put some overdue runs on the board, England didn't finish of the tail when they had SL dead in the water at 8-139 and with murail's malcolm-style slogging they posted a total they never should have, it wouldn't have been such a good toss to win if Sri Lanka had only got 150.

And i don't like this tone of taking Nottingham off the Test-match Venue list because of the pitch, maybe the poor parking and problems with traffic, and what's wrong with it helping spinners? The Oval in 1998 helped Murail and co, and there might have been howls of discontent at the pitch, but there wasn't calls for revoking test-status.

Face it Scaly, you can't admit that we where just plainly blown-away by one of the best bowlers of our time.

As usual people keep missing the point so I'll do it in big letters:


uneven bounce

As for if SL had only gotten 150... they'd have still probably won.

 

[Autobahn]

As usual people keep missing the point so I'll do it in big letters:


uneven bounce

As for if SL had only gotten 150... they'd have still probably won.

They lost it on the first-innings when they couldn't finish off the tail and couldn't build a lead over Sri Lanka and allowed Sri Lanka to build a big lead.

So what if there's uneven bounce? It was more Murali's magic that did england in that the ptich. Could you have seen them do it without murali?

 

[Jono]

What utter drivel.

Trent Bridge a minefield

England's ODI team loses because they don't try

In other words, you'll say anything to avoid giving credit to the opposition.

Lol, but the funny thing is its not even a surprise anymore.

 

[Scaly piscine]

They lost it on the first-innings when they couldn't finish off the tail and couldn't build a lead over Sri Lanka and allowed Sri Lanka to build a big lead.

So what if there's uneven bounce? It was more Murali's magic that did england in that the ptich. Could you have seen them do it without murali?

Yep. Jayasuriya would have been just as effective as Panesar if he was required to take wickets. If they didn't have Murali they'd have had another spinner who'd have also ran through England on that pitch. Any bowler will get batsmen out eventually if the pitch is uneven, see Kirtley.

It's like if you serve up a seaming green-top, any plodder like Lewis will tear through lineups, just someone like McGrath would do it a bit quicker.

 

[Sanz]

Yep. Jayasuriya would have been just as effective as Panesar if he was required to take wickets. If they didn't have Murali they'd have had another spinner who'd have also ran through England on that pitch. Any bowler will get batsmen out eventually if the pitch is uneven, see Kirtley.

Whine Scaly Whine. Someone please give him an award for being the biggest whinner on the Internet.

 

[chaminda_00]

lol at SP.

my sides to play in the first game

Sri Lanka; Tharanga, Jayasuriya, Sangakkara (wk), Jayawardene (c), Dilshan, Arnold, Kapudagera, Maharoof, Vaas, Zoysa, Murali

England: Strauss (c), Trescothick, Cook, Pietersen, Joyce, Collingwood, Jones, ani, mee, miny, mo