Sri Lanka v England 3rd test at Galle

[Yorkshire Blue]

Looks like thats it for the day.

I've popped into a nearby internet cafe in case they decide to resume, but given there's now a spot of rain that's highly unlikely.

Not sure what to make of today. I assume England won the toss and elected to field, but from my vantage point above the new gate of Galle Fort it was difficult to follow such details (and the score), although easy to follow the cricket. What a view. Best place that I've watched cricket from, although could have done with a bit of shade.

The opening bowlers maybe lacked a bit of line and length, Sideshow in particular, who even had one signalled a wide. But Harmy soon came into the attack and first over got Tharanga to drive one which Collingwood(?) at slip looked to floor. I was a long way away but it looked regulation.

Next over Sidebottom got an incredibly fortunate lbw against 6'9" Vandort, which looked as if it was going well over the top. Hoggy then got Sangakarra soon afterwards, only for convict Harper to miss it. Harmy however then got a far more convincing looking lbw against Tharanga. Vandort for Sangakarra didn't seem a fair swap, as Sangkarra and the captain are the two that I've feared all series and we looked set to have a long day in the field as Jaywardenye in particular looked in very good touch and saw them through to tea.

After tea Harmy came on and Sangakarra tried to hook him, but only succeeded in skying it. From thinking fantastic, at last a wicket, I quickly realised that it was Monty nervously circling underneath it, but he took it surprisingly comfortable amid much relief all round.

Harmy continued to run in with intent with the old ball and got the cheat edging to slip where Bell hang on without grounding it and then flicking it up.

As I haven't seen a scoreboard all day, its difficult to know the score. I'd guess we got in about 60 overs and Lanka seemed to be going slowly other than a flurry of boundaries in the middle session, so I'm guessing that they've got about 180 for their 4 wickets. Tomorrow England need early wickets to grab hold of the momentum and try and make up for lost time. We then need our batsmen to get 3 figures. I think its time for our best batsman to stand up and be counted. He had a not out and a decision nearly as bad as the shot he played in the last test, and a shooter and a maybe questionable lbw in the first. Now he needs to go and score the runs, and hopefully quickly as well.

C'MON ENGLAND!

 

[MrB]

If you're in an Internet Cafe could you not have looked up the score?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Just have, its 147-4, so in a slightly better position than I thought.

Should be able to have a dart with them with the new ball just before lunch as well.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Shocking drop by Collingwood, worse really as he is our best fielder. The decision by Harper not to give Sangakarra out also looked pretty poor.

 

[C C Csiders]

Why Bopara? What exactly will he contribute at Test level, at this time? We need to win the game, so should have gone in with 5 bowlers - Prior at 6 and Graeme Swann/Stuart Broad at 7. I know it's a long tail, but we ought to rely on the top 5 to get us the runs - they all seem in fairly good nick. It's the wickets we need.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Why Bopara? What exactly will he contribute at Test level, at this time? We need to win the game, so should have gone in with 5 bowlers - Prior at 6 and Graeme Swann/Stuart Broad at 7. I know it's a long tail, but we ought to rely on the top 5 to get us the runs - they all seem in fairly good nick. It's the wickets we need.

Whilst we've been struggling to take 20 wickets, we've also been struggling to post competitive totals with the bat. Our three completed innings were all substantially below par.

I'm prepared to stick with Bopara. He's got a cool head and can play Murali. He also improves us in the field, where we are desperately lacking at the moment.

If you question what Bopara will achieve at test level at this time, the exact same question can be asked of Broad and Swann, who had played half as many tests as Ravi!

 

[C C Csiders]

Whilst we've been struggling to take 20 wickets, we've also been struggling to post competitive totals with the bat. Our three completed innings were all substantially below par.

I'm prepared to stick with Bopara. He's got a cool head and can play Murali. He also improves us in the field, where we are desperately lacking at the moment.

If you question what Bopara will achieve at test level at this time, the exact same question can be asked of Broad and Swann, who had played half as many tests as Ravi!

But are far far more likely to chip in with the wickets we need. At this time he is a ODI player, and a very good one at that for England.

 

[number11]

Personally I would have gone with Shah for this series......far more likely to post big tons from number 6. However by not picking him for this fairly inconsequential tour, I would suggest he will never be a regular now and Bopara is being earmarked as one for the future so being given the experience. Personally, unless RAvi improves his bowling or batting up a notch I cannot see him being international class, and there are plenty more county players I would be more confident of scoring international hundreds.

That said, I do like him and so hope he can develop (and prove me wrong by bagging a ton on Thursday).

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

But are far far more likely to chip in with the wickets we need. At this time he is a ODI player, and a very good one at that for England.

But that is all Swann and Broad are, although not necessarily very good.

The fact is that the 5th bowler just wouldn't be good enough to be used enough to justify their position.

A second spinner is unnecessary and Vaughan will always turn to Hoggy, Harmy and Sideshow before Broad.

I'm normally in favour of 5 bowlers, but only if the 5th is of a similar quality to the others. If not they are a wasted pick.

 

[C C Csiders]

But that is all Swann and Broad are, although not necessarily very good.

The fact is that the 5th bowler just wouldn't be good enough to be used enough to justify their position.

A second spinner is unnecessary and Vaughan will always turn to Hoggy, Harmy and Sideshow before Broad.

I'm normally in favour of 5 bowlers, but only if the 5th is of a similar quality to the others. If not they are a wasted pick.

Therefore, as number 11 above states, go with Shah ahead of Bopara. FWIW I'd still ahve gone for the extra bowling option, for if nothing else, it gives two of the other three seamers a rest - at least, 20/20 aside, Broad generally keeps it tight.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Therefore, as number 11 above states, go with Shah ahead of Bopara. FWIW I'd still ahve gone for the extra bowling option, for if nothing else, it gives two of the other three seamers a rest - at least, 20/20 aside, Broad generally keeps it tight.

Not sure there is much of a difference between Shah and Bopara with the bat.

If Shah has an edge over Bopara, Bopara has a bigger edge in the field IMHO.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Not sure there is much of a difference between Shah and Bopara with the bat.

If Shah has an edge over Bopara, Bopara has a bigger edge in the field IMHO.

Bopara seems more at home with International cricket than Shah IMO.

 

[number11]

Not sure there is much of a difference between Shah and Bopara with the bat.

If Shah has an edge over Bopara, Bopara has a bigger edge in the field IMHO.

Really? Im surprised. Ive always considered Shah a much more thoroughbread batsmen, who, if things had panned out differentlt earlier in his career had the ability to score big test hundreds....at this stage of his career Bopara just doesnt convince me that he will do that yet. I prefer Colly's bowling, and would be more confident of Shah, Key, Strauss, RAmprakash, Denly etc scoring more heavily than Bopara. But if we are viewing this series as not overly significant than blooding Bopara seems reasonable.

 

[C C Csiders]

Not sure there is much of a difference between Shah and Bopara with the bat.

If Shah has an edge over Bopara, Bopara has a bigger edge in the field IMHO.

Shah's average in first-class cricket is 43, compared with Bopara's 38. Bopara's from a more fledgling career, and you would expect that by the time he is the same age as Shah (27?) it will be similar, if not better. Maybe the fielding makes up the 5 runs an innings average - but I prefer Shah, as he looks more the part at this stage in his career internationally.

But obviously the slectors have seen both in action in the nets and in the middle and have made their decision based on that.

But I'd still have gone with the extra bowling option.

 

[C C Csiders]

Really? Im surprised. Ive always considered Shah a much more thoroughbread batsmen, who, if things had panned out differentlt earlier in his career had the ability to score big test hundreds....at this stage of his career Bopara just doesnt convince me that he will do that yet. I prefer Colly's bowling, and would be more confident of Shah, Key, Strauss, RAmprakash, Denly etc scoring more heavily than Bopara. But if we are viewing this series as not overly significant than blooding Bopara seems reasonable.

Like you number11 I am unconvinced by Bopara at this stage. I'm still not convinced by Cook as I've said on numerous occasions. I do think, however, that Boprara is Collingwood's long-term replacement, and blooding him here may not be such a bad thing, long-term.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Really? Im surprised. Ive always considered Shah a much more thoroughbread batsmen, who, if things had panned out differentlt earlier in his career had the ability to score big test hundreds....at this stage of his career Bopara just doesnt convince me that he will do that yet. I prefer Colly's bowling, and would be more confident of Shah, Key, Strauss, RAmprakash, Denly etc scoring more heavily than Bopara. But if we are viewing this series as not overly significant than blooding Bopara seems reasonable.

Someone like Bopara always had the talent (remember when him and Ali Cook put on 400 against the Aussies), but until this season didn't have the scores that his talent suggested. Something clicked for him, maybe the confidence from playing against the best in the world rubbed off on him, and at county level he was excellent for Essex last season.

Moreover he looks so at home on the international stage. Not just in the one-dayers, but also out in the middle in the tests. At Kandy on debut he hit 3 fours against Murali in one over. None were extravagant shots, the ball was there to be hit and he hit them. At the time, England were collapsing and were about 90-5 trying to bat the day out. Facing the best bowler in the world (statistically the best in history) with all the odds against him he looked the part.

Shah was a similarly prodigious talent, but I think had an attitude problem, its only in recent years that he's put the work in to get to where he is now. Shah is all nervous energy in contrast to Bopara's serenity. He reminds me of how Ramprakrash looked when he first came into the side against the Windies, (maybe not the best example) but he just looks as if he belongs at this level.

 

[number11]

Like you number11 I am unconvinced by Bopara at this stage. I'm still not convinced by Cook as I've said on numerous occasions. I do think, however, that Boprara is Collingwood's long-term replacement, and blooding him here may not be such a bad thing, long-term.

The worrying thing for me is that our batting is looking as brittle as it has for a long time. Cook has yet to show which way he will go on the international stage (Strauss like early promise but get found wanting when international bowlers wise up to pet areas, or FEC?), Vaughan could be just one quick single from breakdown (although his batting has been sublime at times.....on such form there is no other batsman Id rather watch), and Collingwood strikes me as someone who has out achieved his ability but how long can he keep that going? Still its nice to have all of them averaging above 40 having grown up with the likes of Ramprakash, Hick, Morris, Maynard, Crawley, James, lathwell etc fail to hack international cricket.

 

[canveyshrimper]

The worrying thing for me is that our batting is looking as brittle as it has for a long time. Cook has yet to show which way he will go on the international stage (Strauss like early promise but get found wanting when international bowlers wise up to pet areas, or FEC?), Vaughan could be just one quick single from breakdown (although his batting has been sublime at times.....on such form there is no other batsman Id rather watch), and Collingwood strikes me as someone who has out achieved his ability but how long can he keep that going? Still its nice to have all of them averaging above 40 having grown up with the likes of Ramprakash, Hick, Morris, Maynard, Crawley, James, lathwell etc fail to hack international cricket.

If you work on averages then the batting is anything but brittle, Vaughan, Cook, Bell, Collingwood and Prior all average over 40 and Pietersen over 50. I can't think of an England side since we had the likes of Boycott, Cowdrey, Dexter, Barrington & Graveney in the side that had such averages.

Cook with 6 centuries before he reached the age of 22 shows great application, and if one is a bit churlish he hasn't taken one of those scores on to a "big" 100. Bell needs to start converting 50's into 100's. I would love to see a fully fit and well Trescothick back in the fold but feel this isn't going to happen.

I agree with YB that Bopara looks the part in International cricket, and has something about him to build a successful career, and I think the selectors should for once be applauded in giving the younger blokes a go. Going back to the likes of constant failures like Ramprakash IMO is utterly pointless.

 

[number11]

If you work on averages then the batting is anything but brittle, Vaughan, Cook, Bell, Collingwood and Prior all average over 40 and Pietersen over 50. I can't think of an England side since we had the likes of Boycott, Cowdrey, Dexter, Barrington & Graveney in the side that had such averages.

Cook with 6 centuries before he reached the age of 22 shows great application, and if one is a bit churlish he hasn't taken one of those scores on to a "big" 100. Bell needs to start converting 50's into 100's. I would love to see a fully fit and well Trescothick back in the fold but feel this isn't going to happen.

I agree with YB that Bopara looks the part in International cricket, and has something about him to build a successful career, and I think the selectors should for once be applauded in giving the younger blokes a go. Going back to the likes of constant failures like Ramprakash IMO is utterly pointless.

Yeah as I mentioned above, to have so many average over 40 is impressive.,...especially when you consider the previous generation of the talent of Atherton, Butcher, Stewart, Hussein, Hick, Ramprakash all fell below that mark......However I do think the bench of 40 have now been raised and 45 at least should be the aim, with over 50 being achievable. This mainly due to generally poor new ball partnerships and shorter boundaries and pitches aimed to last the full 5 days.

 

[C C Csiders]

Yeah as I mentioned above, to have so many average over 40 is impressive.,...especially when you consider the previous generation of the talent of Atherton, Butcher, Stewart, Hussein, Hick, Ramprakash all fell below that mark......However I do think the bench of 40 have now been raised and 45 at least should be the aim, with over 50 being achievable. This mainly due to generally poor new ball partnerships and shorter boundaries and pitches aimed to last the full 5 days.

I agree to a certain extent. However, I think you'll find that down the years the Test averages of England players have always been a bit lower than those from overseas. This is due to the pitches in England being more bowler-friendly, that they are elsewhere. Therefore, playing half their games on English soil has put them at a disadvantge in terms of their average. Take Sir Geoff, his Test average was around about 47. Had he been from the sub-continent or Australia, it would have, no doubt, been in the 50's. I would say that around 3 or 4 runs should be added to every England players average to get a true gauge of their Test batting abilities.

New Zealanders struggle with their averages in this respect too.