The Edgbaston Test of 2005 was memorable in so many ways that it is hard to pick out just one, or even a couple special moments. For Brett Lee, there at both the beginning and end, the fond memories will be in short supply. There is, of course, the iconic shot of Flintoff consoling him after he took Australia to the brink in vain, but it was his part on the first morning of the Test match which was seen as significant. Marcus Trescothick, who took first ball, would have spent the build-up wondering how he was going to handle the habitual McGrath missile, kicking up off the pitch off a good length. With McGrath injured, what he in fact got was unexpected; Lee tearing in to spray the new ball to the extremity of the popping crease for a Harmisonian wide. He proceeded to be taken for 6.5 runs per over, the Australians as a whole for 5 as England blazed to 400 within 80 overs. This was, so it seemed at the time, propitious: a foreshadow of how Australia would struggle in the post McGrath era, let alone without the services of Warne, who alone kept Australia competitive that day. Now that situation is the reality, and how the Australians have responded. Having disposed of a useful Sri Lankan outfit with some excellent batsmen, they twice dismissed a glittering Indian batting line-up for under 200 in the series-opening Test at Melbourne.
And Lee, whose ability to lead the attack had been oft questioned, has been a genuine spearhead. With the ever-reliable crutch of McGrath removed, Lee has not wilted under the burden, rather blossomed into the stellar opening bowler he has not been for most of his international career. 22 wickets at an average of 16 is his tally for the Australian summer so far, but his influence has been far beyond those excellent figures. He has always had fearsome pace and big heart, but a propensity to be too generous with the freebies diluted his effectiveness. Now he has the control that has long been lacking and which makes him a fearsome prospect, as well as some useful tricks, like his slower-outswinger. No-doubt a few chats with Troy Cooley, the bowling coach who can seemingly do no wrong, have helped, but it appears that responsibility has been the real catalyst for his improvement. Perhaps we should have seen it coming; Lee's record in ODI cricket, where he has been pack-leader for a while, is exemplary. The last home series against India was not a happy one for Lee: his bowling average inflated past 30 where it has stayed ever since, and he was discarded for over a year. Four years on and he looks in the mood to set the record straight and finally bring that average back into the hallowed ground of the 20s.
But shorn of its inimitable double-act, this current Australian attack is far from a one-man show. Stuart Clark continues to squeeze the life from batsmen in a manner not seen since the mid-late 90s pomp of McGrath and Pollock. His habitual length is one batsmen can play neither back nor forward to with ease, while his consistency and ability to get just enough movement off the pitch means that taking liberties is a perilous exercise. In the first innings at Melbourne he showed another talent by giving an exemplary exhibition of reverse swing bowling, another sign of the Cooley influence. He maintains an average of under 20, an economy of 2.5 and strike rate of 45; figures for the Gods. And he doesn't get the new ball. That privilege is afforded to the tyro Mitchell Johnson, a left-armer from Queensland with a useful penchant for blasting out the big-name Indians. Despite useful early returns, one senses his Test career has yet to catch fire, and he has tended to waste the new ball a bit, bowling too far wide of the right hander's off-stump early on. But a combined economy rate of 1.66 from the Melbourne Test shows he is no leaky tug and the initial impression has been positive, although Shaun Tait will continue to breath down his neck if he can continue his excellent domestic form.
Liberated from McGrath and Warne, as was the case in 2003-4, the glitterati of the Indian batting line-up might have been sensing some heavy scoring on the same plane as that tour. But they got both their batting order and attitude wrong, errors which the Australians were only too happy to capitalise on. Poor Rahul Dravid, at his lowest ebb for a long while, was coerced into occupying the one position with which he has never been comfortable, opening the batting. Those who selected the team certainly got their comeuppance for trying to have it both ways: Dravid was beyond funereal in his approach, killing the Indian first innings and the chance Kumble had worked so hard to fashion on the first day. Yuvraj, in whose name the whole mess was contrived, flopped with a combined total of 5. Bowling Australia out for 343 was about as good as India could have hoped for, especially from 135-0. But Dravid (5 from 66) and Jaffer (4 from 27) allowed the Australians to impose such a fierce stranglehold that only Tendulkar, at his imperious best, and Ganguly, in the form of his life, could escape. Well as the Australians bowled, it was the Indian openers who placed the rope around their own team's neck. Moving Laxman to No.3 was a decisive and correct move; what a pity that the resultant shuffling of deckchairs was marshaled as if by the captain of the Titanic.
Surely Virender Sehwag, form notwithstanding, must be given the chance to inject some life into the Indian top order and take it to the Australians. With Sehwag, anything can happen, and India have a better chance in that lottery than the dirge-like predictability of their Melbourne demise. That would also give Dravid the chance to regroup at No.6: despite his bad form, he is one of India's finest ever and it is him they should be accommodating, not Yuvraj, whose only Test centuries have come on flat pitches against even flatter Pakistani bowling attacks. For if the Indians continue on their present path, Australia will both pass Steve Waugh's record and chalk up yet another whitewash in a home series. And judging by the empty MCG stands after the traditional Boxing day crush, even the home fans are getting bored by the absence of a contest.
Sunday 30 December 2007
Sunday 23 December 2007
England series ratings
Vaughan 6: Moved back to opener, at times he recaptured the sort of elegance and poise which made him one of the few modern batsmen to dominate Australia on their own patch five years ago. But he did not manage a century, albeit in unfortunate circumstances at Colombo, and his misjudgement of Vaas' in-ducker was crass and began the slide to 81 all out at Galle. For the second consecutive series he found himself out-done as captain, and the team lacked leadership in the field. Having proved himself adept at manipulating a happy ship, he must now show some Hussain-style generalship to get his team going again.
Cook 7: Recovered laudably after he was twice trussed-up by Chaminda Vaas in the first over at Kandy. A pair of half-centuries in the next Test and finally England's first ton of the tour at the last opportunity mean he can celebrate a birthday he shares with, amongst other illustrious company, Marcus Trescothick, a man whose record Cook will hope to emulate. He will be just 23, and with his 7th century behind him is still on track for the greatness he has been long-earmarked for.
Bell 6: He seems at times a peerless batsmen; comfortable facing both pace and spin, possessing the timing and lightness of touch which make his strokeplay a joy to watch. The defence is sure, and has a calm sense of permanence. Then, from nowhere, he errs - a lazy wave of the bat outside off, a weak attempt to hit over the top or a meek run-out. And he is gone, airy dominance rudely interrupted by an unseemly downfall. Were this to occur past 150, no-one would bat an eyelid and the plaudits his lucid play deserves would flood in. But, Bangladesh excepted, Bell has never been past 150; batting at 3, he has not even made it to three figures. He should have this series, and possibly just one time is what is needed to break the mental block, if that is the problem. We will wait, for if he can achieve what is in him, it will be worth it.
Pietersen 3: Asian tours are his bugbear - the three he has been involved in are the only occasions on which he has averaged less than 40 over the course of a series. Here it was under 30 and not even a half-century to his name. Considering his improvement as a player since England's last sub-continent jaunts in the post-Ashes winter, to do worse than he had then was a major disappointment. One flaw is against the short ball, which when accurately and quickly aimed exposes his lack of a cogent back-foot game; his long levers mean he can play most bowling off the front-foot, but not even he can manage that against the fastest men. Comparisons to Viv Richards have been frequent, but one thing one cannot picture is him recreating the iconic image of Richards rocking back to hook Botham into the Oval crowd. When the short ball does not get him, it seems, over-confidence will and he failed to adapt his on-the-up style of play to the slower pitches which was the problem two years ago. He will recover, and should plunder the New Zealand seamers, while he will relish his first Test encounter with the country of his birth. But for England's foremost batsman, their best against spin and big-match player, this was one hell of a letdown.
Collingwood 4: Worked well on the fringes, but England needed more from a batsman whose low backlift and mental fortitude has made him a success on the subcontinent before. Not perfect in the slips, they miss his influence in the outfield, while his bowling could perhaps have been used more. As a senior play and one-day captain, he must shoulder some blame for the team's general direction and lacklustre performances in the field too.
Bopara 1: For turning up. 42 was not his highest score but sum total of runs from five innings. Selection nightmares are rarer than they once were, in the age of central contracts, and this was more one of circumstance than character. But to plump for a man who, despite manifest promise, has just one international half-century in one-day cricket and plays a bit-part role in that team has been shown up to be a major aberration. Still Bopara is a talented player and a scrapper, so to flop completely was surprising. He will come again, but the severity of his failure and England's need for every run in lean times means his Test career could be postponed for a while now.
Prior 5: The batting deserved 7, the 'keeping about 3. He showed his batting prowess and taste for battle with a fifty each in the first two Tests, while he held out for 100 balls at the end of the Galle match. But six chances went begging on his watch, in a series when England were stumbling across wickets like oases in deserts. With a new slip cordon bedding in, a sure catcher behind the sticks is sorely needed, and Prior cannot represent England again until he has got his 'keeping up to standard. England will want him back when he has, unless Alec Stewart's true successor pops up in the meantime, for his batting is what they need in a number 7. Sadly the 'keeping is something they could only afford were Prior pulling his weight in the top 5.
Sidebottom 5: Not only were his sins in a former life significant enough to have made him wait six years for a second international cap, but they evidently merit that the punishment should continue now he has made it back. It must have been Matt Prior's doppelganger he did terrible things to, for the wicket-keeper is costing him wickets almost on a regular basis. Still, there is a sense that he lies in an uneasy no-man's land between county and Test cricketer, and worthy toil will sustain only a short career without success. Maybe it is the bad luck, more probably he is not quite up to the task. Once again he has done enough to ensure England will want another look, but he will need to start making wickets tumble in the more favourable climes of New Zealand and the English spring. His batting deserves a special mention: in a higher position than he turns out for Nottinghamshire, he showed a remarkable application and a tenacity which also typify his bowling.
Hoggard 6: There was a glimpse of the real Hogard at Kandy, subcontinental king-of-the-swingers, as he cleaned out the Sri Lankan top-order on the first day to set up England's biggest opening of the series. Thereafter it was a case of the crocked Hoggard who has stumbled through 2007 managing just three Tests, as he missed the second with his back injury and was played, in desperation, but not rude health, at Galle. After a run of 40 consecutive Tests, the bad-luck has set in with a venegance and England will be fervently praying that 2008 finds Hoggard well. In their current strife, they cannot afford to lose him.
Harmison 6: No great deeds, but there was a noticeable fortitude in his bowling which had been lacking previously, and being shelved for the first game seemed to galvanise him, which was probably part of the idea. At least consolidated his position in the team, and he now has the prospect of some more helpful conditions in New Zealand and back home. His contribution over the next three series should be a barometer of how far he can go, but for the first time in a while, it is not a hand-wringing exercise to summarise his efforts.
Panesar 3: England's leading wicket taker with 8; their biggest disappointment too, by a more significant margin. As the lone spinner, he was expected to, at the very least, plug up one end and create pressure for the seamers. Some enticing aggression on his part would have been nice too. England got neither, just a desperately insipid set of performances, with the last two games yielding just a single wicket apiece. The pitches turned, but it is increasingly evident that Panesar needs bounce to be a real threat, and that was out of the question on these surfaces. But such a low return in a place where inferior English spinners have prospered in the recent past was a confounding experience for player and fans alike. Monty should not pass up on the chance to beard Daniel Vettori when the team travel to New Zealand, for he is at something of a crossroads, and England need more from their spinner, for whom there is no viable alternative.
Anderson 2: For the second successive winter, faith was invested in him at the beginning of a series and he showed once more that Test cricket is not his arena. Peversely he seems to be even worse when not leading the attack, as he did in the summer against India, and he is just not cut out to be a third seamer in Test cricket. Potentially there could be a time in the future when he will take the new ball and do well. But for now, his international appearances should be confined to the pyjama team.
Broad 4: Finally afforded his debut in unforgiving circumstances at Colombo, he can be satisfied despite just the sole wicket, although it confirmed he is not quite ready for Test cricket, even with his strong character going a long way to bridge the gap. The action is just too flimsy, the pace too insignificant for him to prosper as a hit-the-deck merchant. But those are things which advancing experience will remedy, and his time cannot be too far off.
Cook 7: Recovered laudably after he was twice trussed-up by Chaminda Vaas in the first over at Kandy. A pair of half-centuries in the next Test and finally England's first ton of the tour at the last opportunity mean he can celebrate a birthday he shares with, amongst other illustrious company, Marcus Trescothick, a man whose record Cook will hope to emulate. He will be just 23, and with his 7th century behind him is still on track for the greatness he has been long-earmarked for.
Bell 6: He seems at times a peerless batsmen; comfortable facing both pace and spin, possessing the timing and lightness of touch which make his strokeplay a joy to watch. The defence is sure, and has a calm sense of permanence. Then, from nowhere, he errs - a lazy wave of the bat outside off, a weak attempt to hit over the top or a meek run-out. And he is gone, airy dominance rudely interrupted by an unseemly downfall. Were this to occur past 150, no-one would bat an eyelid and the plaudits his lucid play deserves would flood in. But, Bangladesh excepted, Bell has never been past 150; batting at 3, he has not even made it to three figures. He should have this series, and possibly just one time is what is needed to break the mental block, if that is the problem. We will wait, for if he can achieve what is in him, it will be worth it.
Pietersen 3: Asian tours are his bugbear - the three he has been involved in are the only occasions on which he has averaged less than 40 over the course of a series. Here it was under 30 and not even a half-century to his name. Considering his improvement as a player since England's last sub-continent jaunts in the post-Ashes winter, to do worse than he had then was a major disappointment. One flaw is against the short ball, which when accurately and quickly aimed exposes his lack of a cogent back-foot game; his long levers mean he can play most bowling off the front-foot, but not even he can manage that against the fastest men. Comparisons to Viv Richards have been frequent, but one thing one cannot picture is him recreating the iconic image of Richards rocking back to hook Botham into the Oval crowd. When the short ball does not get him, it seems, over-confidence will and he failed to adapt his on-the-up style of play to the slower pitches which was the problem two years ago. He will recover, and should plunder the New Zealand seamers, while he will relish his first Test encounter with the country of his birth. But for England's foremost batsman, their best against spin and big-match player, this was one hell of a letdown.
Collingwood 4: Worked well on the fringes, but England needed more from a batsman whose low backlift and mental fortitude has made him a success on the subcontinent before. Not perfect in the slips, they miss his influence in the outfield, while his bowling could perhaps have been used more. As a senior play and one-day captain, he must shoulder some blame for the team's general direction and lacklustre performances in the field too.
Bopara 1: For turning up. 42 was not his highest score but sum total of runs from five innings. Selection nightmares are rarer than they once were, in the age of central contracts, and this was more one of circumstance than character. But to plump for a man who, despite manifest promise, has just one international half-century in one-day cricket and plays a bit-part role in that team has been shown up to be a major aberration. Still Bopara is a talented player and a scrapper, so to flop completely was surprising. He will come again, but the severity of his failure and England's need for every run in lean times means his Test career could be postponed for a while now.
Prior 5: The batting deserved 7, the 'keeping about 3. He showed his batting prowess and taste for battle with a fifty each in the first two Tests, while he held out for 100 balls at the end of the Galle match. But six chances went begging on his watch, in a series when England were stumbling across wickets like oases in deserts. With a new slip cordon bedding in, a sure catcher behind the sticks is sorely needed, and Prior cannot represent England again until he has got his 'keeping up to standard. England will want him back when he has, unless Alec Stewart's true successor pops up in the meantime, for his batting is what they need in a number 7. Sadly the 'keeping is something they could only afford were Prior pulling his weight in the top 5.
Sidebottom 5: Not only were his sins in a former life significant enough to have made him wait six years for a second international cap, but they evidently merit that the punishment should continue now he has made it back. It must have been Matt Prior's doppelganger he did terrible things to, for the wicket-keeper is costing him wickets almost on a regular basis. Still, there is a sense that he lies in an uneasy no-man's land between county and Test cricketer, and worthy toil will sustain only a short career without success. Maybe it is the bad luck, more probably he is not quite up to the task. Once again he has done enough to ensure England will want another look, but he will need to start making wickets tumble in the more favourable climes of New Zealand and the English spring. His batting deserves a special mention: in a higher position than he turns out for Nottinghamshire, he showed a remarkable application and a tenacity which also typify his bowling.
Hoggard 6: There was a glimpse of the real Hogard at Kandy, subcontinental king-of-the-swingers, as he cleaned out the Sri Lankan top-order on the first day to set up England's biggest opening of the series. Thereafter it was a case of the crocked Hoggard who has stumbled through 2007 managing just three Tests, as he missed the second with his back injury and was played, in desperation, but not rude health, at Galle. After a run of 40 consecutive Tests, the bad-luck has set in with a venegance and England will be fervently praying that 2008 finds Hoggard well. In their current strife, they cannot afford to lose him.
Harmison 6: No great deeds, but there was a noticeable fortitude in his bowling which had been lacking previously, and being shelved for the first game seemed to galvanise him, which was probably part of the idea. At least consolidated his position in the team, and he now has the prospect of some more helpful conditions in New Zealand and back home. His contribution over the next three series should be a barometer of how far he can go, but for the first time in a while, it is not a hand-wringing exercise to summarise his efforts.
Panesar 3: England's leading wicket taker with 8; their biggest disappointment too, by a more significant margin. As the lone spinner, he was expected to, at the very least, plug up one end and create pressure for the seamers. Some enticing aggression on his part would have been nice too. England got neither, just a desperately insipid set of performances, with the last two games yielding just a single wicket apiece. The pitches turned, but it is increasingly evident that Panesar needs bounce to be a real threat, and that was out of the question on these surfaces. But such a low return in a place where inferior English spinners have prospered in the recent past was a confounding experience for player and fans alike. Monty should not pass up on the chance to beard Daniel Vettori when the team travel to New Zealand, for he is at something of a crossroads, and England need more from their spinner, for whom there is no viable alternative.
Anderson 2: For the second successive winter, faith was invested in him at the beginning of a series and he showed once more that Test cricket is not his arena. Peversely he seems to be even worse when not leading the attack, as he did in the summer against India, and he is just not cut out to be a third seamer in Test cricket. Potentially there could be a time in the future when he will take the new ball and do well. But for now, his international appearances should be confined to the pyjama team.
Broad 4: Finally afforded his debut in unforgiving circumstances at Colombo, he can be satisfied despite just the sole wicket, although it confirmed he is not quite ready for Test cricket, even with his strong character going a long way to bridge the gap. The action is just too flimsy, the pace too insignificant for him to prosper as a hit-the-deck merchant. But those are things which advancing experience will remedy, and his time cannot be too far off.
Saturday 22 December 2007
Time to acknowledge reality's bite
It is September 2005; England have just clinched a momentous and monumental Ashes series with an epic final-day innings from new star Kevin Pietersen at a sun-dappled Oval. They have a pace attack as good as possibly any English one down the years; an all-rounder who has finally cast off the Botham shadow; and an instinctive and inspirational captain. It is a young team, one which should remain together until at least the next home Ashes rubber, by which time they could well be the first English team to dominate Test cricket for decades. 28 Tests later and players, pundits and paying fans can only reflect on a dream which lies in pieces and a two year stretch in Tests which has been as bitter as dismal as the run preceding it was sweet. If the 5-0 whitewash last winter showed how good Australia were, the subsequent results have illustrated England's deficiencies. Six players remain from the 2005 team, but that dog is long dead; the only commonality between then and now is the last digit of the year which will be raked over again and again until England find more success. Just 1 win in 15 away Tests since then says it all; a fall to 5th in the rankings is a reflection of true standing. Were the teams below them not so mediocre, it would be a generous one.
In isolation, the just-concluded series was bleak for England. There are worse results than the 0-1 reverse they leave behind them in Sri Lanka, but it was achieved ingloriously and does not do justice to the Sri Lankans, deprived of a further win by the torrential showers at Galle. Only once did England bowl out their opposition, and that when the ball swung and with their key bowler Hoggard fit to exploit it. Three other times they were little more than spectators as the Sri Lankan batsmen piled on big scores, three times in excess of 400 while England's best was 350, and that on the featherbed pitch at Colombo. Fielding was beyond sloppy, with catches going down all along a makeshift slip-cordon; the team mindset seemed rooted on the back-foot; leadership was lacking. As is customary with English debacles away from home, the denouement arrived with a stupendous batting collapse - 81 all out, a veritable recovery from 33-6. Muralitharan bowled four overs, for just one wicket; Chaminda Vaas, who took four, had earlier made 90.
England's 11 representatives are not poor, untalented or unsuited to Test cricket. But they do not function well as a unit, illustrated by their shoddy fielding and general lack of useful intensity in the field; buzzing the ball back to Matt Prior whenever the opportunity presents itself does not threaten, or intimidate batsmen, especially not the likes of Sangakkara or Jayawardene. England just end up with a tired 'keeper who has a tendency to drop the important chances when they come around. Pressure is created by tight bowling, sharp fielding and ensuring that the batsman himself starts to have doubts. Almost worse is the lack of opportunism - England often put themselves in an advantageous position at the beginning of Tests - they did it here, and even in at least three Tests last winter. But they all too rarely seize on these opportunities and take control of games at crucial junctures, while that is the point at which the best teams make sure to tighten the noose. That is why they have won just two of eight series since 2005; there is no killer instinct, and, engendered by that lack of success, no belief.
In contrast Sri Lanka, who have come far since these two teams last met in 2006, almost in direct proportion to England's regression, were highly impressive. They rely heavily on a small core of players, which is why they made no impression against Australia, but after riding England's mini-wave at the beginning of the series, they soon assumed dominance. In Sangakkara and Jayawardene they have two batsmen of the highest class and skill - both are scintillating players when the mood takes them, but also have the ability, sorely lacking in their English counterparts, to bat for days at a time without playing excessive or risky shots. They do not hold the world record partnership in Test cricket for nothing, and what were by their standards brief examples of their longevity and talent were enough to dispose with England. The bowling, as ever, was led by the duo of Vaas and Muralitharan; much was made of the former's decline and it was even mooted that his 100th Test at Kandy could be his last. The best return by any seamer in the series dispelled that notion, and the good showing of understudy Welegedera in the last Test shows that his retirement, when it comes, will not mean batsmen are free from inquisition by left-arm seam.
With the coaching team having just been uprooted and a review completed last summer, England must look to themselves for improvement. They should start with the fielding, which was a major hindrance to the efforts of the bowlers, with numerous chances spurned. It does not help that they have lost all the primary members of their once-reliable slip-cordon: Trescothick who seemed never to drop one, Flintoff's bucket hands and Strauss who used the opener's temperament which makes many of his kind good close fielders. Now Ian Bell, an excellent short-leg and passable gully, is in primary position, while Collingwood is wasted in a catching position when England really need him to patrol the off-side and threaten batsmen who risk short singles. Matt Prior again, had a torrid time of it with the gloves, a pity, as he had shown his batting prowess with a pair of fighting half-centuries, and was again looking the man England have been looking for at 7. Four catches down and two missed stumpings, however, might worry a top 'keeper if accrued during an entire year of Test cricket and although England could use his batting, they cannot afford his profligacy with precious chances. That there are clear flaws in his footwork and positioning surely must mean the selectors send him back to his county to work on his 'keeping.
There is delusion throughout English sport, and cricket fans are but minor offenders when compared to their football compatriots. Even after any aspirations to be the best in the near future went for a burton with the Ashes whitewash, there was hope that they could consolidate on their No.2 ranking. Fixtures against India and Sri Lanka were excellent opportunities. England have failed twice, and must, along with the supporters, recognise their new ranking as a true reflection of the situation. It is not a time for heads to roll, but some serious admonishment is needed - no-one doubts that the majority of this team has what is needed to succeed at Test level, so it must be openly questioned why they are not, individually and collectively. What will follow is a pair of series home and away against New Zealand, themselves enduring a barren time of it in Tests and a lesser outfit than England flattened in early summer 2004. They would hope to do so again, but now is the time to stop assuming and start proving themselves . The Ashes team has gone, and England have lost time trying to recapture it. And before endeavouring to climb the mountain from which they have slid so ignominiously, they must first ensure they are pointing in the right direction.
In isolation, the just-concluded series was bleak for England. There are worse results than the 0-1 reverse they leave behind them in Sri Lanka, but it was achieved ingloriously and does not do justice to the Sri Lankans, deprived of a further win by the torrential showers at Galle. Only once did England bowl out their opposition, and that when the ball swung and with their key bowler Hoggard fit to exploit it. Three other times they were little more than spectators as the Sri Lankan batsmen piled on big scores, three times in excess of 400 while England's best was 350, and that on the featherbed pitch at Colombo. Fielding was beyond sloppy, with catches going down all along a makeshift slip-cordon; the team mindset seemed rooted on the back-foot; leadership was lacking. As is customary with English debacles away from home, the denouement arrived with a stupendous batting collapse - 81 all out, a veritable recovery from 33-6. Muralitharan bowled four overs, for just one wicket; Chaminda Vaas, who took four, had earlier made 90.
England's 11 representatives are not poor, untalented or unsuited to Test cricket. But they do not function well as a unit, illustrated by their shoddy fielding and general lack of useful intensity in the field; buzzing the ball back to Matt Prior whenever the opportunity presents itself does not threaten, or intimidate batsmen, especially not the likes of Sangakkara or Jayawardene. England just end up with a tired 'keeper who has a tendency to drop the important chances when they come around. Pressure is created by tight bowling, sharp fielding and ensuring that the batsman himself starts to have doubts. Almost worse is the lack of opportunism - England often put themselves in an advantageous position at the beginning of Tests - they did it here, and even in at least three Tests last winter. But they all too rarely seize on these opportunities and take control of games at crucial junctures, while that is the point at which the best teams make sure to tighten the noose. That is why they have won just two of eight series since 2005; there is no killer instinct, and, engendered by that lack of success, no belief.
In contrast Sri Lanka, who have come far since these two teams last met in 2006, almost in direct proportion to England's regression, were highly impressive. They rely heavily on a small core of players, which is why they made no impression against Australia, but after riding England's mini-wave at the beginning of the series, they soon assumed dominance. In Sangakkara and Jayawardene they have two batsmen of the highest class and skill - both are scintillating players when the mood takes them, but also have the ability, sorely lacking in their English counterparts, to bat for days at a time without playing excessive or risky shots. They do not hold the world record partnership in Test cricket for nothing, and what were by their standards brief examples of their longevity and talent were enough to dispose with England. The bowling, as ever, was led by the duo of Vaas and Muralitharan; much was made of the former's decline and it was even mooted that his 100th Test at Kandy could be his last. The best return by any seamer in the series dispelled that notion, and the good showing of understudy Welegedera in the last Test shows that his retirement, when it comes, will not mean batsmen are free from inquisition by left-arm seam.
With the coaching team having just been uprooted and a review completed last summer, England must look to themselves for improvement. They should start with the fielding, which was a major hindrance to the efforts of the bowlers, with numerous chances spurned. It does not help that they have lost all the primary members of their once-reliable slip-cordon: Trescothick who seemed never to drop one, Flintoff's bucket hands and Strauss who used the opener's temperament which makes many of his kind good close fielders. Now Ian Bell, an excellent short-leg and passable gully, is in primary position, while Collingwood is wasted in a catching position when England really need him to patrol the off-side and threaten batsmen who risk short singles. Matt Prior again, had a torrid time of it with the gloves, a pity, as he had shown his batting prowess with a pair of fighting half-centuries, and was again looking the man England have been looking for at 7. Four catches down and two missed stumpings, however, might worry a top 'keeper if accrued during an entire year of Test cricket and although England could use his batting, they cannot afford his profligacy with precious chances. That there are clear flaws in his footwork and positioning surely must mean the selectors send him back to his county to work on his 'keeping.
There is delusion throughout English sport, and cricket fans are but minor offenders when compared to their football compatriots. Even after any aspirations to be the best in the near future went for a burton with the Ashes whitewash, there was hope that they could consolidate on their No.2 ranking. Fixtures against India and Sri Lanka were excellent opportunities. England have failed twice, and must, along with the supporters, recognise their new ranking as a true reflection of the situation. It is not a time for heads to roll, but some serious admonishment is needed - no-one doubts that the majority of this team has what is needed to succeed at Test level, so it must be openly questioned why they are not, individually and collectively. What will follow is a pair of series home and away against New Zealand, themselves enduring a barren time of it in Tests and a lesser outfit than England flattened in early summer 2004. They would hope to do so again, but now is the time to stop assuming and start proving themselves . The Ashes team has gone, and England have lost time trying to recapture it. And before endeavouring to climb the mountain from which they have slid so ignominiously, they must first ensure they are pointing in the right direction.
Monday 17 December 2007
New Australia face the ghost of Christmas past
The status quo of Australian dominance has been established and adhered to almost unremittingly for a good decade now. What has changed over that period is the team which has looked likeliest to knock them off their perch: in the late 90s it was South Africa, who had bowling fire from Donald and Pollock, Afrikaaner grit in the shape of Kirsten, Kallis and McMillan and the inspirational leadership of the then untarnished and much loved Hansie Cronje. Yet in the first 18 Tests post-readmission they managed just 4 victories, doing no better than a pair of drawn series home and away in 1993-4. England did manage to produce a rare victory over the Australians in 2005, but their worth as rivals can be measured by the result in the subsequent series.
By far their most interesting challengers have been India. The teams of Mark Taylor and Steven Waugh suffered a trio of series losses there in the late 90s and 2000; it was dubbed as the "final frontier" for Waugh in 2000-1, the last place left for him and his to conquer. Eventually they did, in an insipid affair four years on, but Waugh could only, Moses-like, watch on from afar. But as much as the series three seasons ago failed to excite, the series preceding it were awe-inspiring, sitting alongside the 2005 Ashes as recent encounters for the ages. There was the great Indian revival in 2001 at Kolkata; the epoch-making all-day partnership between Laxman and Dravid; Harbhajan's 13 wickets; the Australian captain bitten and forever scared of again enforcing the follow-on. Back on Australian soil next time around it was the series of the bat; double-centuries all-round and mammoth totals not precluding breathtaking and tense cricket. Australia may boast forever about last winter's reverse of England's dominant position at Adelaide, but it was India who showed them the way, winning the Test there in late 2003 after the Australians had posted 550 first up. Ponting had over 200 of those, yet still lost; not to be denied, he got 257 more next game and this time won. An epic struggle climaxed in a momentous occasion at Sydney, featuring Waugh's farewell, Tendulkar's defiance of his bad form and ultimately a worthy stalemate. Four years on, it still resonates.
Hardly surprising then that the forthcoming series, beginning with the traditional Boxing Day game at Melbourne, should at least create a frisson of anticipation, even if it is muted in comparison to the grandstanding which preceded the previous encounters. On paper, there should be no contest: India are in a transient phase, caught between the titans of the previous generations and the thrusters of this one, led by a short-term captain and with several of their mainstays in questionable form. Australia, on the other hand, have won all but one of their 16 Test matches since England's summer in 2005 and are knocking on the door of the record for consecutive victories set by Waugh's Australia. Yet, convincing as their mini-series victory over Sri Lanka last month was, they still have a way to go before assuaging the doubts over their new-age team sans Warne and McGrath. Taking into account recent history, the makers of which are still numerate on both sides, if any team can probe the fissures, surely it is India.
Australia's batsmen are almost certain to make good runs, so it will be when India's take guard that the games will be decided. They have the clout to make Australia's green-tinged attack suffer, especially in the absence of Stuart MacGill. The home selectors are in a quandary over whether to bring in the next man down on the spinning list or draft in a fourth paceman in Shaun Tait. Going in without a slow bowler is always a risk, especially considering the current state of Australian pitches and India's batting stock, but there remains the thought that the wristy nous of those Indian bats would devour Hogg, who has an exemplary ODI record but averages the best part of 40 with the ball in first-class cricket. In Tendulkar and Dravid they have two batsmen of the highest talent and experience, recent form dips notwithstanding. Behind them come Ganguly, in the form of his life; the destructive Yuvraj, hard to drop after his century in their last Test and a man by the name of Vangipurappu Venkata Sai Laxman (remember the name). Laxman is one the Australians fear - he defied them with his epic 281 at Kolkata and averaged over 80 in the 2003-4 series. India should bat him at 3, where he has performed best and will carry the greatest presence, a move which would also take pressure off Draivd. Another who has worried the Australians before is Virender Sehwag, who sneaked into the touring party through the back-door but may well start anyway and probably should. Better they throw their best at the Australian's than die wondering with the likes of Karthik and Gambhir.
Pace bowling will be a crucial factor on both sides and could be the sole leaning of Australia's attack. They have a significant edge in the department, with Brett Lee looking sharp against Sri Lanka and Mitchell Johnson making a good impression. Still, they will be tested, and whatever combination they decide on, two of the four will have single-figure Test experience. India have plenty of options, although the excitable Sreesanth will not be one of them. Zaheer Khan is the pack-leader, although whether it will be RP Singh, Irfan Pathan or Ishant Sharma to back him up is up for debate. Anil Kumble should enjoy the bounce in the Australian pitches and has had some success there previously, with a pair of five-wicket hauls last time out. Harbhajan is another who has a happy history against the Australians, albeit almost exclusively at home, and is the only option as a second spinner, although that is an unlikely balance.
As ever, the collective dollar is on the Australians; India have the players to effect an upset, but probably not the bowlers and they will need a bolter amongst their secondary seamers if they are to win. More than anything, cricket needs a real hum-dinger, just as these sides have produced twice already this decade. Australians are starting to think it's all a bit too easy, and the rest of the world will watch on, hoping that the dying embers of a special generation of Indian cricketers can leave the dominant Aussies shaken and the collective melting pot stirred.
By far their most interesting challengers have been India. The teams of Mark Taylor and Steven Waugh suffered a trio of series losses there in the late 90s and 2000; it was dubbed as the "final frontier" for Waugh in 2000-1, the last place left for him and his to conquer. Eventually they did, in an insipid affair four years on, but Waugh could only, Moses-like, watch on from afar. But as much as the series three seasons ago failed to excite, the series preceding it were awe-inspiring, sitting alongside the 2005 Ashes as recent encounters for the ages. There was the great Indian revival in 2001 at Kolkata; the epoch-making all-day partnership between Laxman and Dravid; Harbhajan's 13 wickets; the Australian captain bitten and forever scared of again enforcing the follow-on. Back on Australian soil next time around it was the series of the bat; double-centuries all-round and mammoth totals not precluding breathtaking and tense cricket. Australia may boast forever about last winter's reverse of England's dominant position at Adelaide, but it was India who showed them the way, winning the Test there in late 2003 after the Australians had posted 550 first up. Ponting had over 200 of those, yet still lost; not to be denied, he got 257 more next game and this time won. An epic struggle climaxed in a momentous occasion at Sydney, featuring Waugh's farewell, Tendulkar's defiance of his bad form and ultimately a worthy stalemate. Four years on, it still resonates.
Hardly surprising then that the forthcoming series, beginning with the traditional Boxing Day game at Melbourne, should at least create a frisson of anticipation, even if it is muted in comparison to the grandstanding which preceded the previous encounters. On paper, there should be no contest: India are in a transient phase, caught between the titans of the previous generations and the thrusters of this one, led by a short-term captain and with several of their mainstays in questionable form. Australia, on the other hand, have won all but one of their 16 Test matches since England's summer in 2005 and are knocking on the door of the record for consecutive victories set by Waugh's Australia. Yet, convincing as their mini-series victory over Sri Lanka last month was, they still have a way to go before assuaging the doubts over their new-age team sans Warne and McGrath. Taking into account recent history, the makers of which are still numerate on both sides, if any team can probe the fissures, surely it is India.
Australia's batsmen are almost certain to make good runs, so it will be when India's take guard that the games will be decided. They have the clout to make Australia's green-tinged attack suffer, especially in the absence of Stuart MacGill. The home selectors are in a quandary over whether to bring in the next man down on the spinning list or draft in a fourth paceman in Shaun Tait. Going in without a slow bowler is always a risk, especially considering the current state of Australian pitches and India's batting stock, but there remains the thought that the wristy nous of those Indian bats would devour Hogg, who has an exemplary ODI record but averages the best part of 40 with the ball in first-class cricket. In Tendulkar and Dravid they have two batsmen of the highest talent and experience, recent form dips notwithstanding. Behind them come Ganguly, in the form of his life; the destructive Yuvraj, hard to drop after his century in their last Test and a man by the name of Vangipurappu Venkata Sai Laxman (remember the name). Laxman is one the Australians fear - he defied them with his epic 281 at Kolkata and averaged over 80 in the 2003-4 series. India should bat him at 3, where he has performed best and will carry the greatest presence, a move which would also take pressure off Draivd. Another who has worried the Australians before is Virender Sehwag, who sneaked into the touring party through the back-door but may well start anyway and probably should. Better they throw their best at the Australian's than die wondering with the likes of Karthik and Gambhir.
Pace bowling will be a crucial factor on both sides and could be the sole leaning of Australia's attack. They have a significant edge in the department, with Brett Lee looking sharp against Sri Lanka and Mitchell Johnson making a good impression. Still, they will be tested, and whatever combination they decide on, two of the four will have single-figure Test experience. India have plenty of options, although the excitable Sreesanth will not be one of them. Zaheer Khan is the pack-leader, although whether it will be RP Singh, Irfan Pathan or Ishant Sharma to back him up is up for debate. Anil Kumble should enjoy the bounce in the Australian pitches and has had some success there previously, with a pair of five-wicket hauls last time out. Harbhajan is another who has a happy history against the Australians, albeit almost exclusively at home, and is the only option as a second spinner, although that is an unlikely balance.
As ever, the collective dollar is on the Australians; India have the players to effect an upset, but probably not the bowlers and they will need a bolter amongst their secondary seamers if they are to win. More than anything, cricket needs a real hum-dinger, just as these sides have produced twice already this decade. Australians are starting to think it's all a bit too easy, and the rest of the world will watch on, hoping that the dying embers of a special generation of Indian cricketers can leave the dominant Aussies shaken and the collective melting pot stirred.
Friday 14 December 2007
England still showing vital signs
It is not often that one could describe as uneventful a day which featured Muttiah Muralitharan twirling away at English batsmen on a fifth-day home pitch. That he was rendered toothless in such circumstances says all that is needed about the pitch; the uneven bounce and pace which saw a combined second innings total of 155-16 in 2001 and England's third heaviest ever defeat in 2003 has gone the way of all life and the heavy roller. Not much happened over the course of five days which surprised or excited, Sidebottom's early spark and Sangakkara's swift exit excepted. England did not get enough runs first up, then conceded too many in return; Jayawardene racked up his eighth Test century on his home patch before the match fizzled out into a rain-hastened stalemate. Jayawardene might have declared earlier than he did late on the fourth day, but when he said post-match that his side would have struggled to bowl England out in two days on that pitch, he was not joking.
The focus now turns to the decisive game at Galle, which has always been the most important fixture of the tour, regardless of cricket. It will be staging its first Test since the tsunami almost three years ago wiped out the old ground along with a good deal of the South-Asian coastline. It had seen just 11 Tests over 6 years, yet was still one of the most eulogised cricket venues around the world, surrounded by the Indian ocean and famous Dutch fort, which amongst other invaders withstood the TMS commentary team in 2001 when the authorities denied the BBC entry to the ground. Unfortunately for England, the fortress is symbolic as well as a survivor of the tidal-wave - Sri Lanka have lost just twice in those 11 games. However, the pitch is a totally new one, and no-one seems to know how it will play, although England can probably expect something on the slow side. They will hope that the unsettled soil will offer something to their seamers, who should be bolstered by the return of Matthew Hoggard, bowling unhindered in the nets following his back problems.
Yet while a sporting pitch is what England need, they will not relish a minefield, which would play into the hands of the more savvy Sri Lankans and specifically Muralitharan. Michael Vaughan was talking about the necessity of first-innings centuries before the Colombo match and the theme had not changed five days later. He is the man best placed to provide one, in excellent touch after he built on a cathartic return to opening at Kandy with a pair of fluent fifties at the SSC. Vaughan's conversion rate is so good he has as many centuries as halves (17) and he will not be satisfied by letting the ratio tilt unfavourably should he get in next time. Ian Bell added a third half-century of the tour, his ninth batting at 3; his first century there still awaits him. Ravi Bopara was not afforded the luxury of a second knock or indeed a second ball to face after Malinga cleaned him out first up on day 1. England had reason to select him at the outset, although it was a close call; with his bowling rarely utilised even with the opposition racking up some big totals, England may have been regretting the omission of Owais Shah, a better bet for runs. They will probably decide against a volte-face, but at the same time the equation of Bopara's all-round usefulness versus Shah's superiority as a batsman ought to be revisited in the light of the series so far.
Elsewhere, there have been some encouraging signs for England. Steve Harmison toiled manfully on the dead pitch and in a manner many would have doubted he was capable of. England can now select him for the next game without inhibition and the help he gets from Galle's mystery pitch could be a decisive factor. In a debut match which could not have much crueler, Stuart Broad showed up well too, maintaining composure and leaving with his maiden wicket as recompense. Hoggard's expected return means he will have to wait for the more favourable climes of New Zealand or home for his second go, however. England are down to their last chance on this tour, having finally lost the 2nd place in the rankings which the last two tours here helped springboard them too. Hard work will be needed to climb the mountain again, and a symbolic victory at Galle's rebuilt stadium would be a decisive way to start.
The focus now turns to the decisive game at Galle, which has always been the most important fixture of the tour, regardless of cricket. It will be staging its first Test since the tsunami almost three years ago wiped out the old ground along with a good deal of the South-Asian coastline. It had seen just 11 Tests over 6 years, yet was still one of the most eulogised cricket venues around the world, surrounded by the Indian ocean and famous Dutch fort, which amongst other invaders withstood the TMS commentary team in 2001 when the authorities denied the BBC entry to the ground. Unfortunately for England, the fortress is symbolic as well as a survivor of the tidal-wave - Sri Lanka have lost just twice in those 11 games. However, the pitch is a totally new one, and no-one seems to know how it will play, although England can probably expect something on the slow side. They will hope that the unsettled soil will offer something to their seamers, who should be bolstered by the return of Matthew Hoggard, bowling unhindered in the nets following his back problems.
Yet while a sporting pitch is what England need, they will not relish a minefield, which would play into the hands of the more savvy Sri Lankans and specifically Muralitharan. Michael Vaughan was talking about the necessity of first-innings centuries before the Colombo match and the theme had not changed five days later. He is the man best placed to provide one, in excellent touch after he built on a cathartic return to opening at Kandy with a pair of fluent fifties at the SSC. Vaughan's conversion rate is so good he has as many centuries as halves (17) and he will not be satisfied by letting the ratio tilt unfavourably should he get in next time. Ian Bell added a third half-century of the tour, his ninth batting at 3; his first century there still awaits him. Ravi Bopara was not afforded the luxury of a second knock or indeed a second ball to face after Malinga cleaned him out first up on day 1. England had reason to select him at the outset, although it was a close call; with his bowling rarely utilised even with the opposition racking up some big totals, England may have been regretting the omission of Owais Shah, a better bet for runs. They will probably decide against a volte-face, but at the same time the equation of Bopara's all-round usefulness versus Shah's superiority as a batsman ought to be revisited in the light of the series so far.
Elsewhere, there have been some encouraging signs for England. Steve Harmison toiled manfully on the dead pitch and in a manner many would have doubted he was capable of. England can now select him for the next game without inhibition and the help he gets from Galle's mystery pitch could be a decisive factor. In a debut match which could not have much crueler, Stuart Broad showed up well too, maintaining composure and leaving with his maiden wicket as recompense. Hoggard's expected return means he will have to wait for the more favourable climes of New Zealand or home for his second go, however. England are down to their last chance on this tour, having finally lost the 2nd place in the rankings which the last two tours here helped springboard them too. Hard work will be needed to climb the mountain again, and a symbolic victory at Galle's rebuilt stadium would be a decisive way to start.
Monday 10 December 2007
England searching for their special one
Duncan Fletcher had his England bubble, and Peter Moores has his buzzwords. Communication, ruthlessness, vibrancy all the sorts of words thrown about so frequently that one almost begins to long for the days of putting one's hand up, stepping up to the plate and coming to the party. Stop wasting chances might be the mantra better suited to this current tour; Nasser Hussain's team certainly didn't turn things round six years ago by waxing lyrical about the positive energy in Graham Thorpe's forward defensive.
In what all the England players and coaches have recognised as a scrap, a challenge and a sweat, they cannot afford to let advantageous positions slip as they have done so far. They lost in Kandy having bowled the home side out for less than 200 on a goodish batting pitch; they failed to make the most of a great start from the openers (not without a share of ill-luck) this game; while on a pitch which even the great Muttiah Muralitharan has lamented as a bowler's graveyard, they could not break the Sri Lankans at a crucial juncture today. 25-2 with the ultra-prolific Sangakkara back in the hutch is the sort of point at which the critical mass of a Test match changes. England needed someone to back up the sterling opening created by Sidebottom, who showed he remains a new ball threat even when the ambient conditions do not favour him. But the efforts of his colleagues were thwarted by the the assured blade of Jayawardene and the blunting, energy sapping one of Michael Vandort, who took the example of the like-minded Cook from the first day. England did not necessarily do anything wrong, or fall down on the job, but to win Test matches here, especially on such a placid surface, requires something more than fulfilling basic expectations.
With Sri Lanka still 250 runs behind there is still a chance, but the window is a narrow one and it will not help that the ball is all but 40 overs old. Once again, much will be down to the left-arm spin of Monty Panesar, who was insipid in his six overs. He returned 6 wickets to Murali's 9 at Kandy, a respectable ratio, but there is still the feeling that England need more from their premier spinner if they are going to win games here. Seamers have a big role to play on the subcontinent; they might, as Matthew Hoggard did, wreck an innings when the ball swings, but more likely, as with Sidebottom today, a gap will be opened up with the new ball. It is then the job of the spinner to work away, tease and beguile a middle-order playing without the freedom of runs on the board. Panesar is a fine spinner, and one who does not invite criticism; however, his staple diet of flat, accurate balls is too mundane for Asian batsmen on their own patch. He can spin the ball more, and should at least experiment with variations of flight and angle. Accustomed to a supporting role at home, where he is a brilliant foil for the seamers, Monty must now acknowledge that he is the main man and start bowling like one.
There were many reasons why England were able to turn around the deficit this current team is facing in 2001, not least a fierce team spirit. But they also won because Thorpe batted with psychopathic intent, Gough bowled like a Trojan and Hussain led like a man possessed. England can be invigorated, intense, focused, vibrant and ruthless like the ever-ready men their coach rightly wants them to be. But to pull it out of the hat here, someone's going to have to be bloody brilliant too.
In what all the England players and coaches have recognised as a scrap, a challenge and a sweat, they cannot afford to let advantageous positions slip as they have done so far. They lost in Kandy having bowled the home side out for less than 200 on a goodish batting pitch; they failed to make the most of a great start from the openers (not without a share of ill-luck) this game; while on a pitch which even the great Muttiah Muralitharan has lamented as a bowler's graveyard, they could not break the Sri Lankans at a crucial juncture today. 25-2 with the ultra-prolific Sangakkara back in the hutch is the sort of point at which the critical mass of a Test match changes. England needed someone to back up the sterling opening created by Sidebottom, who showed he remains a new ball threat even when the ambient conditions do not favour him. But the efforts of his colleagues were thwarted by the the assured blade of Jayawardene and the blunting, energy sapping one of Michael Vandort, who took the example of the like-minded Cook from the first day. England did not necessarily do anything wrong, or fall down on the job, but to win Test matches here, especially on such a placid surface, requires something more than fulfilling basic expectations.
With Sri Lanka still 250 runs behind there is still a chance, but the window is a narrow one and it will not help that the ball is all but 40 overs old. Once again, much will be down to the left-arm spin of Monty Panesar, who was insipid in his six overs. He returned 6 wickets to Murali's 9 at Kandy, a respectable ratio, but there is still the feeling that England need more from their premier spinner if they are going to win games here. Seamers have a big role to play on the subcontinent; they might, as Matthew Hoggard did, wreck an innings when the ball swings, but more likely, as with Sidebottom today, a gap will be opened up with the new ball. It is then the job of the spinner to work away, tease and beguile a middle-order playing without the freedom of runs on the board. Panesar is a fine spinner, and one who does not invite criticism; however, his staple diet of flat, accurate balls is too mundane for Asian batsmen on their own patch. He can spin the ball more, and should at least experiment with variations of flight and angle. Accustomed to a supporting role at home, where he is a brilliant foil for the seamers, Monty must now acknowledge that he is the main man and start bowling like one.
There were many reasons why England were able to turn around the deficit this current team is facing in 2001, not least a fierce team spirit. But they also won because Thorpe batted with psychopathic intent, Gough bowled like a Trojan and Hussain led like a man possessed. England can be invigorated, intense, focused, vibrant and ruthless like the ever-ready men their coach rightly wants them to be. But to pull it out of the hat here, someone's going to have to be bloody brilliant too.
Friday 7 December 2007
Time for heroes
It will be of little consolation to England that the Test match just gone, which has left them in the invidious position of one down with two to play in the series, was a rare gem, a prescient reminder of the intrigue and excitement the 5-day game can provide following a recent proliferation of dull, one-sided cricket around the world. On a pitch which suited the English seamers on the first day, Murali on the second and batsmen thereafter, England did considerably better than had been expected of them in terms of runs on the last day, doing enough to suggest that better early efforts with both bat and ball in the second innings might have swung the contest their way. They came close to repeating their escape of the last tour here, when Vaughan's century and some doughty resistance from the unlikely duo of Read and Batty prevented Sri Lanka by a single wicket from sealing victory. However, like the roof of the dilapidated Asgiriya stadium, the top order came crashing down on the fifth day, with the first five wickets going down before the first hundred runs had been posted, leaving a task which Bell and Prior came very close to surmounting until stumbling on the final block in form of the second new ball.
Unlike their last visit to Kandy, England were very much in the game, but despite nice efforts from Bell, twice, and Jayasuriya in his last Test innings, only one batsman truly mastered the deceptive conditions, playing the significant and match-deciding innings. Even in the context of the recent achievements of Mohammed Yousuf, who eclipsed Viv Richard's record for Test runs in a year and Michael Hussey, currently making a more concerted effort to deserve the title Bradmanesque than any other since the man himself, the batting exploits of Kumar Sangakkara stand out. Even before his recent rise to the stratosphere of run-scoring, Sangakkara was a highly impressive cricketer - silky batsman, skilled gloveman, and one of the most eloquent players on the international circuit. Now he has handed the gauntlets over to Prasanna Jayawardene, who himself looked an extremely nifty practitioner, one can add the fact that runs flow as freely from his bat as revered utterances from the microphone of Richie Benaud, or sensitive personal details from the Home Office. Unhindered by keeping duties, he averages 96.40 from 22 Tests (Hussey 86.18 from 18 in all, Bradman 102.48 from his first 22); on current form, he should breeze past the 1000 run mark for the calendar year in just his sixth Test, with 4 centuries and an average of 184.20 so far. The rest of the world can but offer a silent prayer of thanks that Gilchrist never considered giving up the gloves.
However, as one career blossoms and writes itself into the annals for perpetuity, another, that of Sanath Jayasuriya, his position in cricketing history long since secured, came to a dignified and fitting ending. That is to say he pummelled the crap out of England's bowlers in the second innings, took an important wicket with his left-arm spin and was generally the main pillar of support for the titanic duo of Sangakkara and Muralitharan. His statistics - Test average flush on 40, ODI one of just over 30 - indicate significant, but not special prowess; his feats however, will be remembered as fondly and seriously as those of the very greatest. Many of them have been against England, yet watching him was always a joy, regardless of the dismantling he would be effecting on your team's bowling attack. He retires as a 38 year-old who still hits the ball as hard and sweet as any player in his prime, with a sackful of memories, legions of fans and basking in the glory of one last thrash, the fitting codicil he penned for himself by slaying all six balls of a James Anderson over for boundaries.
Jayasuriya departs with a job technically only half-done, but one whose completion England can only prevent by functioning at twice their normal level of performance. Crushingly it seems they will be deprived of their slickest bowling practitioner, Matthew Hoggard, whose run of injury woe continued with a recurrence of the back problem which incapacitated him in the summer. In his absence, the England attack looks both green and threadbare. Yet, lurking in the background, remains the one link England still have to the attack which catpulted them to pre-eminence two very long years ago. Sadly since then , Steven Harmison's connection with the bowler he used to be has grown ever fainter. But England have no choice. Neither, in fact, does Harmison, if he really wants his Test career to last much longer. England have supported, nursed and defended Harmison in the face of increasing public indignation since his Ashes debacle last year. Harmison, who can be the big bully but craves the support of his cornermen, must now dig deep and find the ability to lead an attack one would expect in the veteran of 54 Tests. Sidebottom will plug away accurately, something he can be relied on for even when the wickets dry up, as they have and may continue to do here; it is Harmison who must provide the inspiration, aggression and threat. It is time he stopped being afraid of himself and the game and started instilling some fear into his opposition, as he did in his pomp in 2004.
James Anderson was unlucky in the first Test; he also went at 5.5 an over in the second innings and would be fortunate to retain his place. Stuart Broad is champing at the bit for the Test debut he has been close to since the summer; England have already backed youth in this series once by selecting Ravi Bopara, and Broad is a significantly tougher nut than his lithe frame suggests. Unless the wise-men see a pitch at Colombo which merits the inclusion of Graeme Swann as a second spinner, they must unleash twin totems Broad and Harmison. England are left with an ask which could not be much harder if Arjuna Ranatunga himself were pulling the strings of fate; they have won from here before, two tours ago, with sterling performances from the seam bowlers, spin duo and a few doughty batsmen. For Thorpe, read Pietersen; for Croft, Panesar; for Gough and Caddick, Sidebottom and Harmison. For the knowledge of that outcome and its ramifications, substitute hope and apprehension. And pray the English bats hold firm, the bowlers avoid further injury and the umpires' trigger fingers are judicious. Get grafting.
Unlike their last visit to Kandy, England were very much in the game, but despite nice efforts from Bell, twice, and Jayasuriya in his last Test innings, only one batsman truly mastered the deceptive conditions, playing the significant and match-deciding innings. Even in the context of the recent achievements of Mohammed Yousuf, who eclipsed Viv Richard's record for Test runs in a year and Michael Hussey, currently making a more concerted effort to deserve the title Bradmanesque than any other since the man himself, the batting exploits of Kumar Sangakkara stand out. Even before his recent rise to the stratosphere of run-scoring, Sangakkara was a highly impressive cricketer - silky batsman, skilled gloveman, and one of the most eloquent players on the international circuit. Now he has handed the gauntlets over to Prasanna Jayawardene, who himself looked an extremely nifty practitioner, one can add the fact that runs flow as freely from his bat as revered utterances from the microphone of Richie Benaud, or sensitive personal details from the Home Office. Unhindered by keeping duties, he averages 96.40 from 22 Tests (Hussey 86.18 from 18 in all, Bradman 102.48 from his first 22); on current form, he should breeze past the 1000 run mark for the calendar year in just his sixth Test, with 4 centuries and an average of 184.20 so far. The rest of the world can but offer a silent prayer of thanks that Gilchrist never considered giving up the gloves.
However, as one career blossoms and writes itself into the annals for perpetuity, another, that of Sanath Jayasuriya, his position in cricketing history long since secured, came to a dignified and fitting ending. That is to say he pummelled the crap out of England's bowlers in the second innings, took an important wicket with his left-arm spin and was generally the main pillar of support for the titanic duo of Sangakkara and Muralitharan. His statistics - Test average flush on 40, ODI one of just over 30 - indicate significant, but not special prowess; his feats however, will be remembered as fondly and seriously as those of the very greatest. Many of them have been against England, yet watching him was always a joy, regardless of the dismantling he would be effecting on your team's bowling attack. He retires as a 38 year-old who still hits the ball as hard and sweet as any player in his prime, with a sackful of memories, legions of fans and basking in the glory of one last thrash, the fitting codicil he penned for himself by slaying all six balls of a James Anderson over for boundaries.
Jayasuriya departs with a job technically only half-done, but one whose completion England can only prevent by functioning at twice their normal level of performance. Crushingly it seems they will be deprived of their slickest bowling practitioner, Matthew Hoggard, whose run of injury woe continued with a recurrence of the back problem which incapacitated him in the summer. In his absence, the England attack looks both green and threadbare. Yet, lurking in the background, remains the one link England still have to the attack which catpulted them to pre-eminence two very long years ago. Sadly since then , Steven Harmison's connection with the bowler he used to be has grown ever fainter. But England have no choice. Neither, in fact, does Harmison, if he really wants his Test career to last much longer. England have supported, nursed and defended Harmison in the face of increasing public indignation since his Ashes debacle last year. Harmison, who can be the big bully but craves the support of his cornermen, must now dig deep and find the ability to lead an attack one would expect in the veteran of 54 Tests. Sidebottom will plug away accurately, something he can be relied on for even when the wickets dry up, as they have and may continue to do here; it is Harmison who must provide the inspiration, aggression and threat. It is time he stopped being afraid of himself and the game and started instilling some fear into his opposition, as he did in his pomp in 2004.
James Anderson was unlucky in the first Test; he also went at 5.5 an over in the second innings and would be fortunate to retain his place. Stuart Broad is champing at the bit for the Test debut he has been close to since the summer; England have already backed youth in this series once by selecting Ravi Bopara, and Broad is a significantly tougher nut than his lithe frame suggests. Unless the wise-men see a pitch at Colombo which merits the inclusion of Graeme Swann as a second spinner, they must unleash twin totems Broad and Harmison. England are left with an ask which could not be much harder if Arjuna Ranatunga himself were pulling the strings of fate; they have won from here before, two tours ago, with sterling performances from the seam bowlers, spin duo and a few doughty batsmen. For Thorpe, read Pietersen; for Croft, Panesar; for Gough and Caddick, Sidebottom and Harmison. For the knowledge of that outcome and its ramifications, substitute hope and apprehension. And pray the English bats hold firm, the bowlers avoid further injury and the umpires' trigger fingers are judicious. Get grafting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)