England need to reach three figures
Although heavy rain at tea had the final say, England were good value for their .
They batted positively on the final day, losing only three wickets and although they can’t now win the series, they can still level it.
But Sri Lanka are the dominant team – no doubt about it – and England must learn some important lessons, particularly the need for their batsmen to convert their 60s, 70s and 80s into far bigger scores.
Good players on the subcontinent like , Rahul Dravid, Mohammad Yousuf and Mahela Jayawardene (and others) really make bowlers pay when they get in.
But while England batsmen have registered 10 scores of more than 50 in these two Tests, no-one has reached three figures yet.
, for example, looked in brilliant touch, and he will be furious at his tame dismissal for 61 when he patted back a return catch to Dilhara Fernando.
We praised England’s seam bowlers for their efforts here, but Sri Lanka have scored nearly 1,000 runs in their last two innings.
Matthew Hoggard looks to be fit enough to return in the final match of the series at , probably at Stuart Broad’s expense, and England will be hoping for a match-winning performance from Monty Panesar.
It is the quick bowlers who swing the ball – Ryan Sidebottom and Hoggard – who have looked the most dangerous so far.
managed only one wicket from the 27 overs he sent down in his second innings and his figures from the two games make an interesting comparison.
At Kandy he took 9-60 runs from 71 overs: that is a wicket every eight overs at an average of 17.
At Colombo it was 6-173 from 74 overs: a wicket every 12 overs at 28 runs apiece.
England deserve credit for batting positively against him, and he has not looked his usual bubbly self to the extent that he might be carrying a minor injury.
Since nobody knows how the Galle pitch will play next week, there must be a chance that Sri Lanka will play their second spinner there, which would ease Murali’s workload.
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌýPost your comment
This was one boring test match.
Complain about this comment
No doubt this test was heading for a draw.No one should have expected the fairly powerful English batting to fold up on a single day even with the world class spinner Muttiah Muralitharan around.The SSC has always been a batsman's paradise and even though Muttiah got 6 wickets in the first assay its asking him too much to get England out in a day on a wicket like the SSC.
The Galle wicket is untested territory and the match could be close but with the scales tipped in Sri Lanka's favour.England got to win this so they have a mighty task ahead as for SL even a draw would be acceptable but a win will be their aim.
Complain about this comment
Very true about the conversion of 50's to 100's, although I would say that England have been a tad unlucky not to get one (Vaughan, 1st innings)
Regarding Murali's bowling, do you mean 9-160? But the point is interesting, we are playing him better, and long may it continue!
Complain about this comment
I couldn't agree more with Johnathan's points above, when you look at the Batsmen who have been ranked World Number 1 in the past, the likes of Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting and now Sangakara, they're not there because they're getting good 50's, 60's and 70's, it's because they're getting big hundreds which couldn't be better illustrated by Sangakara scoring 4 scores of 150 in his previous 4 test matches and going to Number 1. The English batsmen have all the class of the guys above, its just the application and mental toughness that is lacking at the moment. However, it looks like Ian Bell is going from strength to strength and I expect him to be in the World top 10 for a long time to come.
Complain about this comment
Very true about the conversion of 50's to 100's, although I would say that England have been a tad unlucky not to get one (Vaughan, 1st innings)
Regarding Murali's bowling, do you mean 9-160? But the point is interesting, we are playing him better, and long may it continue!
Complain about this comment
A moral boosting draw has kept the series alive.England deserves to get something from the match and they got it.Their growing confidence to play against murali has really been a great advantage for this series as before the series we thought that they will simply bow down against Murali.Their batting line up should keep this mind that the only Srilankan bowler who is in form is Murali,other bowlers all look to be patchy.I was really expecting big performance form Vaas but he really looks to be out of form.English bowlers need to have grip on the match.They don't looks to be threatning.Welcome to Harminson,I think he can be a key bowler.Broad doesnot looks be threatning one but it can be good learning stage for him.Monty and sidebottom is doing a good job for England.Srilanka has always been at best in Srilanka,so England needs to play their best at srilanka.I hope the next match will be a nailbitter.
Complain about this comment
Aggers, you make a very fair point about the England batsmen needing to convert 50s into 100s. In addition to the batsmen you mentioned, Hayden & Ponting are prime examples of an excellent conversion rate. I recall Graham Gooch was adept at making big hundreds on a regular basis.
From a batting point of view, England are being hampered by the poor form of Pietersen, who is (probably) their best player of spin bowling.
Whilst he still has much to learn, I think the criticism of Panesar has been misguided. His stats (on a relative basis to his peers) remain very good indeed - he is really just lacking patience, which will come with experience. As you mentioned in a previous column, bowling maidens on a consistent basis will help build previous on opposing batsmen.
Enjoy the heat - it's positively baltic in the UK !!
Complain about this comment
Concur...we need big sccores from the lower order. The bowlers need to work more too, not just plod in, but out think them too.
Complain about this comment
Any player who reaches 60 or 70 in a test match has obviously batted himself in and should be able to go on and make a century. At that stage it is purely about being focused. With so many of our players unable to do this I recommend we send them to a concentration camp.
Stuart in Toddington
Complain about this comment
We are still a test quality batsman light in this system. Bopars at 6 is not right. Collingwood at 6 and bowling as much as Bopara is likely to is a better balance. We can then play Bell at 5 and slot in another county opener at 3,possibly Strauss. I appreciate this can't happen in Sri Lanka but if we are thinking of taking on other nations with Bopara at 6 then we are light.
Complain about this comment
Quite right about the conversion rate JA. Ian Bell in particular needs to get his game together. His first innings was dreadful, blocking and blocking and not helping Cook to get out of his rut. Bell's second innings was much better, positive, good footwork...then he throws it all away with a barmy shot. Add to that the catches he's grassed in both tests...he needs to deliver consistently, not just talk a good game.
One thing that 20-20 has shown is that, if both batters run decisively and go straightaway, there are runs to be had off virtually every ball. England need to take this kind of mentality to Galle, the more positive mindset they showed in the second innings here.
Complain about this comment
The comparison of Murali's figures is not a fair one. Lots of his wickets come from ripping through the lower order. If he had been given the chance to bowl at England's tail on a fifth day wicket i'm sure his figures would tell a differnent story!
Complain about this comment
England do need to post three figures as you say. But many positives. Bell is now scoring in his second innings. He and other young batsmen are finding their feet in Sri Lanka. They have never played Test cricket there before. Bell had never played Murali in Test cricket before. Comparisons with Sri Lanka veteran top batsmen on their home grounds are bound to be unrealistic. But the England top order has shown good intent and batted well against the best bowler in the world, expecially on his home wickets. Best of all, two days in the field showed excellent team spirit and I think Harmy and the rest of the bowlers kept Sri Lanka to a low scoring rate.
Complain about this comment
I think you're right, it seems that away from home at least, England are bit of a one-innings team when it comes to batting: either they get too comfy from a first innings lead and then let it go in the field & 2nd innings... or they have to bat their way back into the match after an indifferent start.
I hope Swann will get his Test debut, probably at the expense of Broad, though we shouldn't expect miracles from him.
From what I read, Broad & Harmy are a bit too similar in style for the same pitch... or Sri Lankan pitches at least.
Complain about this comment
Yes, England batsmen should convert more 50's into 100s, but the likelihood is that at least one of Vaughan, Pietersen or Cook would have posted a century plus in the first innings if it wasn't for one freakish dismissal and two appalling errors by the umpires.
Complain about this comment
I remember Tim Robinson and his capacity to score big hundreds, he just never let it slip and did not score less than 148 whenever he got past 100...and for me it really is down to mindset.
I would always encourage people like Bell and KP to play their game but at times the mark of a true great is adapting and playing with controlled agression - this isnt 20/20 afterall!
Its hard to castigate players scoring runs but once they are "in", they really have to cash in and make it count - if Vaughan had done what Jayawardene did then perhaps it could have been a very different game!
Complain about this comment
England's batting has been poor for a long time now. Far too many players getting in and not making the most of it. Ian Bell, although England's best batsman in this series, has twice got out trying to hit Murali over the top when looking in absolutely no trouble whatsoever. This is symptomatic of bad thought processes; in this case trying to dominate the bowler. Not many batsmen in the world are capable of dominating Murali on his home pitches - the mindset should be to rotate the strike as often as possible and hit the rare bad balls for four. Great batsmen understand that they will have periods out of form and make sure they don't give their wicket away once they are in.
Another oft-quoted phrase is to "play your natural game". This is absolute rubbish. Test match cricket is about adapting to different circumstances throughout a match and a series. When a bowler is getting hit by a batsman, particularly in one-day cricket, no one says he should carry on bowling his natural length - he has to vary his bowling to suit the conditions of the game. This insistence on playing their natural game has led to several England defeats in recent memory when sensible batting would have saved the game, most notably at Adelaide in the last Ashes series when Pietersen was out trying to sweep Shane Warne out of the rough and against the spin when he had faced the grand total of four balls.
Complain about this comment
England should have taken Ramps - he would have got a double century there!
England still have a chance, and comfortably earned a draw in Colombo. Although no one has capitalised, its a good sign to see them chalking up decent scores without a single bug contributor.
Hoggy has to be back, though my man would be Harmison. Although he bowled well, I have doubts about his fitness, and Broad could do with the experience and his ability as a No 8 batsman, like Irfan Pathan, shouldn't be underestimated.
Complain about this comment
I can't see England winning the last Test. Sri Lanka are good at hammering the weak and England are a bit weak at the moment. They simply have no killer instinct. Every time they get themselves back in teh game they either lose a wicket if batting or fail to take one for ages if bowling.
Sri Lanka, with the notable exception of 1995 World Cup, have demonstrated they are BIG MEN in little matches, but LITTLE MEN in big matches. Hammering the weak before bottling it against the big teams.
Lose to Australia easily then beat a weak England side. Sums up Sri Lanka, and also sums up England.
Complain about this comment
I agree that the batsman need to pile on big scores when they get in, but more worryingly, at the moment we look a million miles away from securing the 20 wickets necessary in a match to draw the series level.
Complain about this comment
I agree with you aggers. If england are to square the series they must get hundreds as 70s and 80s don't win you matches. England also lack penetration with their bowlers, apart from hoggard and sidebottom the others look dangerous in small patches. Panesar has been bowling quite poor in these conditions and needs to vary his bowling if he is to take wickets. I think that if england don't go with a second spinner they should bring in swann to be their sole spin bowler
Complain about this comment
I was pleased that England managed to not only save the match but look quite component in the way they went about it.
I am a big fan of Broad and think he showed a lot of character in the way he continued to bowl after being warned for running on the pitch twice. That said I feel if Hoggard is fit then he should make way for him.
I was also heartened to see Harmison bowl straight, there appeared to be something in his body language that may (MAY) suggest he has worked through some of his issues.
My only other thought was Shah in place of Ravi, I just feel this will add a little more to batting line up, in experience if nothing else.
Complain about this comment
Fair play to both teams, the pitches are pretty much dead compared to over here in GB and the hard working bowlers aren't getting much reward. Even Monty is struggling. Keep on going lads, with a bit of luck we can get 500 and hopefully hoggy will wipe out the Sri Lanka batting line up.
Can you imagine, with Freddie wee would be 2-0 up now
Complain about this comment
Fine player as he is, Michael Vaughan is one of the worst offenders in this regard. How many times has he came in to bat in test cricket, hit a trouble-free 30 or 40 and looked to be heading for a big score, only then to fall foul of a rather soft dismissal?
Complain about this comment
Good point Aggers - who's scored Test centuries for England in the last couple of years against the big 5 (SA, Aus, Pak, Ind, SL)?
Would make an interesting comparison vice versa, if anyone can be geeky enough to work it out!
Complain about this comment
Excellent blog as ever Aggers - also great to hear you and Vic developing into the Morecambe and Wise of TMS.
My serious point:
Ian Bell seems to be copping a lot of flak for his low 'conversion rate' in recent tests. Admittedly it is frustrating to see such a talented batsman squander his wicket, having 'done all the hard work' (although once you reach 50 surely a lot of the hard work is still to come, no matter how 'in' a batsman may seem? This is why scores of 60 and 70 are much more common than 160 and 170) But it is easy to forget how comparatively inexperienced he is. We are quite right to praise Sangakkara and Jayawardene for their staggering powers of concentration and patience, but they both boast bucketloads of experience (70 and 92 tests respectively). How were they doing when they were at the same stage of their careers (32 tests) as Bell is now?
Bell 2261 @ 43.48. 6 100s, 17 50s.
Jayawardene 2177 @ 43.54. 5 100s, 10 50s.
Sangakarra 2255 @ 46.97. 4 100s, 13 50s.
(he also compares pretty favourably with Ponting at the same stage, to take a random example of another top ten batsman). It is true that at that stage both the Sri Lankans had double hundreds to their name, but they also had plenty of low to middling scores. With very rare exceptions, it seems to take time to acquire the patience and stamina required to play innings like Jayawardene's magnificent 195 on a regular basis.
Given that time I'm sure that Bell will learn to play the big innings more regularly - meanwhile let's just be grateful that he is contributing 60s and 70s, not 10s and 20s.
Complain about this comment
England are such Gods that they will level the series in Gaulle.
Complain about this comment
Agnew and others go on a lot about the need for batsmen to get "big hundreds". This would be nice; but only a very few England batsmen have ever scored over ( say ) 150 more than occasionally.
Meanwhile several of the current top order should get credit for being a lot more consistent than many of their recent predecessors. Bell, for example gets to 50 more often per innings than any England batsman apart from Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Barrington; and at a rate far higher than ( eg) Atherton; Gooch or Gower. It would be nice to see him getting credit for this, rather than moaning that he doesn't turn more of them into centuries. (He also gets hundreds at a better rate than those 3 in any case )
Be fair, chaps
Complain about this comment
England have been like this for a while there batsman arent reaching there potential it happened in 2007 when they faced australia, and its still happening they dont score big hundreds. the reason its more obvious now is pieterson isnt getting a hundred so the pressure is on someone to step up while he is in small slump and get that extra 80 to 100 runs. this series should be 1-0 to england if u get a team out for 188 and lose is not good enough with the quality of the england top order. and fighting back in the second innings is ok against weaker attacks on dead pitches, but south africa this summer and australia 2009 wont let england do this these 2 teams have more potent attacks then 1 good off spinner.
Complain about this comment
England have been like this for a while there batsman arent reaching there potential it happened in 2007 when they faced australia, and its still happening they dont score big hundreds. the reason its more obvious now is pieterson isnt getting a hundred so the pressure is on someone to step up while he is in small slump and get that extra 80 to 100 runs. this series should be 1-0 to england if u get a team out for 188 and lose is not good enough with the quality of the england top order. and fighting back in the second innings is ok against weaker attacks on dead pitches, but south africa this summer and australia 2009 wont let england do this these 2 teams have more potent attacks then 1 good off spinner.
Complain about this comment
#24 interesting info - can you go further and compare the opposition in the 32 tests for these 3 players? If the opposition is comparable (or in Bell's favour) then you may have a point that is not readily apparent.
I for one would never put Bell in the same class as Jayawardene or Sangakarra, but I'm ready to stand corrected!
Complain about this comment
Far too much time is spent on the importance of Pietersen. England have this problem of 'star' status in a number of sports including football and cricket. The team always suffers because of it. Cook, Vaughan and Collingwood (one of the most underated players of all time) are all capable of big scores and their importance should not be dwarfed by the flamboyance of Pietersen.
Complain about this comment
We would crush them if it were not for Murali's constant addition to his 700+ run-outs.
Complain about this comment
Great blog by Aggers and I do believe that England have to adress this low conversion rate that they now possess.
However I feel that the main point that I want to put forward is that all our batsmen (save two) are firing. Vaughan and Cook have both notched up fifties and two centuaty partneships to boot. Bell has contributed three fifties along with Prior who is one behind (which is a timely return to form)and Collingwood who has scored one fifty.
Our bowlers are the main problem, although Sidey and Harmy are bowling good lines they are not picking up the wickets we need, but with the expected return of Hoggard things may just pick up.
Lastly I would like to comment on Ravi Bopara. He has had a fantastic county season scoring his debue double hundred, but I think being put into the Test scene is a bit too much for him. Let him deliver on the one day setup first, in which his achievements at number seven have been over exagerated.
Complain about this comment
Big hundreds have been England's downfall for a long time and the lack of one first innings spoilt this game as a spectacle. Sri Lanka have really shown how to play on these pitches and just witness how Pakistan applied themselves in the last two tests in India scoring big hundreds to save games and show real pride when up against it. No doubt we have the talent just a bit of luck and a tadge more belief is needed.
Complain about this comment
With England needing a win in the final game, it has to be time for the second spinner.
However, I would not forsake a seamer to get the extra bowler. The batsmen all, Prior included, look in really good touch and I am sure we shall not leave Sri Lanka without two of then reaching three figures. With this in mind, I would push Prior to six, and then play Swann at seven, followed by Harmy, Hoggard, Sidebottom, and Panesar. Swann is no mug with the bat, and Sidebottom has shown he can hold an end up for an hour or two.
So the pressure will be on the five batters plus Prior to get the runs, and the extra bowler will give England the best opportunity to take twenty wickets; something they simply haven't looked like doing on this tour...
Complain about this comment
They don't make big scores because they're mentally weak. Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
You've hit the nail on the head, Jonathan. England's batting still seems to lack that steely determination to make it really count once they've gotten themselves in - this has been a problem for sometime, and I believe that relatively weak batting cost us the home series against India. The bowling looks ok for the future - if handled well... But I still believe that a touring side needs more first class cricket on tours, not just test matches; the home side can pull from their domestic competitions, but touring sides have two or three - often relatively inexperienced - players sitting idle between the tests when they need match practice.
Complain about this comment
Mr Agnew
Have you been pinching my posts fromm the 606 boards??
/dna/606/A30054223
Safe journey to Galle
All the best
Sir Virgs
Complain about this comment
It was a well saved draw, following on from a close effort in the previous week.
However, I would like to comment on Bopara. He is presumably in the team ahead of Shah for what he offers as an all round proposition. However, given we have spent the best part of two days and 187 overs in the field, why has he not bowled more than 7 overs? In fact why did Vaughan not bowl himself especially as KP bowled 15 overs and got more turn than anyone. I would replace Shah with Bopara for the next test, which will strengthen the batting as he is a great player of spin. He can also twirl the odd over - did he not pick up a wicket recently?
Bopara was unlucky to come in when he did with Malinga's slinging down his yorkers, but in all honesty, he is not yet a test batsman.
Complain about this comment
I think England will be fairly positive coming out of this test match. Bowlers were drawing false shots out of the Sri Lankan batsmen and but for a series of dropped catches could have held them to a much lower total. Similarly the batsmen got in but through a mixture of fatigue and poor judgement didn't capitalise on their position.
Maybe they will go out and win in Galle, maybe they won't. I'll say this though - I'm a lot more positive about the state of English test cricket after this performance than I was at the start of the game. People forget how hard it has been historically to go to Sri Lanka or the indian subcontinent and come away with a win.
Complain about this comment
John: if you insist!
Bell comes out of that test pretty well: 10 of his tests have been against Australia (against whom he averages 25), while Sangakkara played everyone EXCEPT Australia for his first 32 tests, and Jayawardene only played them three times. Otherwise, it's a pretty even spread: Sanga played Zim and BD 5 times, Mahela 3 times, Bell twice (but his highest score came against them and he has also benefitted from 5 tests against a shockingly weak West Indies). Interestingly, 4 of Bell's centuries have been scored against Pakistan, and 6 of his fifties v Australia. Or maybe that isn't that interesting.
One can prove or disprove anything with statistics of course - IB compares poorly with KP or Vaughan at the same stage, but extremely well with Graham Thorpe (2 tons, 19 50s!). Go figure. He may not be in the same class as the two Sri Lankans right now, but then neither were they when they were at the same stage as him.
I'm looking forward to Galle - whatever the result, it will be a memorable occasion and wonderful to see Test cricket played there again.
Complain about this comment
There is no question that England will take far more satisfaction and positives out of this match than Sri Lanka.
Muttiah Muralitharan is being played more positively and with more confidence and is most definitely not enjoying the experience. It may be that he is feeling that shoulder injury again, but he is definitely not the same force as he was in the last two series against England. It is interesting to hear him appeal for support in the attack and even to appear reluctant to bowl on a day when most people expected him to be licking his lips at the anticipated rout.
All of the batsmen bar Bopara now have runs. Matt Prior seems to be getting to grips with batting at 7 and there may now be a case for moving him up to 6 and letting Bopara bat at 7. There is also a case for playing Prior at 6 and Swann at 7, followed by the same four bowlers as in this match, to allow more attacking options in a game that we have to win. If Bopara were to make way for Swann he could consider himself most unfortunate – rarely in recently years has a batsman been dropped in mid-series – but the next match is a special case. It is one that we have to win. If Bopara’s bowling is not to be used, a spinner turning the ball the opposite way to Panesar may prove to be more valuable to the side. With Harmison and Sidebottom making a strong enough showing to suggest that they may be a handful in more favourable conditions and Monty still our most likely match-winner, the only likely change in the bowling attack would be Hoggard, if fit, for Broad. However, it’s a fearful risk if Matthew Hoggard were to break down again on the first morning, particularly if we don’t have the extra bowler in the XI.
The most interesting thing is Mahela Jayawardne railing against England’s negative play and saying that their slow scoring killed the match. After 110 overs, England had scored 322-7, Sri Lanka 329-3. Who is kidding whom with this odd outburst? Could it be that Jayawardene is starting to feel that the momentum is shifting and that he is under a little pressure?
Complain about this comment
In response to John, comment 31.
10 of Bell's 32 tests have been against Australia, with several against Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka. This makes his figures all the more impressive. I don't think he's faced our two visitors in 2008, SA & NZ.
It's true that there haven't been enough conversions this series, but at least the batting collapses of the 1990s are largely a thing of the past.
Complain about this comment
What Sri Lanka proved int his test is all you need is two big hundreds and a couple of 50's along the way to get a huge score
Complain about this comment
Sorry Anthony - we don't have any problem with star players whatsoever - we seek any means of denigrating them and their team mates. It's beyond belief.
Interested Aggers that you didn't say anything about two consecutive test 100-plus opening partnerships for the first time since 1971.
What more do you want?
We don't have the subcontinental endless run-scorers. However, it seems to me that Jayawardene made a big mistake in going for very big individual scores which in the end didn't bring victory. He should have declared a good few 50 runs sooner, and then might have had a chance of bowling England out. Nul points to him.
Complain about this comment
Notwithstanding the rain, this was England at their most disappointing. They managed to turn the final day into anything but an exciting, nail-biting struggle, by batting solidly and sensibly. What's going off?
Complain about this comment
I think Aggers' issue with the conversion rates is a complete red herring.
The issue here (as in the previous test) is England's bowling. We don't have a match-winning bowler in our side but Sri Lanka do. That is really the key difference.
You can score as many runs as you like - it doesn't matter one bit if you cannot bowl the opposing side out twice. The real disappointment for me has been Panesar - he is not threatening enough and really should be if he is to make his mark at the top level.
Complain about this comment
Come on Jeremy - Panesar is incredibly young for a spinner and has done a remarkable job for our team over the past 18 months or so. The wickets in SL have been flat as pancakes except for fast bowlers at the beginning of innings ... and given the inexperience of the England team as as a whole (except Vaughan, Harmison and Hoggard I think I'm correct in saying they haven't done a test in Sri Lanka before this two) they haven't done so badly with this slowing down SL's run rate. what you say proves my point in my posting 46. we don't have mega scorers and if you go back in test history it's always the same...... We do have moments of brilliance and some superb bowling such as Harmison produced against SL.
Complain about this comment
In response to Mr Gratton (post #37), I think that's a little bit mean!
The England team is very young compared to the Sri Lankan team - only Michael Vaughan is over 30 years old in our top four. The mental state required to be able to bat out in the blistering heat for 8 hours or so at a time is generally not something that Englishmen have evolved to cope with.
If I were you I'd cut these guys a bit of slack - it's fair enough criticising technique, but there's no need to be mean. I'm sure that with your apparently defeatist attitude you would not be able to do a better job (in the nicest possible way...).
Great bloggage as ever, Aggers!
Complain about this comment
i'm worried about the 'hogster' - he shouldn't play in galle if there is even the smallest risk of injury - we need him playing a leading role in our attack in 2008 and 2009.
Complain about this comment
Good discussion. A couple of points. Vaughan said he had urged his batsman on the last day to put pressure on Sri Lanka by overhauling their score so shots were required. This meant an entirely different approach from Kandy.
The dodgy maths of conversion rates has already been taken apart on 606. For example percentage rates always flatter a low base. For example Bell would have a better conversion rate if he had 7 or 8 50s like Colly and Cook, instead of 17 50s. His conversion rate would be amazing if he had 1 50 to his 6 100s. As it is his 17 50s means he is putting in decent scores.
Batting at 2 runs an over may get a big score, not sure it will always win games though. Perhaps the mindset is too much reliance on Murali?
Will they be forced to up their rate in Galle and give us a chance?
Fascinating.
Complain about this comment
Jackie:
The basic point that Jon makes is valid. There have been 10 fifties, but no one has yet reached 90: the highest score so far is Michael Vaughan's 87. Cook, Bell and Vaughan have all passed 80 (and Prior has a 79), but no one has made a telling score. Do you praise the batsmen for their considency? Or criticise them for failing to cash in when the going was good? Cook and Vaughan are getting solid starts, but no one is grinding the opposition down.
Overall, it's been attritional cricket. I remain fascinated by Jayawardne accusing England of killing the game with slow scoring and then Sri Lanka, with wickets in hand, barely scoring any faster! You can look at the comparative scores after "x" overs (after 110 overs the two sides were almost level).
However, after winning the 1st Test, two bore draws will suit Sri Lanka quite nicely. We have to force the pace at Galle. And that may involve taking a risk on selection and adding Swann as the 5th bowler, if only because knocking the tail over becomes far harder if the bowlers are already exhausted by having bowled 35 overs each.
Complain about this comment
We have to send a side out to win the third test. That means Swann has to play for Bopara. Thiss will make the batting may look light, but if the wicket is as good as they say, runs shouldn't be a problem, and we need 20 wickets.
Also, Hoggy in for Harmison if he's fit.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan. Good Articles. What is encouraging for England is that they have 7 batsmen (including Prior) who are looking in good touch with 50's. They have see Murali for 2 tests and as MV said, they are getting used to his bowling and reading it better. By the law of probability, if the Galle track allows batting, one of these 7 is due for a hundred, Pieterson would say a big hundred!
Complain about this comment
It's interesting about the conversions. In this series the conversation rate could not be worse. However, overall it is only Bell that fairs poorly in this. Vaughan and KP are at 50%, and Cook and Colly are comfortable over 40%. In fact, until recently Vaughan had one over the best conversion rates in test history (3/4 consecutive 50's have messed that up!)
Sangakarra and Jayawardene are both at 40% exactly.
Complain about this comment
In response to apek (#26). Very interesting stats there, especially considering that 10 of Bell's tests have been against the Aussies. But I think that herein lies the problem with the English mindset. Ian Bell would probably look at those stats and be pleased but surely it is not about being good compared to someone else, it is about being as good as you possibly can be.
The fact remains, Bell has thrown his wicket away twice in four innings in this series by trying to hit Murali over the top when the situation clearly did not warrant it.
Also, going back to the Ashes in 2005, he was out at least twice hooking, once in that excruciating second innings at Trent Bridge where we nearly threw away the game and the Ashes. I know it was his first major series and he was under a lot of pressure but that makes it even more critical that you don't play shots that are outside of your normal game. If I was his coach, I would be telling him to never play the hook shot again as he simply isn't very good at it.
Don't get me wrong - I like Ian Bell, I think he's a good batsman with a pretty sound technique and mostly a good temperament but it is just so frustrating seeing someone frequently throw their wicket away and this is hindering both his progress and England's chances. Although in the end it didn't matter in the second innings at Columbo, when he got out we were effectively something like 14-3 and a couple of quick wickets would have left us in a dire situation.
Complain about this comment
Cynical, we don't win by getting rid of our most threatening strike bowler!! If anyone makes way it has to be Broad. And Swann for Bopara looks like a racing certainty.
Complain about this comment
Team balance should influence team selection - in the 1950s (under Hutton and May) England's XI was based on five dedicated batsmen, T Bailey the number 6 all-rounder, wicket keeper at 7 followed by two spinners and two opening bowlers.
Additional bowling talent from the batters was a bonus.
To-day we miss out with the absence of Flintoff - his presence together with the batting ability of a Simon Jones at number 8 will convert an honest looking team to that of a world beater.
Complain about this comment