³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ BLOGS - Test Match Special
« Previous | Main | Next »

Sri Lanka in control, Muralitharan the difference

Jonathan Agnew | 14:48 UK time, Tuesday, 4 December 2007

The last time England toured these parts, Michael Vaughan scored on the last day and England managed to cling on to a well-deserved, but challenging draw. If his team is to have any chance of repeating that narrow escape, Vaughan – and probably another front line batsman – will need to play long, disciplined innings.

The pitch is worn, but is certainly not a minefield. England’s exhausted seam bowlers would be quick to point to the lack of any help for them from the cracked surface, and would agree that the man who stands between the two teams is . Monty Panesar managed to claim three wickets in the end, but the truth is that these did not come until Sri Lanka were firmly in control. The ease with which Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene dealt with him - and England’s attack in general – will create some headaches in the camp.

But these are two special batsmen. is one of the neatest and most stylish right handers in the world today while Sangakkara broke new ground by becoming the first batsman in Test history to make scores of . Sure, critics will point to two of them having been against Bangladesh – but we are talking about innings of 150 runs here: this is a great achievement.

In reflecting on England’s bowling performance I will return to the points I made about selection before the game. I was concerned that without swing, Matthew Hoggard, James Anderson and Ryan Anderson form an attack that is one dimensional – this is definitely something that must be examined before the next game. If Steve Harmison is unavailable, serious consideration must be given to playing who would provide pace and bounce.

The last day is also an important opportunity for Ravi Bopara to repay the selectors’ faith when, wrongly in my view, he was preferred to Owais Shah. Bopara was given only eight overs with the ball during Sri Lanka’s long second innings, underlining my view that his medium pace would be ineffective here. As was the case in the World Cup, Vaughan does not appear to rate his bowling highly enough for Bopara to be seriously considered as an all-rounder yet.

°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌýPost your comment

  • 1.
  • At 03:49 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Alan Price Fishe wrote:

Fair enough JA, but as I've said before, Hoggard isn't actually reliant on swing any more. For a couple of years he's been one of the best and most consistent bowlers in the world in any conditions.

  • 2.
  • At 04:21 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Peter wrote:

Today was one of those days that could have turned out quite differently, in my opinion. England bowled pretty well, particularly Jimmy A in the morning session and were really close to getting wickets on a number of occasions. But credit to Sangakarra, he's in unbelievable form right now and along with Murali, could be the difference between the teams in the whole series.

I think we have decent chance of saving the game tomorrow. As you say Aggers, the pitch isn't a complete minefield and providing the batsmen apply themselves, go out with in the right mind set and have a plan against Murali who is basically going to bowl all day, we could well force the draw; a result which I feel over the four days so far we probably deserve.

  • 3.
  • At 04:22 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Grabyrdy wrote:

Sanga has made all these runs after being relieved of his wicketkeeping duties. Can you imagine, Aggers, that the English selectors, with their obsession with players who can do a lot of things (sort of), would ever have the wisdom and courage to do something similar ?

Totally agree with you (for once) Aggers, Broad and Shah should have played. Hoggard is reasonably effective when the ball isn't swinging but the other two don't look too likely to take wickets in those conditions.

Broad also adds a bit of depth to the batting which may well be desperately needed in the remainder of the series

  • 5.
  • At 04:34 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • s uppal wrote:

Overall i agree with your article except for the bopara bit, i think he will come good plus how can he improve his bowling if he isn't given the chance to do so.

  • 6.
  • At 04:34 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • M.Harvie wrote:

This has been a fascinating Test Match. I am still not convinced that Sri Lanka will win although they hold the upper hand. England will fight every inch of the way and have batsmen who can bat as long as required.Murali is key, but I think Jayasuriya will have an important say.This has been a very good advertisement for Test cricket.Well played, both sides.

  • 7.
  • At 04:50 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Aggers wrote:

Answer to Alan: true, but he needs variety around him...and he has now gone in the back!. Answer to post 2: No!

  • 8.
  • At 04:53 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • malcolm anderson wrote:

Aggers before calling ravi'S bowling as inefectual you shouldlook at the bowling figures! you should keep your dislike of Ravi to yourself lets not forget his opening the bowling in the warm match recently and don't forget who bowled mr cricket in the winter. I think he is being held back.Shah and Ravi should play and where is the other spinner? sitting in the changing room!! The players who concern me are prior, cook (he looks like he's lost it) bell well if we take away the 50 odd run sangga made after the dropped catch his run tally doesn't look so good, he has got a concentration problem does stupid things, those runouts in the winter didn't he get the nick name 'benny hill'.

  • 9.
  • At 05:11 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Adam wrote:

Okay okay Aggers we get it you would have made better selection decisions before the game.

  • 10.
  • At 05:13 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Dan wrote:

Unfortunately this match demonstrates our complete inability to turn the screw on our opponents. Instead we allow them back into the game. The same happened in the second Ashes test last winter.

  • 11.
  • At 05:17 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Paul Harker wrote:

With Collingwood in the side providing medium pace 'Buy-a-wicket' bowling, there is no room for Ravi at the moment. In the first innings, Ravi looked like a one-day batter who was a little out of his depth. Time is on his side, but Shah should be playing in these conditions against these bowlers.

Jimmy and Ryan have huffed and puffed but failed to blow any houses down. Time to give Broad and Swann a go I reckon, especially if Hoggy pulls up lame.

At least then we could drop Prior down the order, to occupy a batting slot more suited to his skills. Just above Monty should do it...


  • 12.
  • At 05:42 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • daryl huff wrote:

To be honest I think we miss Flintoff on the Sub-Continent more than any other part of the world because the balance of the team requires 3 seamers and two spinners.This means that without Freddie we need to have a backup plan.Remeber Kandy is the least spinner friendly pitch we are playing on this tour, but tomorrow facing Murali will be a nightmare.I think we need to play Graham Swann as a second spinner at 7 and Chris Broad at 8 in the next test, you lose a bit in the batting with Prior at 6 but With Pieterson injured in the next test Owais Shar can play at 5 with Collinwood at 4.Tomorrows situation is perfectly set up for Michael Vaughen and Paul Collingwood to star tomorrow I think we have to be bold and take risk, just like 2001 when Nassar Hussains team conquered.

  • 13.
  • At 05:59 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

Just above Monty??? You're joking? All Prior has done was get a some runs agains the Windies, and all of a sudden he's better than Monty?!!

Seriously though, Prior has an average of 39.70 - if you take away his best scores of 126* and 75 he's down at 21.77!

  • 14.
  • At 06:22 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Tim wrote:

@ Michael

If you take out all Bradman's hundreds (or high scores as you have done with Prior), then he probably has a pretty poor average as well!

  • 15.
  • At 06:40 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Larry smith wrote:

Hi

This seems a very familar story England trying to save a test against Muri we know England can't defend any reasonable total against good spin bowling , you look at england sport in General and you know we are at best reasonable at worst average how do we change the mind set we are after all a Country of 60 million + how many people in Sri Lanka?

  • 16.
  • At 07:01 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Joe wrote:

Take away Prior's best scores because they suddenly do not count?

He is the highest averaging keeper in first class cricket that is English and is the most qualified to bat at 7

  • 17.
  • At 07:51 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Jon Hancock wrote:

It strikes me than what is needed is another of those bee storms...but this time to last several hours. Even Muralitharan will struggle to bowl England out from a prone position

  • 18.
  • At 08:02 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • rob wickham wrote:

Right, 341 to win from (weather permitting) 570 balls....posible?

if England can bat out the first session, losing just Anderson they will be about 90-2, such is Bells form.

So as long as that happens it will be 250 odd from 400 balls.
if England play Murali positively anget Batsmen in while keeping wickets in hand it could be close.

  • 19.
  • At 08:16 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Bigfan2710 wrote:

I agree with Aggers about Bopara. I think that Shah should have played in this match especially as Bopara has hardly bowled. That said, I hope the boys dig in tomorrow and if Bopara gets some runs tomorrow I'll gladly eat my bowl of humble pie. C'mon England!

  • 20.
  • At 08:22 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • cabinboy wrote:

I dropped my breakfast when I saw the three bowlers England had sent out in Kandy. Hoggard may have some more tools in his armory but his principle weapon is still swing, and all three of them bowl at a similar speed.

Personally, Id have played both Harmison and Broad alongside Hoggard.

  • 21.
  • At 08:25 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • sam wrote:

I am sick and tired of this sneaky way of dumbing down a non-english player's achievements by blaming mystery critics.now,which critic is saying Sangakkara scored 150 plus scores against Bangladesh and so he can't be that good? if that is so easy then why can't any English player score those useless centuries against weak opposition like Bangladesh?

  • 22.
  • At 09:01 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Mark Kidger wrote:

Fair enough Jon. I was worried about an attack of Hoggard, Sidebottom and Anderson, but was convinced that Sidebottom is now a 90mph tearaway who would give us the fast bowling bite that the lack of Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison had taken away.

James Anderson has at least taken his first Test wickets in Sri Lanka (his aggregate was 0 after the 2003 series). However, a match return of 2-167 suggests a lack of penetration. 5.6 an over in the 2nd innings follows his trend of being very expensive when he isn't taking wickets and offering a lot of 4-balls.

Ryan Sidebottom has match figures of 1-123 but, at least, was inexpensive, going for half the runs of Jimmy Anderson in 2 more overs.

Evidently, playing both is a luxury and, in Jimmy Anderson's case, an expensive luxury. Like you, I would decant for an evidentally highly miffed Steve Harmison for Anderson. After a good 1st Test v India, Jimmy Anderson took 7-373 in the 2nd and 3rd Tests and was by a considerable distance the most expensive bowler, so this is not a one-Test blip.

There might even be a case for bringing in Broad for Sidebottom although, in Sidebottom's case, to drop him after just one ineffectual Test would be harsh.

Shah for Bopara is a more marginal call. Shah was outbatted by Bopara in the warm-ups: should Shah be selected on the basis that 2 Tests last summer, one of which was awful, made him the man in possession?? In the case of having two players who are equal you should usually go for the younger one (Shah's 3 Tests are not enough experience to make that a factor). It might have been a wrong call not to select Shah, but it is only obvious with 20-20 hindsight and even then there is no guarantee that Shah would not have failed too.

  • 23.
  • At 09:31 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • David wrote:

A couple of valid points. First, I was surprised to see Anderson chosen ahead of Broad, simply because of the 'one-dimensionality'. The same applies to Bopara: Vaughan has a history of not trusting new players and was unlikely to ever bowl Bopara, so his selection above Shah seemed extremely odd. This is nothing against Bopara: IMO, he has exactly the temperament required for top-flight cricket, and has displayed as much. But his technique as a 'batsman-only' selection lacks the precision of Shah. So, in retrospect, both selections were odd.

As for Sangakkara's achievement - OK, two were against Bangladesh. First, they're not quite that bad anymore. Second, I seem to remember him scoring 192 against Australia last month - and he was only out because he was "sawn off" by a shocking decision.

Anyone who tries to denigrate his ability - and I don't think Aggers was trying to do so - is on poor ground. A test average of 57 is up with the Punters, Dravids and Kallises of this world. The man's a class act. And articulate enough to state as much (he spends his spare time training to be a lawyer).

Top player.

  • 24.
  • At 09:55 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Jeremy Owston wrote:

I have to agree with everyone who has pointed out the one dimensional look to England’s attack which has thus been proved with Sri Lanka's second innings. I would have had Harmison in from the start, he had some good performances in SA before the series and looked good in the last warm up match before pulling up with back spasm and by all reports was very impressive in the nets before the match. With Harmy in the side at least MV has options on the field and the batsmen are given a different problem. In my view he has to be picked for the next test to give some hostility in the attack which complements the likes of Hoggard (if fit) and Sidebottom.

Congrats to Murali great player inspirational to so many, and also congrats to Sangakkara great innings

  • 25.
  • At 10:38 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • lethallefty2002 wrote:

We only skittled them out in the first innings because of a few inspired overs from Hoggy, but again Anderson has been left looking like an also-ran, with no real consistency. I think its also time to forget Harmison for a while, he has underperformed ever since the Ashes series 2005, and I feel Chris Tremlett should feel a bit hard done by not being in the squad after performing adequately over the summer. He has more consistency than Harmy and poses batsmen more questions with his line and bounce. I'm still a bit unsure about Broad, but the 4 bowlers for me should have been Monty, Hoggy, Sidebottom and Tremlett.
I hope Alistair Cook's low scores will only be a minor blip too, as we are looking thin on openers without Andrew Strauss.

  • 26.
  • At 11:11 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Earl 'Caba' Bennett wrote:

As I stated yesterday'Let's hope the game comes to an exciting conclusion"It appears that I may get my desire.Murali will go all out tommorrow to try to bowl Sri Lanka to victory and if he succeeds,it will be double celebration for him and all of Kandy.For he has said it himself "breaking records is not quite fullfilling if you end up on the losing team'.Having said that England is going to battle fiercely[I believe] to save this match.What a JOY Sangakarra is to batsmanship specifically and cricket in general asd spectators we have been feasted to some wonderful cricket with two records tumbling to Murali and Sangakarra.So it's on to tommorrow for appears to be a gripping day of cricket .Regardless to the result /outcome on the final day's play CRICKET will be the WINNER

  • 27.
  • At 01:35 AM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Monty's a confidence bowler. if he has a quick at the other end who is also asking questions, he raises his game and gets into the swing of things. if he has Anderson giving the game to the opponents (as he has done so much in the past), he goes into his shell.

Hoggard wasn't finding the shape he did in th first innings, and had a bad back so couldnt bowl much. add that to SL's tendency to get higher 2nd innings scores and this situation is no surprise.

but we can't just defend against Murali tomorrow no matter how good the pitch is - he's like Warne, because of th pressure and psychological effect you have to attack him to defend, kind of. in the first innings against him, we displayed the typical english trait of playing the reputation and not the bowler, when the rest of SL's attack was toothless.

the fact is, remove Murali and england would be on the verge of winning this test now. SL can afford to prepare th wickets the way they do, bat attritionally and slowly and then rely on Murali to get cheap wickets, because he's that good.

  • 28.
  • At 02:30 AM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Samir wrote:

Hi,

The bowling attack looks fragile without Flintoff in there. There are no hit the deck bowlers for this game that can cause problems to batsmen even on a slow wicket. What on earth is Matt Prior doing in the team. I can only see his columns on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ sport. He is all talk.

  • 29.
  • At 02:43 AM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Brett wrote:

I promised my girlfriend I'd cook her breakfast for a week if England survive today...

  • 30.
  • At 03:41 AM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • DTG wrote:

Guys, your forgetting that this is Kandy and this is a wicket where Sri Lanka chased 350+ on a 4th innings to beat Zimbabwe (although England is nothing compared to them) and also where out of the last few matches, Sri Lanka managed to pull off nail biting finishes to beat Australia and South Africa by 1 wicket!!

Except for one match Vs Pakistan some 15 years ago, all matches gave done down to the wire and if England keep to the basics they are well within a sniff of a chance but if they get too smart, Murali will run through them like hot knife through butter.

Kandy is a wicket where most times get better to bat towards the end of a test match and has no parallel to the norms where the pitch detoriate towards the end!

  • 31.
  • At 11:53 AM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Hey Brett, you weren't saved by Bell, but by the Magician "M". I pitty your girl friend. Good luck next time.

  • 32.
  • At 11:57 AM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Graham Donald wrote:

Hello Guys,
Can anyone tell me why it is that England will be facing New Zealand over the first six months of next year down in NZ and then back in England. Surely the planning could have been better and will they not become bored stiff of the sight of each other? Graham in Cyprus

  • 33.
  • At 02:30 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Philip. wrote:

Why oh why,was it almost certain,that defeat was the inevitable conclusion.
Having witnessed,the pathetic attitude of our,so called best players batting in Kandy,I find it amazing as to the unbelievable convictio,in resigning to defeat,without even considering the intention of getting the 350 runs needed,and a morale boosting victory.
I honestly believe,the England TCCB is amazingly very nieve,and very short of progresive ideas,so long are they in the tooth,with their ageing attitudes in the game.
God help us.

  • 34.
  • At 06:47 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Vijay K Vijayaratnam wrote:

I wish to congratulate a fellow outstanding tamil ,Muralitharan for the world record breaking feat at the anchient kingdom of kandy,ruled by the last tamil king before the defeat by the British .Now the cricket's genius spin baller has been the chief destroyer of the English criket test team in this test.As a cricket player myself for a consulting firm back in 1993, since then I have met former test captains of England , West Indies,Pakistan and Sri Lanka .
I wish Muralitharan many more achievements in the near future.

This post is closed to new comments.

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ iD

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ navigation

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ © 2014 The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.