Australian fitness

Theoretically, Australia have bowling ‘in depth’. Which is good for them, because they are having a terrible time keeping any of their first choice quicks fit. In a best case scenario, they will have to choose three (usually) of James Pattinson, Pat Cummins, Peter Siddle, Ryan Harris and Ben Hilfenhaus. The problem for them is that it does not look like it will ever be a best case scenario. Cummins played one Test before injuring himself and has now missed the next eight. Pattinson played four Tests before being injured and missing the next three. Harris is so fragile that he has been omitted from the current Test purely as a precaution. With respect to Peter Siddle, there has been a lot of suggestion that Cummins, Pattinson and Harris are Australia’s three best bowlers. (Though I would dispute Cummins, and to a lesser extent Pattinson, on the ground that they have not played in enough Tests to properly establish their credentials.) They have to improve their fitness if they are to compete against the best sides again.

Compare the Australian situation to that of England: Jimmy Anderson has missed one Test (for any reason) since being rested for the tour of Bangladesh two years ago. There is no current consensus about the identity of the third seamer, but Steven Finn is yet to be ruled out through injury and Tim Bresnan has only been unavailable for three Tests out of the 17 since the start of the last Ashes. Only Stuart Broad has had notable injury problems, but even he has only missed four of the aforementioned 17 Tests.

The question of why Australia have such injury concerns is certainly an interesting one. I partly suspect that, slightly counter-intuitively, they play too little cricket, or at least too little first class and Test cricket. They played only three Tests in the ten months between the Ashes and the series in South Africa and their domestic teams play only ten matches in a season. It may be that when they do play they are simply not prepared for the more densely packed Tests seen in modern schedules. Cricket Australia need to find out the reason though. Australia already only have an average, or ever so slightly above, bowling attack. They can get by with playing their reserve bowlers against teams as prone to self destruction as India and the West Indies, they will not be able to do so against the better sides.

England win by eight wickets!

It’s been a disappointing winter, but England have finished it on a high. Chasing 94 to win at an absolute canter with KP hitting the winning runs with a six of none other than Dilshan (who conceded 16 to that man off four balls in the final over). I could not have asked for any more from the end of the match, really. It means that England cling onto the number one Test ranking still and will have a bit of confidence going into India this winter. It was straightforward in the end. Sri Lanka never developed a really threatening partnership and only the early wicket of Strauss threatened to disrupt England’s chase. KP took the bowling by the scruff of the neck again, however, and England ended up chasing the target in just 19.4 overs. KP got a deserved Man of the Match and almost did enough to back up his statements about not having a problem against left-arm spinners. Almost.

For now though, attention can shift in the short-term for the County Championship, and the battle therein for the number six spot in the English batting order, and the Test series in the West Indies as a good build up to their tour of England in a couple of months. Both promise to be fascinating, but I think the battle for number six will be more so. Samit Patel acquitted himself well in the second Test, but always looked like a horse for a course and it seems unlikely that he is in England’s plans for the summer. That would mean back to Bopara, back to Morgan, Bresnan or a Lions player. Simple. Morgan and Bopara should be discounted by the selectors, however. The former decided to play in the IPL rather than bat himself back into form for Middlesex and Bopara is Bopara. Bresnan seems unlikely as a six/seven batsman and given the recent preferences of the selectors will probably be the third seamer, batting at eight, or not play at all. Which would leave a Lions player. Which one will probably be down to LVCC performances, though it is interesting that James Taylor was not included in the England Performance Squad.

There is also a smaller battle to be had now for the third seamer. Bresnan would appear to be the first choice, as almost a proper all-rounder, but Finn seemed to outbowl him in the final Test. As I said above, I don’t think Bresnan will play as a sixth bat/fourth seamer (though I think he is well-qualified to do so). Once again, performances in the LVCC might make the difference, but right now I think Finn would get the nod.

Those are all things on which to keep an eye over the next six weeks. For now though, time to celebrate a much-awaited victory and the retention of the number one spot!

Colombo, day four

England are well placed to win tomorrow and they mostly have one man for whom to thank for that: Graeme Swann. He struck twice in the penultimate over to not only break a stubborn partnership between Samaraweera and Jayawardene, but also sending the nightwatchman back to the hutch two balls later. England might have fancied their chances of winning today, but will probably be happy with having Sri Lanka effectively 33-6 at stumps. Mahela Jayawardene is still in though and we already know just how troublesome he can make batting with the tail.

They day may have looked a bit dull on paper, 214-6, but in practice it was anything but. Prasad started the day by looking less like a nightwatchman and more like a replacement opener. He had a few lives, but comfortably outlasted his partner. The first wicket belatedly brought Dishonourable Dilshan to the crease and the England fieldsmen wasted no time in letting them know exactly what they thought of his antics yesterday. Dilshan responded by suggesting to the umpire that Cook had tread on the protected part of the wicket. (He had actually extended himself to stride over it.) It was all quite feisty for a while; the only thing it missed was KP bowling to Dilshan, which I would have loved to see. It did settle down, at least until Dilshan was dismissed. He got a good ball from Jimmy which he edged into his pads and from there into the hands of Strauss at slip. He immediately reviewed and the only evidence either way was a small red mark appearing on the bat as the ball went by. Given the technology, it was not going to get any clearer than that: with nothing to suggest that the umpire was wrong and a bit to suggest that he was right, Dilshan stayed out. He then threw a bit of a tantrum, but that was to be expected. The Sri Lankans both in the booth and in the dressing room proceeded to then display a complete ignorance of how the DRS actually worked. Michael Atherton had to explain it in the booth to an unhappy Sanath Jayasuria and the Sri Lankan management later expressed confusion about why Dilshan did not get the benefit of the doubt.

It is remarkable just how much gamesmanship Sri Lanka have managed to squeeze into the Test as they try to cling on to the series. It really is quite ugly. They have been repeatedly crossing the wicket when celebrating dismissals and when taking drinks, Samaraweera stood his ground in the first innings, the entire team went into a strop when they ran out of referrals and then there is Dilshan. His antics bowling to KP, appealing excessively (for which he was fined), hiding behind a nightwatchman and then the entire scenario of his dismissal are disgraceful and hopefully he parts with a bit more than just the ten per cent of his match fee he has already lost. I know most of the world wants to see England lose and slip off the number one place, but I think that those who do should also ask themselves if they really want to encourage this sort of behaviour from Sri Lanka.

Whilst all that was going on, it must be pointed out that Sangakkara has now edged the ball four times in this series and has walked straight off every single time. Most of them were pretty obvious, yes, but given the way the rest of his team were behaving I think he deserves praise for playing the game properly. It is too bad that he is no longer the captain.

At the end of the day, England are probably only a couple of early wickets away from levelling the series. Both Jayawardenes and Angelo Mathews are not yet out and can score runs, but if England can pick up where they left off (and they still have a new-ish ball) they will be well set. Sri Lanka have no choice but to score slowly on this pitch to try to keep their last wickets in hand, and as a consequence it will probably not be until past tea interval that the match is completely safe. If they can last almost that long though, there could be a scenario in which England have to chase about 160 in forty overs or so. It would be interesting to see how they would go about that, but it is probably confined to the realm of fantasy. Sri Lanka have batsmen left who could do that, but most teams would still rather be in England’s position.

Colombo, day three

A marvellous day for England. I said last night that Sri Lanka had to be worried about the implications of England’s batting clicking and we did exactly that today. KP was fantastic, absolutely dominating the Sri Lankan bowlers and showing how good he really can be. It must be said, he benefited from the top order batting well. Strauss was out last might, but Cook and Trott batted well into the morning today and England were well set by the time KP came to the middle. Batting with the pressure off and Sri Lanka already starting to fray around the edges he set about putting his boot on their throat and by the time the lunch interval came around Sri Lanka were starting to lose it in the field. They wasted both of their reviews in rapid succession, the second one a horrible referral. They then started to fire the ball around and conceded quite a few overthrows before the interval.

The big controversy of the day came with KP on 98*. He was looking imperious and had recently hit a switch-hit for four. He then set up to do so again and Dilshan pulled out. This happened twice and after Dilshan had a word with the umpires they decided to warn KP for time wasting! Whilst they did not say that KP could not play the shot, they did give him an official warning for setting himself before the bowler was in his delivery stride. As far as it goes, that is correct: all though the MCC ruled that the shot was legal, the ICC said that in international cricket the hands must not be reversed before the bowler enters his stride. The problem here was that the replay clearly showed that KP had switched his hands after the bowler had entered his stride and was thus well within his rights to do what he did. In fact, the second time KP did not even get around to switch his hands before Dilshan pulled out. The player who was wasting time was Dilshan. The entire Sri Lankan team was in a strop by this point and this was a blatant attempt at gamesmanship and sad to say, it worked. The umpires should have stood up to it, however, and it was a very, very spineless effort by them to cave in. Luckily KP was untroubled by this and brought up his hundred with a reverse sweep anyway. But it was absolutely appalling behaviour from both Sri Lanka and very poor from the umpires. Hopefully England will lodge a firm complaint about this, but in the meantime I hope Jimmy, Finn and Bres ping a few off Dilshan’s nose tomorrow. Though if he needs treatment, the umpire will probably warn England for time wasting.

Apart from that, it was a very good day for England. Four hundred and sixty all out represents a first innings lead of 185 and Sri Lanka will do well just to make England bat again. England were bowled out with one over left in the day, but Dishonourable Dilshan did not even go out to face the music, instead sending out Prasad as a nightwatchman. He survived and Sri Lanka are 4-0 overnight. There was not only turn, but very uneven bounce on display as England batted and all four of England’s main bowlers will surely be very eager to have a go tomorrow. Whilst England will probably bat again, I do not expect the match to last into a fifth day.

Colombo, day one

This was England’s day. It did not get off to a good start, Strauss lost the toss for the fourth consecutive time and Sri Lanka went in to bat. Strauss’ inability to correctly predict the path of a coin remains the number one reason why he should be sacked.

After that, however, it was eerily similar to the Galle Test, but a bit better for England this time. Once again the first three wickets fell cheaply, this time all to Jimmy Anderson. And once again Jayawardene scored an excellent century as he and Samaraweera consolidated, but this time England managed to get Jayawardene out. Swann trapped him lbw in the 80th over, plus Finn got Prasana Jayawardene before stumps and England restricted Sri Lanka’s scoring rate all day. England might have had loftier hopes after reducing Sri Lanka to 30-3, but 238-6 at stumps is still a good position after losing the toss. With Prasana out, Angelo Mathews is the last recognised batsman and England will be able to target him with a newish ball tomorrow morning.

Credit must go to James Anderson again. He bowled a fantastic spell with the new ball yet again and once again dismissed Kumar Sangakkara first ball. He did not get the hat trick, but he did get Thirimanne not long after. Those three wickets were not just reward for his efforts though. He also bowled one of the best spells one will ever see with a 60 over old ball, getting it to reverse both ways and comfortably beating the batsman time and time again. How he did not get a wicket is beyond me, he appeared to have it on a string. The consistency with which Jimmy has bowled over the past two years is incredible and he seems to be getting better. I don’t think there is any bowler in the world right now, Steyn included, who could have bowled the way Jimmy did today and he has performing at that level on very unhelpful pitches all winter. In the past two years now he has taken 101 wickets in 22 Tests (4.6 wk/Test) at an average of 22.83 and ten of those have been in unhelpful conditions. It’s an incredible return and I think Jimmy deserves at least equal mention with Steyn right now.

There was also some controversy when Samaraweera appeared to glove a ball from Finn to short leg on 36. England were convinced that it was out, but the umpire did not give it and it stayed with his call on review. There were two clear noises on the replay, however, and there was just as much evidence that he had hit it as the incident with Cook in the last Test. This time it was not overturned, however and I think England can justifiably feel hard done by. It was a poor decision on-field and brutally inconsistent by the third umpire. I will also bring up the point I did with Cook’s dismissal: the batsman should have walked. He clearly hit it and standing his ground was an act of deliberate dishonesty. For me it is in the same league as claiming a low catch and it should come under similar criticism. For Samaraweera and Cook to stay at the crease was disgraceful. Cook at least was given out but the only bit of justice given to Samaraweera was a nasty blow to the head two overs later. If he’d walked he would have avoided that.

The match is well set up for tomorrow’s play, England took a pair of important late wickets and need to make the new ball count again tomorrow morning. The big wicket is now that of Mathews, he has not played cricket for a while due to injury and it will be interesting to see how he starts tomorrow. If Jimmy and Finn can be as on-the-money as they were today, they have an opportunity to put England in a great position. After that, it will all be down to the batsmen again.

Colombo preview

England go into the final Test of the winter with everything to play for. Four losses from four Tests and now they must win to maintain the number one Test spot and save even the smallest amount of face. The key for England is very, very simple: the batting, so good from their second innings at Brisbane through their only innings at the Oval, must rediscover something approximating their form from that period. Despite slipping a bit near the end of the last Test, the fact is that the bowling unit have had as much or more success this winter as at any time in the past six years. They are not the problem and in fact their success in all conditions must be the envy of all other nations. The level of success they have had with the ball means that the batsmen need to perform only a little bit better and England will have a great chance of levelling the series.

Sri Lanka have a lot for which to play as well though. They have not won a series since beating New Zealand at home in 2009 and this would be a major scalp for them. They will be a motivated side and I expect that their middle order will be desperate to cling on to their wickets in the way that only Jayawardene did in the first Test. If they can thwart England’s bowlers and get just one properly big total in the match, England will have very little chance of getting the victory that we need. That will not be an easy feat for Sri Lanka though, even if the pitch is flat. Even without Stuart Broad, England’s attack have proved that they can take wickets in all conditions against all opponents.

The toss will be important again. Given England’s habit of collapsing at the merest hint of turn, batting last could be disastrous, even on a road. Similarly, we have already seen how much Sri Lanka benefited in the first Test from even a fairly modest first innings total. If Strauss can finally find the luck with the coin that has eluded him for the last three Tests, it should be game on. England’s batsmen did not look in bad touch in the last Test; nearly all of them made at least a start with the bat. If, on the first day on a flat pitch, they can finally be persuaded to dig in like Trott, the runs are there. A big score in the first innings and England can boss the game like they did so often last year. Sri Lanka will be praying that England are still a Test away from returning to form.

Sri Lanka win by 75 runs

The month and scenery changed, but this Test was a familiar tale for England: A frustrating and avoidable defeat. This time was all the more galling (no pun intended) for coming against a demonstrably weaker side. When England collapsed against Pakistan they had the excuse that they were up against a very good bowling unit, not so in Galle. Herath took what may have been the luckiest Test 12-fer in history (though the last one was taken by Jason Krejza, so maybe not) as the batsmen repeatedly gifted him their wickets. Of the seven recognised batsmen (ie, Strauss – Patel), nine of the 14 wickets to fall in both innings were needless. Even granting Patel leniency on debut and accepting the inevitability of the occasional batsman error, one would still call six of the 12 wickets inexcusable. Of those, two were to misplayed sweeps shots and three were to needless charges down the wicket (and remember, I am not including Broad through Monty in that). It is fair to say that without those errors, England would have won. Herath is not a 12-fer bowler without a lot of help, and in this match he picked up three wickets from stupid shots, three tail-end wickets and the debutant twice. The other four were at least reasonable, but four wickets for a subcontinent spinner is nothing special. But that’s about right, because it wasn’t a special performance. He was not only outbowled bowled by Swann, but even Randiv was getting more bounce and turn. It’s fair to say that Herath was the third best spinner in the match, but England made him look like Shane Bloody Warne. It’s frustrating, annoying and the same thing they did in the UAE. They should have learnt and they did not.

The bowlers were once again very good, but they did not cover themselves in glory the way they did in the UAE. Jimmy Anderson’s five wicket haul in the first innings was excellent, starting as it did by reducing Sri Lanka to 11-2 and removing the very dangerous Sangakkara first ball. He also produced a pair of fantastic deliveries to finish the innings on the second day, though by then it was later than England would have liked. Graeme Swann certainly deserved more for his efforts. Six wickets in the second innings, including Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Samaraweera (cumulative average: 159.12) for only 55 between them. He had Sri Lanka 127-8 in the second innings and gave England a chance to win. He also batted in a cap in both innings. It’s a small thing, but it does not happen nearly often enough and it is very, very cool when it does. Between all that, I think it would have been fair to have given Swann MotM.

The bowling unit as a whole, however, was not quite incisive enough and Strauss had a bit of a shocker with the captaincy. The biggest problem for England was probably the selection, we played two seamers and three spinners. The notion was presumably that the seamers would not be effective on the slow surface, but Anderson and Broad put the lie to that in the first innings. Neither Monty nor Patel looked incisive, meantime, and all of their wickets were those of tail-enders. This lack of firepower cost England badly as the Sri Lankan tail added valuable, and ultimately match winning, runs in both innings. The second innings was the more frustrating. This time, Sri Lanka did not have an established batsman to guide the tail and yet the last two wickets put on 87 runs. England only lost by 75, so it is no exaggeration to say that those cost England the match. Strauss did not captain well in that time. To be fair to him, he was handicapped by only having two wicket taking options: Patel and Panesar looked unlikely to bowl anyone out and Broad was half fit. Strauss could not keep Swann and Jimmy on for the entire session and Sri Lanka profited. At the same time, however, he did not attack enough. England needed to wickets to have a great chance of winning, but he put men back and allowed easy singles. The notion was to get the ‘rabbit’ on strike, but this seldom seems to work and it did not come close to doing so here. This is not the first time England have changed tactics to tail-enders and I find it baffling every time. The original tactics had reduced the Sri Lanka to 127-8 and got some of the best batsmen in the world out cheaply. Why alter that to a number ten? In the first innings, Jimmy bowled Welegedara with an unplayable offcutter. The batsman had no chance. Why this was not the plan in the second innings is beyond me.

England could have, and should have, won this match. There is still some hope, but they must cut out the errors before the next Test. Having watched this side at their best we know this is possible, but one would think it would have already happened. I have already written about how England can improve their player selection, but the biggest problem is shot selection. As long as they are playing rash shots, like sweeps, they will struggle.

Number one?

England have lost by 75 runs to Sri Lanka and thus need to win the next Test to stay number one in the world. I’ll mention what I think they need to do later/tomorrow, but right now I think there is a good question about whether England ‘should’ be number one or not. It’s something that has come up a few times on Twitter, albeit usually in the form of a snide remark by a South African/Australian/Indian. (Who, strangely, have not usually shown an actual desire to discuss the topic.) The obvious point is that England have lost four Tests in a row since officially becoming number one last August and in any sport it is very hard to do that and still justify being considered the best in the world. Even if England win the last Test, the question will remain after what has been a very poor winter and unless/until England convincingly win a series in the subcontinent there will certainly still be suggestions that England are not the true ‘number one’ side.

Cricket is already unique amongst international sport with its wide range of conditions and possible results, but it is also in a unique situation where the ‘number one’ question is more than usually pertinent. Cricket has had two dynasties that have stretched most of the past 30+ years: the West Indies and then Australia. I had already noticed (even last summer) that there were those who said that England could not be number one until they matched those two teams. That is patently absurd, of course. The fact that almost no team in any sport ever achieved that kind of domination is what made the West Indies and Australia so special. I don’t think most people would claim that modern teams have to match those two greats, but I do think their legacy runs deeper than is obvious. Most do not say that England have to establish worldwide dominance to be number one, but there are still suggestions that a number one side ‘should’ do certain things. (Win in all conditions being the usual one.) But that is rubbish too. The number one side, by definition, is simply the side that is better than all the other sides. Right now, no side (apparently) can win in all conditions, but we cannot simply have no number one side just as a domestic league cannot be without a table topper.

The question then is whether England are better than all other sides. There is not an obvious answer to that. The nearest, and probably only, competitor is South Africa and they have had problems too. South Africa have not won a series on the subcontinent since beating Pakistan in 2007. They have won only one series at home since the start of 2008, against Sri Lanka this year. England beat Sri Lanka at home too, plus India; Pakistan and Australia. On results one could not say that South Africa are better than England, but the recent ones make it very hard to say that South Africa are worse too. Officially, if England do not win the next Test our run of poor form will have been bad enough to go below South Africa. That’s fair enough, but I don’t think South Africans can feel hard done by if England win and stay at the top. (Just as they could not, or at least should not have, when they failed to beat New Zealand.) England don’t look like the best side in the world right now, but South Africa have hardly pushed for the title.

Luckily, the fixture list has been kind and the issue can be settled head-to-head this summer. Though the series is still too short.

Galle, day three

On the one hand, trailing by 125 after the first innings I think one would take bowling the opposition out for 214. England, however, have to massively disappointed with their display in the field today. Graeme Swann was excellent again, and his six wicket haul reduced Sri Lanka to 127-8 at one point. If England had got the last two quickly they probably would have been favourites to win. Instead Strauss insisted on giving Other Jayawardene singles to try to bowl at the tail-enders. Jayawardene milked runs and with Panesar and Patel looking very flat the score climbed and climbed. Broad almost finished the innings with the deficit still under 300, but it was a no-ball and from then on England got very sloppy. Another 47 runs were conceded and the match appeared to slip away in that afternoon session. The last wicket rather appropriately fell off a run out: it was the only way England looked like taking it.

To say that it was very frustrating would be an understatement. It is not the first time England have done this, against MS Dhoni and India last summer would be the best example. For some reason, when tail-enders are at the crease all of England’s brilliant plans seem to go out the window. The seamers resort to short bowling and Strauss tries to give the batsman with the higher score a single to bowl at the other one. Today England had taken eight wickets for under 130 runs with orthodox bowling plans, surely if we had persisted with that the last two would have come. But we didn’t. Easy singles kept the pressure off, as Sri Lanka knew that every one was worth far more than England were making it look. It was some of the worst tail-end bowling one will see and it ultimately cost us 87 runs. Given the state of the match, there is every chance that those runs will prove the difference.

England were slightly unfortunate with respect to technology today though. Randiv appeared to have edged a sweep behind early on, but the umpire gave it not out. There was a clear noise as the ball passed the bat, but the bat was also close to the ground. England opted not to review with no HotSpot and it certainly would not have been overturned. However, the sound looked to be as the ball passed the bat, not as the bat passed the ground and in any case was a clear ‘click’. It was the same sound as a regulation outside edge, not the sound of bat on ground. Much later, Cook was batting against Dilshan and tried to work one away to leg. The ball passed the bat, went onto the ‘keepers gloves and the Sri Lankans celebrated. The on field umpire inexplicably gave it not out, however and it looked like the same situation may arise. Sri Lanka did review though, and the third umpire gave it out. It was slightly controversial, as there was nothing specific to say Cook hit it, but the right decision was made. There is no doubt at all that Cook hit the ball, there seemed to be a noise and the reactions both of Cook and the fielders spoke volumes. Everything about it screamed out, and I cannot believe the umpire did not give it on the field. There will be complaints about it, but justice was done. Certainly it serves Cook for not walking straightaway (look at his reaction and it is clear that he knows he hit it). I’ve no sympathy for him at all. The only thing about which England can be upset is not getting the decision in the morning (and that one was a lot closer).

England finish the day needing another 229 runs with eight wickets in hand. It’s fairly interestingly poised. I said yesterday that if one ignores form, England could chase 350 and that’s still true. If England bat sensibly there are no demons in either the pitch or the attack and if we had conceded fifty fewer runs I’d say we were well on top. 340 would be a record breaking chase though, and Strauss did his best to help Sri Lanka’s cause by skipping down the wicket and hitting a ball straight to mid-on. It was an irresponsible shot from any batsman, but especially from the captain. It was downright irresponsible and much as I like Strauss, I hope he gets a dressing down from Flower and Gooch. Despite that though, 111-2 is not a bad position. The last four batsmen put on almost 100 in the first innings, so England will think that if Trott, KP, Bell, Patel and Prior can combine for a very feasible 150 more runs they are in with a very good shout. A collapse always looks a ball away when England are batting though, and I think it will all fall apart tomorrow morning. One foolish shot from KP may be enough for us to end up 200 all out.

Galle, day two

There are some positives to take from today. Most notably, two players who were out of form recently had a very good day. Ian Bell showed why he is still one of our best batsmen and was actually the only one to look at all like he knew what he was doing. I was quite glad to see this (tempered by the horror of what was going on around him, of course) as I have said before that Bell is a good player who should be backed to score runs and he did just that. He was finally undone only by a very good ball from Herath (the only one he bowled). Still, it was a steady innings and in addition to his own runs (of which he scored more today than in all three Tests in the UAE) he gave Broad and Swann a chance to get some much needed runs at the other end with more expansive shots.

The other somewhat out of form player was Graeme Swann. There were some questions asked about his place in the side coming into the match and even more after Panesar finished the first innings with better figures. I will add, I think these questions were foolish: Panesar was in better form, but Swann is still the better bowler and he showed that clearly today. Broad gave him the chance to bowl at two left handers (as Swann likes to do) when he clean bowled Dilshan and Swann took the opportunity well. He not only got Thirimanne with a lovely ball, but he also got the vital wickets of Jayawardene and Sangakkara. Those were the batsmen most likely to defy England enough to get Sri Lanka to an unbeatable position. Sri Lanka may still do that, of course, but it won’t be any of the obvious candidates to see them there and it vastly improves England’s chances of making an interesting finish to this match. Swann also got Samaraweera stumped late in the day. Samaraweera is not as renown as his middle order colleagues, but he still averages better than fifty and to get him before stumps for only 36 (half of Sri Lanka’s runs at that point) was a huge boost. Swann ended the day with four top/middle order wickets for 28 runs I have suddenly stopped hearing anything about Monty being the new number one spinner.

Those were the high points of the day, but mostly it was one to forget. Sri Lanka edged their way (literally) to 318 all out with Jimmy getting a well deserved five-fer but it was far more than we should have conceded. After which came the great batting collapse of the style I thought we had left in the UAE. This time it was even less excusable. There is really nothing in the pitch, it’s only the second day, and Herath is not a special bowler. Bell aside, England played him like he was Shane Warne, however. Although there was some nice attacking intent, the batsmen seemed to not know how much turn he was getting (very little) and resorted to pre-meditated shots. These worked about as well as they did in the UAE. Bell showed how to play the spinners: he moved his feet and happily hit Herath back down the ground, or stayed back and cut behind square. He was the only one. After a decent start, Strauss and Trott spectacularly threw their wickets away: Strauss sweeping (*facepalm*) and Trott being stumped off a full toss in a manner which no text description can fully do justice. Prior and Patel, meantime, just went with the standard failure to get forward and were out lbw. Only Cook (to the seamer) and Bell (much later) were out to properly good deliveries. After the innings was all but over, Broad (28), Swann (24) and even Jimmy (23*) and Monty (13) hit the ball around brilliantly to give the scorecard some respectability. The fact that Monty hit a four back over the bowler’s head and Jimmy reverse swept a ball for four shows just how good the wicket was and just how poorly the top order played, however.

Today was the UAE all over again and England really have no excuse. The bowlers have single-handedly kept us in the match again, but we are going to need runs from our top order. We have a skilled lineup and the pitch should still be flat for the chase (it’s unlikely to occur on day four, let alone five), so if the batsmen come to the party we can chase 350. One would have to say, however, that Sri Lanka’s lead of 200 is probably already enough.