Galle, day one

It should have been England’s day. Any time one loses the toss and promptly reduces one’s opponent to 15-3 should be a good day. And England did just that. Despite announcing that Samit Patel would play, but at number seven (I expected either Patel at six or Bresnan at seven, but not this) and then losing the toss and having to bowl, they took three quick wickets and put Sri Lanka under pressure. England let it slip badly at the end though. They seemed to just tire out. It was very hot in Galle, so there’s every chance that they did just that, but it was still disappointing and I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect better. England had a great opportunity to put their foot on the throat of Sri Lanka, but instead the home side finished on 289-8 and if England are in front at all, it is only just barely.

Sri Lanka actually provided most of the action today. England bowled pretty much as they always do at the start of the day: pretty tight, mostly outside off, full and swinging a bit. And this got wickets in the way it often does: the batsmen were impatient and played at balls they ought to have left. Sangakkara played a particularly unexpected flash outside off to his first ball, and Dilshan’s innings was Sehwag-esque in it’s horror. It was good bowling by England, but the fact that Sri Lanka had mostly thrown their wickets away was evident and Mahela Jayawardene and Thilan Samaraweera knuckled down. They played sensibly and Broad and Anderson could not bowl long spells in the heat.

This was where I think the flaws of England’s selection started to show. There’s a long way to go in the match, of course, and we have not seen Patel’s batting yet, but I do not think we needed three spinners. We started the match with the new ball swinging a bit and troubling the batsmen, but we had to bring the seamers off quickly in the heat and bring on spin. Panesar was good, but he rarely looked incisive, merely containing. Swann was the opposite: he bowled some magic balls and was unlucky not to get a wicket, but he also went at a considerable rate. Neither were what we needed with Sri Lanka at 30-3, we needed someone like Tim Bresnan or Steven Finn. I would have picked Bresnan to play and we know that he can pitch the ball up and nip it about. That is what was causing the batsmen problems, but instead we had to waste some of the new ball by bowling spin. Of course, Patel did take two wickets. The first one was a rank gift (most of the Sri Lankan wickets were), but the second one was a better bit of bowling. It was later in the day, after Herath had played very defensively against Swann and Panesar he tried to get some runs off Patel and was lbw missing a sweep. The fact that neither Monty or Swann got a wicket will make it look like a very good selection, but at least so far I think that is deceiving.

Still, things went well for England for most of the day. After that early burst, Sri Lanka needed a giant partnership to re-establish control of the match and there did not seem to be one forthcoming. All of their batsmen after Sangakkara made starts if not more, but Chandimal’s 27 was the highest. England never had a stranglehold on the match like they briefly did at the beginning, but they were comfortably on top and with Sri Lanka on 191-7 it looked like it would be a very good day. This was roughly when everything started to fall apart. Jimmy Anderson missed what should have been a comfortable caught and bowled when Jayawardene was on 90 and the Sri Lankan captain hit the next ball for six. Later Monty dropped him twice in successive overs. The first drop was pardonable, the ball clearly went right into the sun and Monty never really saw it. The second was horrendous though. It went straight up and despite having ample time to prepare he tried to change his catching position (from the so-called ‘English’ stance with the fingers pointed away from the body to the so-called ‘Australian’ style of fingers pointed back)* at the last second and shelled it.

Jayawardene played very, very well of course. After getting to his century he seemed determined to blast Sri Lanka to the highest score he could. He rotated the strike brilliantly to protect Herath and picked the gaps with an ease that seemed almost unfair. He did offer those two chances to the second new ball, but even by then England were already reeling a bit. He did fantastically well all afternoon to steady the ship and at the end he came very close to getting Sri Lanka back on level terms. It was a true captain’s innings and he deserves a massive amount of praise.

Anderson’s third wicket, a lovely inswinger to trap Other Jayawardene lbw, was the 252nd of his career. Which may seem like an odd one to mark (250 being the logical choice) but this was significant as it brings him level with the great Brian Statham for career wickets. Often I brush this off as a result of the large number of Tests played in this era, but Anderson has actually achieved this in three fewer Tests than Statham. (Though Statham does have the better average.) This is even more noteworthy considering the long lean patch Jimmy had earlier in his career. It was already clear that Jimmy was one of the best bowlers in the world right now, but given the fact that he has plenty of time left in his career he may be remembered as one of the best English bowlers of all time.

It’s always a bit hard to know where a match stands after the first day of the series (unless the batting side is skittled for 100, which is usually pretty clear) and with England batting second this is not an exception. If one offered England 289-8 immediately after losing the toss they would have accepted. If one made the same offer after Sri Lanka were reduced to 15-3, I expect they would have declined. Tomorrow will mostly be a day for England’s batting. The pith is flat and Sri Lanka’s attack is not particularly threatening and a big score should be on the cards. There is turn, however, and if their mental daemons resurface Sri Lanka could find themselves very well placed. England have lost the chance to bat with the pressure off, however, and Strauss and Cook must get the innings off to a good start. I expect they will still be batting at stumps, whether both on 150* or following-on I’m not sure, however.

*This is actually one of the few technical aspects of cricket of which I actually have some knowledge and I have always preferred having the fingers point backward. By getting one’s head under the ball, it’s apparent motion becomes almost non-existent and it is much easier to track the ball into the hands. The alternative method – fingers out, catching near the stomach – means that one has to follow the ball and make any last minute corrections as it passes in front of one’s face at upwards of 30m/s. That is rather harder, at least for a very high catch.

Sri Lanka v England preview

Two Tests. England have flown 8700 kilometres (roughly) for just two Tests. Admittedly, I’m kind of glad there aren’t any ODIs or T20s on the tour, but two Tests is really not ever enough. Especially given that the Sri Lanka Cricket Board are still in some financial difficulty, one would think that they would be very keen to have as many Tests as possible against England. I concede that it isn’t very feasible, however. It’s hard to fit two tours in after Christmas; there isn’t time for a third Test as it would be clashing badly with the County Championship (the second Test already overlaps slightly with the first round of matches) and England could not really have come much earlier, the Pakistan tour had barely ended anyway. So two Tests it is.

Despite the poor showing in Pakistan, and a poor recent record in Sri Lanka, I think England are still favourites. Sri Lanka don’t have the same quality of bowling that Pakistan have (they still badly miss Murali and Malinga) and our batsmen appear to be in much better form than they were in January. I think the best battles will be when Sri Lanka are batting. We still have one of, if not the, best bowling attacks in the world and one which has shown the ability to take wickets even in unhelpful conditions. At the same time, however, Sri Lanka have the world’s best batsman in Kumar Sangakkara and two very good ones in Thilan Samaraweera and Mahela Jayawardene, though the latter is starting to show his age. England’s bowlers had a brilliant match in the first warmup, but struggled in the second so it’s hard to say how they’ll go in the Tests. Neither match was played at one of this series’ Test grounds so we can’t assume much about the wickets that we didn’t already know. I’m slightly more inclined to think that the bowlers will go well though. England were without Jimmy Anderson in the match where they struggled and as good as Broad is, it is important to have an attack leader. Furthermore, England played two spinners in the first match, as they are likely to do in the Tests, but only one in the second. There will be tough battles against the Test quality opposition, but we know that Sri Lanka are prone to collapse (see the 2011 Cardiff Test) and I think England have the skill to trigger a couple.

Sri Lanka will have seen England in Pakistan though and must be thinking that England are just as if not more vulnerable to collapse as they are. I’m not sure that’s accurate, however. Sri Lanka simply do not have the same bowling strength as Pakistan. Rangana Herath is probably their biggest threat, given England’s problems against spin, and he’s not a bad bowler. He still averages 35 in Test cricket though. The rest of their attack are even worse. Angelo Mathews is out with an injury and will probably never bowl again regardless. The second spinner in the squad, Suraj Randiv, averages over 42 and the two pacemen, Suranga Lakmal and Chanaka Welegedara average 55 and just under 40 respectively. Averages aren’t everything, of course, and England will have to play a lot better against spin than they did in Pakistan, but it does go to show that the Sri Lankan attack is not one that would be feared under normal circumstances. Fortunately for England, the batsmen have got off to a much better start this tour than last time. Cook has scored 163* in his only innings and Strauss and Trott both have unbeaten centuries (both retired). KP, Patel and Prior all have fifties. The only worry is Bell, who has still not found his form. There is still the question of who will bat at six, but Patel seems to be firmly in the lead (thank god) as Bopara will not be able to bowl if picked. (Not that he should do anyway. Jonathan Trott actually has better career figures.)

The matches are not played on paper, as we found out with a bump in the UAE, but England will wish that they were. Even taking into account the struggles into the UAE, England are clearly the much better side. They have far, far better bowlers and at least comparable batsmen. They will have to find a way cope with the very harsh conditions though. Apparently it got up to 46 degrees during the recent warmup match and even if the pitches are not outright hostile for our bowlers, they will not be helpful. I don’t think Sri Lanka have the bowling to force a victory, but they do have the batting to possibly force a draw. I think England will win the series 1-0, though if we play well a 2-0 margin is definitely possible.

Endless ODI preview

Now that the two T20s are over and India have finally managed an away win in some format we can look forward to over a month’s worth of ODIs! I hope you’re all as excited as I am about the prospect of 15 one day internationals. After all, no one got bored senseless after five of the seven match post-Ashes ODI series so the best thing to do is double that number and make sure that four of the matches will be between teams about whom the locals do not care.

Looking at the teams, I can’t see anyone other than Australia winning. Australia did not have the same dip in form in the shorter format as they have had in Test matches, and they are still difficult to beat at home. They won the short series against South Africa recently, and going back farther beat England even after being hammered in the Test series. They did not do as well in the World Cup, but will have the advantage of the conditions this time.

The more (but still not very) interesting question is who they will play in the final. India have finally broken their overseas duck, but almost anything can happen in a T20. They still have a lot of questions to be answered about their batting in foreign conditions, however, none of the problems they had in the Test series will entirely vanish in the shorter form, even if their bowling may tighten up. We saw in England that they still struggle, even against a decidedly mediocre ODI side and I expect them to struggle playing Australia.

Sri Lanka are punching above their weight right now, I’d say. Their players have not been paid properly for quite some time now, and eventually that will take a toll on even the most committed cricketer. The fact that they still managed a famous win in Durban is a massive credit to their spirit. They are another side, however, who have not been threatening outside the subcontinent, losing the ODI series in England and South Africa.

The second finalist will probably be decided by the winner of the head to head matches between India and Sri Lanka and those will be interesting, if sparsely attended. Neither side is suited to exploit the weaknesses of the other side in the conditions. I would expect Sri Lanka to win though, they have shown more fight recently and I think that will count for a lot. Ultimately, I expect Australia to beat Sri Lanka 2-0 in the finals.

South Africa win by ten wickets

South Africa’s victory gives them a 2-1 victory in the series and their first win in a series at home since they played the West Indies a few years ago. It’s an important victory for the fortunes of the team, and they thoroughly deserve it having dominated most of this series. The fact that they did win will probably come as some relief after they dominated most of a four match series against England two years ago and could only draw it 1-1. To Sri Lanka’s credit, they made them work for it on the last day. I said yesterday that Sri Lanka would need Samaraweera and Mathews to have a good partnership and for one of them or Chandimal to shepherd the tail and that is exactly what they did. Samaraweera and Mathews batted through the entire morning session and put on the highest ever fifth wicket partnership for Sri Lanka against South Africa. During this time I counted four edges falling short of the slips or ‘keeper, however, so South Africa were a bit culpable. The breakthrough finally came when a ball kept horribly low to Mathews and had him trapped LBW. After Chandimal departed not long after Samaraweera did shepherd the tail and put on over fifty with Perera. Sri Lanka grabbed a lead of one when Welegedara hit Kallis back over his head for six, the ball before Kallis uprooted leg stump, meaning South Africa would have to chase two runs to win. This prompted the sort of farce that can only be seen in cricket, as the timing of the dismissal meant that tea had to be taken before South Africa could start their chase. The first ball after the twenty minute break was a no-ball and Petersen hit what is listed on Cricinfo as a single to long on, though live I thought it had gone to the rope. (Though I had been awake for 25 straight hours by that point, so I wouldn’t consider that reliable.) The no-ball also meant that it was the first time a team had chased a total off zero deliveries.

It was a fairly frustrating day for the South Africans. I think they would have thought like I and most people did that they would have the match wrapped up by the second drinks interval. To their credit, when the wickets weren’t coming they never really dropped their heads; they kept plugging away and eventually did make the breakthrough. I couldn’t see them losing the match, or even failing to win since there was an entire day to spare, but given their past failings it would have been easy to start thinking ‘here we go again’. They didn’t though, and they deserve credit for that. Their victory will be a huge boost to their morale, and with their next series being in New Zealand they should go into England on a high. (Though there is a lot of time between the New Zealand tour and the England tour.) Despite their now a bit predictable slip up in Durban, they had a very good series. Sri Lanka were never in the first or third Tests and never looked like even saving them.

For Sri Lanka, they probably won’t be too disappointed with the result of the series. The gave away an opportunity for a very good result when they chose to bowl, but the fact that they won even one match is more than they have done before. When one considers the fact that they were without a proper bowling attack the result looks even better. The pragmatists will immediately recognise, however, that ‘better than expected’ does not equal good and they still have a log way to go. Their next series is at home against England and whilst we are yet to see how England do in the UAE, one expects that Sri Lanka will be very much second favourites.

New Year’s Tests

Like on Boxing Day there are two Tests back to back this week; stumps in Sydney lead neatly into the start of play at Cape Town. Unlike on Boxing Day I’m not going to all but ignore South Africa, but the Australian match is on at a more reasonable time (for me) so I’ll still focus on them.

Australia still have a lot of questions to answer, despite their emphatic victory at the MCG. Their batsmen collapsed to 27-4 whilst trying to build a lead despite mediocre bowling and being under no pressure to score quickly. Their shot selection was poor, and not for the first time this year. Warner is a good young player, but he still has work to do on curbing his aggression. Cowan left a ball a bit too close, but he still looks like the most reliable member of the top order. Leaving balls is not something his compatriots have done nearly enough. On the bowling side, Harris is back in the squad, but not expected to play. After their strong performance at Melbourne that isn’t surprising, no bowler gave a performance that would be worthy of being dropped.

India are in a clearly worse state than Australia. Their batsmen still seem incapable of dealing with the slightest movement and worse did not even seem to realise that they could not play the same shots that they would on the subcontinent. There does not appear to be a lot they could change with regard to selection, after the performance in England there does not seem to be any point to playing Raina in place of Kohli. Their bowlers are not the problem, but they do not have the strength in depth to exploit the pace of the pitches as Australia have done. They must find a way to make their batsmen play sensibly, especially Sehwag at the top of the order. The age of the batmen make this look unlikely, however, they are fairly well established in their styles.

The pitch is expected to help the quicks as it has the previous two years. This will help Australia, and they should try to ensure that the pitches in the remaining two Tests do the same. I expect it will be another low scoring game then, and it will probably be decided by who does the best job of knuckling down. Australia will be happy with that; Dravid is the only batmsan who appears to be able to knuckle down and having been bowled twice off legal deliveries and once off a no-ball he might have a weakness that Australia can exploit. If he does fall cheaply Australia will be strong favourites, as India do not look like having anyone else who can build an innings. I’m predicting an Australian win by 50 runs.

I mostly ignored the Boxing Day Test between South Africa and Sri Lanka. The first match went the way I had predicted and the series did not look like it was going to be as close or as interesting as the one in Oz. Of course, then, it turned into a reasonably close and quite surprising match. I had underestimated South Africa’s ability to choke, especially on Boxing Day. They collapsed, again, and lost, again. It’s great news for the neutral like myself, as the series is now 1-1 going into Cape Town. South Africa still ought to win, but they never ought to have lost the previous match and I’m not sure they’ll be able to force a victory.

Prince has been dropped and Alviro Petersen will play in his stead. Petersen is an opener by trade and Prince batted at number six, so it’s not clear where he will bat at Cape Town. With Rudolph struggling a bit at the top I would expect Petersen to open and Rudolph to move down the order. Philander is also back fit, which leaves a slight conundrum for the selectors. Marchant de Lange was Philander’s replacement at Kingsmead and took seven wickets in the first innings. Morne Morkel performed better in the second innings though, and may yet keep his place. I would be tempted to give de Lange another Test in which to try to push for an extended run.

Sri Lanka shouldn’t feel like they need to do too much differently. A draw will be a good result in the series for them, and the pressure will be firmly on South Africa to win the match. Given their history when the pressure has been on Sri Lanka will feel like they have a good chance to at least draw and maybe even win the match. Their only injury concern (or at least only new injury concern) is that of Dinesh Chandimal, and he is expected to be fit to play. I’m predicting a draw, with South Africa on top but not doing enough to actually win.

2011 XI

After an all-too-few 39 matches, 2011 is over. Well not really, but the next Test is at the SCG on 3 January, so the year is over for all intents and purposes. As my final look back on the year I have compiled an XI for 2011. It’s a generalised lineup; I have given no thought to specialised conditions such as a spinning Indian wicket or a seaming English one. Doing so would also be an interesting exercise, but this is a good place to start. For the balance of the side I went with four bowlers and six batsmen. It’s not one with which I entirely agree, but England were undefeated with it this year so there we are. My XI is thus:

Alastair Cook*
Rahul Dravid
Kumar Sangakkara
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Bell
Younis Khan
Matt Prior†
Stuart Broad
Dale Steyn
Saeed Ajmal
James Anderson

12th Man: Misbah-ul-Haq

Cook is an obvious choice. He started the year by scoring 189 runs at the SCG (in one innings, obviously) and barely slacked off after that. He scored 927 runs in only eight matches this year at an average of 84, including 294 at Edgbaston to form the base of England’s 710-7 declared. I also selected him as captain. Although he does not have a lot of experience none of the players in my XI are currently captain and Cook is being groomed as Strauss’ replacement. This XI should not need a particularly strong captain, however, just look at how successful Ponting was. The selection of his opening partner was much more difficult. Few other openers stood out and none came close to matching Cook. Dravid is not a regular opener, and has said that he does not like to open, but did so with aplomb in England. He was lead run scorer this year and averaged better than 57, but in the five innings in which he opened he averaged almost eighty. Although it’s not his regular position, there are no other openers who impressed in the same way that he and Cook did, so they are my opening pair.

By selecting Dravid as an opener it opens up the number three spot and the choice of Sangakkara is an easy one. He scored over a thousand runs this year (only Dravid scored more) and has just come off a match winning century in Durban. He averaged over fifty batting in the middle order as well, and often seemed to carry his side. Ian Bell, although he has preferred batting at number three, spent a lot of the year at number five, so that is where he goes into this XI. His selection was as easy as Sangakkara’s though; he scored 950 runs at 118 apiece this year. He was the only batsman this year to average over 100 after playing in more than one match. Younis Khan was the last pretty straightforward selection. He scored 765 runs at an average of exactly 85, the second best amongst all middle order players. It was a very good performance, especially as he would have had to put a lot of politics out of his head. The last middle order place went to KP, but it was a very difficult decision between him and Misbah-ul-Haq. In the end I though KP had a better year, making a spectacular resurgence against India. Misbah scored a lot or runs, and did a brilliant job captaining the side, but KP had a better average and also provided a good explosive option after the top three who would have built a solid base. Although he was the last selection he goes in at number four as that is his usual spot.

The selection of a wicket-keeper was easy, Matt Prior has been peerless for some time now. He averaged 64.87 with the bat and 2.25 dismissals per innings. The former is far and away the highest, whilst the latter is second by 0.02 to MS Dhoni. Unfortunately Statsguru doesn’t seem to let me sort wicket-keepers by byes, so I don’t know how he ranks in that regard.
— Edited to add: John Townsend very kindly sent me some bye totals for this year on Twitter: Prior 122 (16 innings), Dhoni 103 (22 innings), Carlton Baugh 65 (19 innings). This surprised me somewhat. I knew Dhoni was a good gloveman, but I thought the combination of Prior’s skill, the accuracy of his bowlers and the fact that he played in fewer matches would give him a better total. The weight of Prior’s runs with the bat still gives him a place in the side (he averaged 37.98 runs better than Dhoni with the bat, so an extra 2.94 per innings conceded is not problematic) but it’s interesting that he has farther to go with the gloves than I thought. —

Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson share the new ball in this XI. Both have led their respective attacks brilliantly this year. Steyn finished amongst the top ten quick bowlers in terms of number of wickets despite the fact that South Africa only played five matches and he was also the only full time bowler (Mike Hussey absolutely does not count) to have an average under 20 this year. Anderson had the second highest wicket tally amongst quicks this year, and achieved that in only seven matches (as he missed the Lord’s Test against Sri Lanka). He and Steyn were the only two bowlers to average better than five wickets per match this year. First change is Stuart Broad who finally remembered the importance of pitching it in the batsman’s half of the pitch. His overall numbers this year are quite impressive, 33 wickets in seven matches at an average of 22.30, but he actually did not have a great series against Sri Lanka at the start of the summer. He was still pitching the ball short and trying to be the ‘enforcer’. Against India he went back to the fuller length of the Oval 2009 and took 25 wickets in the four matches at an amazing 13.84 apiece. It was one of the best bowling performances in a series one will see, and he also chipped in by scoring 182 runs at 60.66 against India. As much as it pained me not to give the spinner’s slot to Graeme Swann, the fact is that he had a very quiet year. He only took 27 wickets in eight matches, though a large part of that was because the seamers were cleaning up at the other end. Even if he had had a fantastic year, however, it would have been impossible to ignore Saeed Ajmal. In eight matches he took 50 wickets at just shy of 24. It’s true that they were against weak teams, but statistically he was the best bowler, paceman or spinner, of the year.

I expect there are not a lot people who would agree with every one of my selections. The batsmen were particularly difficult, but amongst the bowlers Umar Gul made a very good case for selection as well. The biggest flaw is probably that there are three proper tailenders after Stuart Broad. The top order is such that those three are very unlikely to have to bat at all though. I doubt many would think the players selected are undeserving, but I would still greatly like to see your XI in the comments.

Sri Lanka may win a Test

South Africa are in a lot of strife in Durban. That’s not really anything new or surprising, South Africa’s last win at Kingsmead came against the West Indies in 2008. For some reason they seem to have a lot of trouble batting there, each of their last three matches (four including this one) has included a score under 200. Their 168 all out against Sri Lanka is actually an improvement on their previous three matches in which they were bowled out for 138 by Australia, 133 by England and 131 by India. The match against England is particularly interesting as they dominated the other three matches in the series, but had to settle for a 1-1 draw. If they go on to lose this match, as looks very likely, they will have to force a victory in the final Test to avoid the same result.

Mark Boucher has been under some pressure recently, and that is going to increase after this Test. In the first over of the day (after the first hour was lost to rain) Kumar Sangakkara, on three, edged to the area between Boucher and first slip. Boucher reacted very late and only managed to put off the slip fielder (Graeme Smith, I think). The catch went down and Sangakkara went on to make 108 to probably put the match out of South Africa’s reach. The rest of Sri Lanka’s batting card is not impressive and I suspect that if Sangakkara had not been in to build partnerships with the rest of the order Sri Lanka would be all out by now, and obviously for at least 100 runs fewer. Sri Lanka currently lead by 426 and have three wickets in hand. Some rapid-fire batting from the tail should get them to about 460-475 with almost all of the final two days remaining. Even with their depleted and unreliable bowling that ought to be too many for South Africa to chase (it would be comfortably a record) and too much time for South Africa to bat out.

The TV’s been off

I was planning to write this morning about how either the Texas Rangers had won the World Series with substandard pitching or how the Cardinals had forced a Game Seven for the first time (in the World Series) since 2002. But instead the game was postponed mid afternoon as it was clear that it was going to rain all day. Well worse things have happened in Bangladesh.

I couldn’t stay up to watch Pakistan play Sri Lanka, but so far the match is following much the same course as the first test with Sri Lanka bowled out cheaply in the first innings and Pakistan on course for a big lead after the second day. Also like the first match, Pakistan are scoring at under three an over. They’ll probably need to get a move on.

I couldn’t watch the England Women’s T20 against South Africa because it wasn’t on, but England won comfortably again. South Africa posted 128-6 off their 20 overs, with Alison Hodgkinson making 51 off 37 balls before being run out. England chased down the runs with almost three full overs to spare. Laura Marsh was out for a duck, but Charlotte Edwards scored 49 off 46 and Sarah Taylor made exactly fifty off just 33 deliveries. Those were the only three to fall for England, who now lead the three match series 1-0.

Catches win matches

Pakistan ought to have won the first test against Sri Lanka. The match was drawn despite the fact that Sri Lanka were bowled out for 197 in the first innings and it never rained. Sri Lanka fought very well in the second innings, Kumar Sangakkara scored a brilliant double ton, but Pakistan did not allow themselves enough time to force a result. Perhaps they had watched the Cardiff test and assumed that Sri Lanka would roll over again. Whatever the reason, Pakistan didn’t make much of an effort to kick on in their first innings. The only batsman who looked like he was batting for a declaration was Misbah-ul-Haq who scored a quick 46 before being unfairly given out. That dismissal made it 436-4, but the new batsman, Asad Shafiq proceeded to crawl to 26 off of 94 deliveries! To cap his disaster of an innings he ran out his partner, the double centurion Taufeeq Umar. It was a dreadful innings, especially in the circumstance. When Umar Gul was out for a duck it brought the declaration on 511-6. Pakistan had scored at less than three an over. Although Shafiq was the worst culprit, both Azhar Ali and Younis Khan had strike rates of only 35.

This left Pakistan just over two days to bowl out Sri Lanka with a lead of 314. They still ought to have done this, although the conditions favoured the batsman. They got one wicket before close on the third day; a fortunate one as Tony Hill unfairly gave Paranavitana out LBW first ball. They took only four wickets on day four however and dropped five catches. They put down another on the last day, though by that time Sangakkara and Prasanna Jayawardene had already steered Sri Lanka to safety. Sangakkara’s 211 will have been particularly galling; he was reprieved multiple times.

I’ll be interested to see how Pakistan go from here. The next test is on Wednesday in Dubai and the conditions are unlikely to improve. They gambled a bit by playing Junaid Khan in this test ahead of Wahab Riaz, but he very much justified his place and was arguably Pakistan’s best bowler in the match. (Umar Gul is the other possibility.) I doubt Pakistan will make any changes, they played well overall, but they need to improve their fielding.

KHAAAAN!

I’ve known for a while that Junaid Khan was a very good bowler. Specifically I’ve known this since he played for Lancashire in the FLT20 and was probably the single biggest reason why we made it to Finals Day. (And his subsequent absence probably cost us the semi-final, but there was nothing to be done about that.) So I like to see him do well, especially in the longer form. And did he do well! He took 5-38 as Sri Lanka were skittled for 197, and Pakistan were without Amir and Asif!

Pakistan won the toss and rather surprisingly elected to field first on a flat deck and in very hot conditions. (Though the match is in the UAE, so all conditions are very hot.) Sri Lanka, however, never got going and went into lunch on 50-1. Khan was actually the second change bowler (Mohammad Hafeez, a spinner, came on first) and did not take a wicket until the middle of the 49th over when he had Mahela Jayawardene caught at first slip. The wicket made Sri Lanka 112-5, with the first four having been shared around the other three main bowlers. Very soon thereafter Khan was on a hat trick. He clean bowled Prasanna Jayawardene with a brilliant yorker (so familiar to those who watched Lancs in the FLT20 this season) off the last ball of the 49th over to give him two wickets in four deliveries and then began the 50th over by trapping Ragnara Herath LBW. This was the nadir of the Sri Lankan innings with the score 114-7. Khan didn’t get his hat-trick and Angelo Mathews, the only batsman to look fluent in the innings, steadied the ship with Suranga Lakmal in a partnership of 54. Gul ultimately broke the partnership and Khan quickly blew away the last two with pace.

It’s only the first day of the first match of a series of course, but I expect England will be looking on with some interest. The England v Pakistan series last summer belonged to the bowlers, but I certainly didn’t think the UAE leg would. That may still be the case, of course, as I expect England to bat better than Sri Lanka did. (Not that Sri Lanka batted abysmally, though it wasn’t great, more that England are simply more talented.) But it does mean that England will have to bat sensibly and cannot take big runs for granted. The bowlers will certainly have their work cut out for them and this shows that if the batsman lose their concentration England could find themselves up against it very quickly.