Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

England v Sri Lanka Test Series

124678

Comments

  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    What a finish !!
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    And it wasnt as if it was a tiny inside-edge - he smashed it !!
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 34,262
    Not only did Cook get the slip cordon wrong this morning he batted on too long last night - should have least had half an hour at them last night. Sri lanka deserved a draw as we were too negative.........the Aussies would have won it.
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    golfaddick said:

    Not only did Cook get the slip cordon wrong this morning he batted on too long last night - should have least had half an hour at them last night. Sri lanka deserved a draw as we were too negative.........the Aussies would have won it.

    I actually didnt have a major issue with Cook batting on last night, as this meant that Gary Ballance got his century - a century he deserved as he batted beautifully in tough circumstances, as my view is that the bigger 'scalp' this summer is India, and getting our players confidence up after the mauling in Oz is much more important than beating SL - but i get the feeling that Cook would have done it even if noone was near a ton - and that is the major worry. Another point from today is that he didnt bowl Jimmy in the 10th over from the end when the new ball was available - what was that all about ?! Doesnt make any sense at all.
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    Jimmy bowled beautifully today.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 17,394
    Don't think we should have declared last night would have been stupid! They had 90 overs to get 370 or whatever it was.. that's 4.8 an over! Declaring would have left them less runs to get and more time! All that would have done was allowed Sri Lanka into the game! As it was we gave ourselves the chance to win and meant Sri lander were out unless a miracle happened! On a fifth day wicket you should back that team to bowl them out in 90 overs and it was bloody close! Right choice and good game I say!
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 34,262
    edited June 2014
    cantersaddick said:

    Don't think we should have declared last night would have been stupid! They had 90 overs to get 370 or whatever it was.. that's 4.8 an over! Declaring would have left them less runs to get and more time! All that would have done was allowed Sri Lanka into the game! As it was we gave ourselves the chance to win and meant Sri lander were out unless a miracle happened! On a fifth day wicket you should back that team to bowl them out in 90 overs and it was bloody close! Right choice and good game I say!

    but giving them a chance of winning also means giving them a chance of getting out. You have more of a chance of a nick to the slips or caught in the deep if a player is actually wanting to score than a player just leaving every ball alone. We should have declared half an hour or so before close yesterday, giving them 100 overs to get 350 runs. Balance could still have got his century - just needed to put the pedal down at 5.30pm instead of 6.15pm.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 17,394
    golfaddick said:

    cantersaddick said:

    Don't think we should have declared last night would have been stupid! They had 90 overs to get 370 or whatever it was.. that's 4.8 an over! Declaring would have left them less runs to get and more time! All that would have done was allowed Sri Lanka into the game! As it was we gave ourselves the chance to win and meant Sri lander were out unless a miracle happened! On a fifth day wicket you should back that team to bowl them out in 90 overs and it was bloody close! Right choice and good game I say!

    but giving them a chance of winning also means giving them a chance of getting out. You have more of a chance of a nick to the slips or caught in the deep if a player is actually wanting to score than a player just leaving every ball alone. We should have declared half an hour or so before close yesterday, giving them 100 overs to get 350 runs. Balance could still have got his century - just needed to put the pedal down at 5.30pm instead of 6.15pm.
    Agree he should have accelerated earlier but I am still of the mind that you don't want to give them a sniff at victory.. grind them into the dust! Huge lead means you don't have to worry about runs! Attacking fields and get wickets!
  • LenGlover
    LenGlover Posts: 31,716
    Where's Riviera gone?

    He normally slags everyone off comments on the cricket threads
  • cfgs
    cfgs Posts: 11,510
    When a team just fail to get the required 10 wickets everyone says the captain is too cautious. If the batting side reach the target the captain is called stupid and gung ho, it is a fine line. Ideally we would have put them in for about 8 overs yesterday, but losing wickets stopped our acceleration.

  • Sponsored links:



  • EpsomAddick
    EpsomAddick Posts: 2,595
    I was there today. Cracking day's test cricket, and for only £20!

    IMO Cook made a mistake 3 overs from the end bringing back Plunkett instead of Broad, when Broad was much more likely to take a wicket.
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 64,260
    golfaddick said:

    cantersaddick said:

    Don't think we should have declared last night would have been stupid! They had 90 overs to get 370 or whatever it was.. that's 4.8 an over! Declaring would have left them less runs to get and more time! All that would have done was allowed Sri Lanka into the game! As it was we gave ourselves the chance to win and meant Sri lander were out unless a miracle happened! On a fifth day wicket you should back that team to bowl them out in 90 overs and it was bloody close! Right choice and good game I say!

    but giving them a chance of winning also means giving them a chance of getting out. You have more of a chance of a nick to the slips or caught in the deep if a player is actually wanting to score than a player just leaving every ball alone. We should have declared half an hour or so before close yesterday, giving them 100 overs to get 350 runs. Balance could still have got his century - just needed to put the pedal down at 5.30pm instead of 6.15pm.
    I think you underestimate the speed with which the runs were accumulated at the end of day four. Leaving SL to chase anything less than 300 with 90-100 overs to bat is inviting trouble IMO. Before you try to win the game, you make sure you can't lose it.

    In hindsight, five more overs would've been wonderful but I don't think Cook is to blame or was negative in his approach to the fourth innings.
  • Leroy Ambrose
    Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,488
    cantersaddick said:

    Don't think we should have declared last night would have been stupid! They had 90 overs to get 370 or whatever it was.. that's 4.8 an over! Declaring would have left them less runs to get and more time! All that would have done was allowed Sri Lanka into the game! As it was we gave ourselves the chance to win and meant Sri lander were out unless a miracle happened! On a fifth day wicket you should back that team to bowl them out in 90 overs and it was bloody close! Right choice and good game I say!

    I agree! Always better to make sure you get the draw first! Then go for it later on in the game! Great game! Exciting end to it! Set up nicely for the next test!
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,822
    It all comes down to how brave you are.
  • Simonsen
    Simonsen Posts: 5,555
    Bottom line was that Cook didn't fancy his spinner to take control and was therefore worried that the Sri Lankans might've got settled against the seamers on a placid wicket. If he had had Swann or even Panesar then he would've been able to declare earlier knowing that he would have long periods of control and would be able to rest his seamers in between short bursts. The lack of a proper spinner meant he felt he had to take a more cautious view.

  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    Simonsen said:

    Bottom line was that Cook didn't fancy his spinner to take control and was therefore worried that the Sri Lankans might've got settled against the seamers on a placid wicket. If he had had Swann or even Panesar then he would've been able to declare earlier knowing that he would have long periods of control and would be able to rest his seamers in between short bursts. The lack of a proper spinner meant he felt he had to take a more cautious view.

    Nah.The ONLY reason Cook didnt declare earlier was 1) Ballance's Hundred. There was no other reason-aside , of course, from Cook's natural negativity.
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    DRS - who can argue against it now !
    One observation coming out of the last over incidents, is that if we were playing India, then we would have won !
    Yet, even then , India would still have been blinkered enough to say we dont need DRS - what knobs !
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,822
    If we were playing India - they would have beaten us by the third day!!
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    MuttleyCAFC said:

    If we were playing India - they would have beaten us by the third day!!

    We absolutely smashed them last time they were here - think it was 4-0. AND they had the big guns like Sachin,Dravid,Laxman.
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    AND we beat them at their place 16 months ago.

  • Sponsored links:



  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,225
    edited June 2014
    2nd Test at Headingley - England won the toss and chose to bowl.

    SL 37-1

    Silva c Prior b Anderson 13

    Broad/Cook should have reviewed an earlier LBW, as it would have been given out.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,225
    edited June 2014
    56-2

    Karunaratne b Plunkett 28
  • Gravesend_Addick
    Gravesend_Addick Posts: 7,330
    Prior drops an absolute dolly

    I'd say this is his last Test match for England after that clanger!!
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,225
    102-2

    Prior is having a mare.

    He just caught Sangakkara off Plunkett and then opened his hands and let the ball drop to the ground. No idea what he was doing.

    Earlier he missed a pretty simple run out & gave away 4 byes, he should have stopped.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,225
    edited June 2014
    Jayawardene c Jordan b Plunkett 22
    108-3
    Caught diving one handed - are you watching Prior :-)
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,225
    edited June 2014
    108-4
    Thirimanne c Robson b Plunkett 0
    2 in 2 for Plunkett.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,225
    162-5
    Matthews c Ballance b Anderson 26
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,225
    182-5 at tea

    Sangakkara 67 no (been dropped twice).
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 34,262
    Covered End said:

    182-5 at tea

    Sangakkara 67 no (been dropped twice).

    and should have been run out. I like Prior as I feel he brings a bit of oomph down the order, but his keeping has been woeful today. If I didn't know better I would have said a betting syndicate have been in touch.............
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    Covered End said:

    102-2

    Prior is having a mare.

    He just caught Sangakkara off Plunkett and then opened his hands and let the ball drop to the ground. No idea what he was doing.

    Earlier he missed a pretty simple run out & gave away 4 byes, he should have stopped.

    Matty is my favourite England player, but he has a history at Headingley - remember a few years ago he had a back spasm in the warm up v Australia and nearly (did?) drop out.
    Sangakkara just out for 78 i think

Categories

“Marketplace”