Eng V SL

[Stiggler]

I reckon some people have made a lot of money today.

Cynical but probably true.

 

[BrettieAngell]

We might aswell all give up then!

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

I reckon some people have made a lot of money today.

*feels sad*

Has it really come to this? Must we now always presume the worst every time something extraordinary happens?

Tremlett was simply extraordinary yesterday - as unplayable as I can ever recall seeing an English bowler (or at least since, probably, Harmison's 7/12). His line and length were absolutely impeccable. The pitch wasn't as much of a minefield as Swann's figures suggest - but Swanny does bowl with such pace and agression for a spinner, and England of course had nothing to lose, so could completely surround the bat. Bell's catch off Perera was as good as anything I've seen for a while, as well.

Excellent play by Trott, Cook and Bell (and bravo to Strauss for letting him complete his ton - a decision that was not mere sentimentality, but instead about momentum and helping a player to achieve personal milestones within the team dynamic; look at how Bell sprinted off as soon as he got his runs, it shows you how up they were for having a bowl at them). But what on earth do we do about KP? Out to a left-arm spinner yet again. Thought Boycs and Vaughan made very good points on the highlights show, pointing out two very basic technical flaws with KP's batting against the left arm spinners:

(1) Vaughan pointed out that there's a bit of an issue with KP's hips. KP's natural game is to move the ball through the on-side; however, that has recently become exaggerated by the fact that in fact his hips are now pointing somewhere between mid-wicket and mid-on. Thus, if a left-handed delivery comes on to him more quickly / unexpectedly than normal, he invariably ends up playing with his bat too far from his body (and his feet too far apart), leaving him unbalanced and offering up chances.

(2) Boycs's point was even simpler: play with the spin. By invariably trying to work the ball into the on-side (which KP does, more often than not), KP is playing against the spin and so will inevitably offer up more chances.

KP needs some time in the nets. The question is: is his head too big that there's no one he would listen to in order to correct these issues? Would he listen to Goochie? Or maybe Flower? He needs to sort this issue out soon...

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

(1) Vaughan pointed out that there's a bit of an issue with KP's hips. KP's natural game is to move the ball through the on-side; however, that has recently become exaggerated by the fact that in fact his hips are now pointing somewhere between mid-wicket and mid-on. Thus, if a left-handed delivery comes on to him more quickly / unexpectedly than normal, he invariably ends up playing with his bat too far from his body (and his feet too far apart), leaving him unbalanced and offering up chances.

(2) Boycs's point was even simpler: play with the spin. By invariably trying to work the ball into the on-side (which KP does, more often than not), KP is playing against the spin and so will inevitably offer up more chances.

KP needs some time in the nets. The question is: is his head too big that there's no one he would listen to in order to correct these issues? Would he listen to Goochie? Or maybe Flower? He needs to sort this issue out soon...

This is why I'm not much of a fan of Sky Sports. As opposed to a reasoned comment by people who understand the game, you get Botham ranting about slogging quickly, declaring early, and bowling them out. Bear in mind that SL are supposedly a decent batting side, and we were down to three front line bowlers, surely the priority was to reach safety?

Oh, and how many wins did Botham captain the test side to?

(yes, it's true, I'm not his greatest fan)

 

[Beefy]

*feels sad*

Has it really come to this? Must we now always presume the worst every time something extraordinary happens?

Well my opinion appears to be the minority. But I've certainly reached that point, sadly.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

*feels sad*

Has it really come to this? Must we now always presume the worst every time something extraordinary happens?

Just consider the timeline: a couple of weeks ago a former Sri Lankan captain comes out and says match-fixing is rife within Sri Lankan cricket, then in the very next test SL play they lose 8 wickets in 12 overs to lose a game in which they only had to bat out a session on a pitch on which 900 runs had been scored for 15 wickets.

Following on from Cronje, from Pakistan, what else can we think?

Tremlett was simply extraordinary yesterday - as unplayable as I can ever recall seeing an English bowler (or at least since, probably, Harmison's 7/12). His line and length were absolutely impeccable.

Tremlett certainly bowled well, but wouldn't say he was unplayable. Anderson has had several spells in the last couple of years when he was swinging it all over the place and was unplayable to the extent that no-one could even get an edge on him. There wasn't extravagant bounce, seam or swing movement and the pitch was fine.

The pitch wasn't as much of a minefield as Swann's figures suggest - but Swanny does bowl with such pace and agression for a spinner, and England of course had nothing to lose, so could completely surround the bat. Bell's catch off Perera was as good as anything I've seen for a while, as well.

Excellent play by Trott, Cook and Bell (and bravo to Strauss for letting him complete his ton - a decision that was not mere sentimentality, but instead about momentum and helping a player to achieve personal milestones within the team dynamic; look at how Bell sprinted off as soon as he got his runs, it shows you how up they were for having a bowl at them). But what on earth do we do about KP? Out to a left-arm spinner yet again. Thought Boycs and Vaughan made very good points on the highlights show, pointing out two very basic technical flaws with KP's batting against the left arm spinners:

(1) Vaughan pointed out that there's a bit of an issue with KP's hips. KP's natural game is to move the ball through the on-side; however, that has recently become exaggerated by the fact that in fact his hips are now pointing somewhere between mid-wicket and mid-on. Thus, if a left-handed delivery comes on to him more quickly / unexpectedly than normal, he invariably ends up playing with his bat too far from his body (and his feet too far apart), leaving him unbalanced and offering up chances.

(2) Boycs's point was even simpler: play with the spin. By invariably trying to work the ball into the on-side (which KP does, more often than not), KP is playing against the spin and so will inevitably offer up more chances.

KP needs some time in the nets. The question is: is his head too big that there's no one he would listen to in order to correct these issues? Would he listen to Goochie? Or maybe Flower? He needs to sort this issue out soon...

I suspect Capey's issue is that he's listening to too many different people. The last thing a batsmen needs is everyone tinkering with his technique and over-complicating things. The last time he was dismissed by a SLA in tests, he'd already tonked him all over the park on his way to a double hundred.

 

[Uncle Leo]

I reckon some people have made a lot of money today.

Just spoken to our chief cricket trader. That England win was a great result for us.

 

[BLUEBLOOD]

Just spoken to our chief cricket trader. That England win was a great result for us.

So does that mean there were no suspicious patterns for an England win around tea time yesterday?? and just you or industry wide

What were the odds at tea anyway, 10-1 or so i'd imagine ??

 

[Beefy]

Don't these things usually go down in bookies in the sub-continent?

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Just consider the timeline: a couple of weeks ago a former Sri Lankan captain comes out and says match-fixing is rife within Sri Lankan cricket, then in the very next test SL play they lose 8 wickets in 12 overs to lose a game in which they only had to bat out a session on a pitch on which 900 runs had been scored for 15 wickets.

Following on from Cronje, from Pakistan, what else can we think?

Naively, perhaps, I'd like to presume that all sportsmen who are blessed with the ability to play Test cricket - surely the most marvellous gift known to man - go out and try to do their best every time they set foot on a cricket field. Despite Pakistan's recent aberrations, I'd still like to think that that is truly what happens.

I take the point about 900-runs / 15 wickets - but, actually, the ball was doing a bit. Bell nearly got out to Maharoof trying to score his ton, for instance. All it required was for Tremlett to put the cat among the pigeons - which he did, in spades - and surely what we witnessed was one team (England) which has truly learned the art of winning in recent months beating, fairly and squarely, another team (SL) whose minds had switched off, because they thought the game was bound to end in a draw. Irrespective of the level of the game, if you turn off mentally on a cricket field, you will be punished.

Tremlett certainly bowled well, but wouldn't say he was unplayable. Anderson has had several spells in the last couple of years when he was swinging it all over the place and was unplayable to the extent that no-one could even get an edge on him. There wasn't extravagant bounce, seam or swing movement and the pitch was fine.

Oddly, I'd be tempted to argue this one. Completely agree that Jimmy has had banana-like movement in recent years with his swing (so that batsmen can't in fact get anywhere near the ball); but, actually, Tremlett's initial spell yesterday was more testing. He was bowling so close to the line of off that the batsmen couldn't work out whether to play or leave; and he was pitching it up so well (but not overpitching) that he was giving the batsmen no time to work out whether to come forward or to try and play late. Hence the wickets he took - look at how both Jayasuriya and Sangakkara struggled against him, when both have been in such rich form this year.

Had he not been tonked a bit by Perera when tiring towards the end, he'd have ended up with figures in the region of 4 for 20-odd, which would have matched the ferocity of that early spell.

I suspect Capey's issue is that he's listening to too many different people.

Really? I've never got the impression that KP listens to anything much, except his own hype. And he does seem to struggle with left-handers; they dismiss him a disproportionate amount of the time. Look at the last few series he has played in - e.g. again Pakistan, it was Amir and Riaz getting him out more than the others; against Oz it was Johnson.

 

[Uncle Leo]

So does that mean there were no suspicious patterns for an England win around tea time yesterday?? and just you or industry wide

What were the odds at tea anyway, 10-1 or so i'd imagine ??

We didn't see anything hooky. Big hitters kept on backing the draw and it was only a few small stakes punters who backed the England win at tasty prices 'because you never know'.

Biggest price England was 12/1 whilst the draw had been as short as 1/250.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Don't these things usually go down in bookies in the sub-continent?

It's not usual for legitimate bookmakers to be troubled by these sort of things. Were there any dodgy goings-on - and naive old me is going to say there wasn't - it would've been with the illegal bookies in Asia.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Naively, perhaps, I'd like to presume that all sportsmen who are blessed with the ability to play Test cricket - surely the most marvellous gift known to man - go out and try to do their best every time they set foot on a cricket field. Despite Pakistan's recent aberrations, I'd still like to think that that is truly what happens.

I'm not sure Sri Lanka prioritise test cricket - see Malinga and various other team selections.

I think there's also the wider match-fixing picture. This isn't a local problem. Pakistan seems rife with it. Australians were taking the bookies cash for "weather and pitch reports". Cronje and South Africa were involved with it. Hashan Tillekeratne says it was "widespread" within Sri Lankan cricket. As much as I'd like to be able to believe it, this looks too good to be true, much like when Lance Armstrong would streak up a mountain in the TdF to leave the others for dead.

I take the point about 900-runs / 15 wickets - but, actually, the ball was doing a bit. Bell nearly got out to Maharoof trying to score his ton, for instance. All it required was for Tremlett to put the cat among the pigeons - which he did, in spades - and surely what we witnessed was one team (England) which has truly learned the art of winning in recent months beating, fairly and squarely, another team (SL) whose minds had switched off, because they thought the game was bound to end in a draw. Irrespective of the level of the game, if you turn off mentally on a cricket field, you will be punished.

There's punished, and there's being skittled in under 25 overs - even Glamorgan managed to bat 29 overs today! Only two players managed to last longer than 18 balls when they only had a session to bat.

Oddly, I'd be tempted to argue this one. Completely agree that Jimmy has had banana-like movement in recent years with his swing (so that batsmen can't in fact get anywhere near the ball); but, actually, Tremlett's initial spell yesterday was more testing. He was bowling so close to the line of off that the batsmen couldn't work out whether to play or leave; and he was pitching it up so well (but not overpitching) that he was giving the batsmen no time to work out whether to come forward or to try and play late. Hence the wickets he took - look at how both Jayasuriya and Sangakkara struggled against him, when both have been in such rich form this year.

Jayauriya's retired! Not sure how much form Jayawardene and Sangakkara have in England against the moving ball.

It was a very impressive spell from Tremlett because there wasn't that much there for the bowlers, but there have been occasions when the pitch/conditions were making it harder for batsmen. England asked all the right questions, but I was not impressed by Sri Lanka's response.

Had he not been tonked a bit by Perera when tiring towards the end, he'd have ended up with figures in the region of 4 for 20-odd, which would have matched the ferocity of that early spell.

Really? I've never got the impression that KP listens to anything much, except his own hype. And he does seem to struggle with left-handers; they dismiss him a disproportionate amount of the time. Look at the last few series he has played in - e.g. again Pakistan, it was Amir and Riaz getting him out more than the others; against Oz it was Johnson.

Half the Convict bowling line-up were left-armers (Johnson, Bollinger, Doherty, Beer) and they got him half the time: Johnson (2) and Doherty (1). The right-arm of Siddle also got him twice and Hilfenhaus once. He averaged 60 that series.

Against Pakistan it was the right-arm off-spin of Saeed Ajmal who snared him the most often (twice). Amir and Riaz got him out as often as Gul and Asif.

So that's actually out twice in his last 10 tests to a SLA and a further three times to a left-arm seamer.

As for not listening, I think that's a lazy stereotype. I think he certainly listens to Graham Ford, to Sir Duncan Fletcher. I bet he seeks out Sir Duncan this summer when India come over. Someone (Nasser?) said that he'd sought out Rahul Dravid during the IPL, who'd suggested he stay more leg-side and he'd adopted that approach so I'd disagree with the suggestion that he doesn't listen to others. I don't think he'd listen to anyone, but I think he'd listen to people he rates and you need that quality control threshhold, otherwise you'll get so much conflicting advice.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

As much as I'd like to be able to believe it, this looks too good to be true, much like when Lance Armstrong would streak up a mountain in the TdF to leave the others for dead.

:'(

That makes me feel sad. If that's right - then, really, what is the point of sport? If the fight ain't honest, then it ain't worth it, surely?

Jayauriya's retired! Not sure how much form Jayawardene and Sangakkara have in England against the moving ball.

Serves me right for replying quickly when I'm supposed to be working! Jayawardene averaged 42 in England over 7 tests before this game, including a ton - which is pretty respectable. Sangakkara's form here is much patchier - 30 in 6 tests (again, before this game). But until now, both have looked in sparkling form - albeit, as you say, in the shorter form of the game and in the subcontinent.

As for not listening, I think that's a lazy stereotype.

Perhaps I'm being unfair, although he does really p*ss me off at times. I saw an interview with him before the start of this Test in which he was at his monosyllabic, seemingly contemptuous worst. If his batting is doing the talking, then he can get away with being a ****. Unfortunately, his batting is pretty monosyllabic (or mono-digital in this case) right now - and that simply ain't good enough. No player is undroppable, not even KP; but he should at least try to be smart enough to know that if he's got the paying punters on his side (a la Colly), he can ride out his present rough patch for longer.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Perhaps I'm being unfair, although he does really p*ss me off at times. I saw an interview with him before the start of this Test in which he was at his monosyllabic, seemingly contemptuous worst. If his batting is doing the talking, then he can get away with being a ****. Unfortunately, his batting is pretty monosyllabic (or mono-digital in this case) right now - and that simply ain't good enough. No player is undroppable, not even KP; but he should at least try to be smart enough to know that if he's got the paying punters on his side (a la Colly), he can ride out his present rough patch for longer.

What he says in interviews should have no bearing whatsoever on his selection.

Who was it interviewing him? Did they actually ask him any interesting questions?

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

What he says in interviews should have no bearing whatsoever on his selection.

Who was it interviewing him? Did they actually ask him any interesting questions?

Perhaps it shouldn't, but my point above stands. While a player has the backing of the punters, it makes it perhaps a wee bit harder to drop him. Conversely, when they're unloved, they get dropped sharpish. Eg Gough v. Caddick - the latter seemingly being dropped more readily than the former. It shouldn't have a bearing, but it does.

Erm... bloke off the Beeb. Asked him a predictable, if not unreasonable, question about his perceived weakness against left arm spinners. Also asked him some very gentle openers about his rehab, which got equally short shrift.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

:'(

That makes me feel sad. If that's right - then, really, what is the point of sport? If the fight ain't honest, then it ain't worth it, surely?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13620144 :sad:

 

[number11]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13620144 :sad:

That's a shame, used to love Signori......always seemed to be scoring for Lazio when watching Gazetta Football Italia when I was younger....

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

KP sought advice from Dravid before the tour to Bangladesh in 2010. He did OK then, but the stats don't lie. In his 1st 60 odd innings, he was dismissed precisely 0 times by SLA, in his last 60 odd innings he's been dismissed something like 19 times.

It's now all in his mind, he's too worried about getting out and his brain's frazzled. Vaughan came up with the best advice on TMS, namely just play the ball on it's merits, which sounds pretty basic, but is actually spot on.

 

[BLUEBLOOD]

Did i mention i'm off to Lords tomorrow? :angel: