England vs Sri Lanka, 4th ODI, Trent Bridge, 6 July, 2011

skully wrote:So Nick Knight said the pitch was "green and tufty" and Jimmehhh made the most of it by the looks. But then it became a rolled pancake for England's innings???

Anywho, well done England. And does Cook rate a "Chefohl^TM"?

Best to assume that Nick Knight knows ****** all.

I know we can be all sarcastic - we're only good with a bit of cloud, point out flawsfrom the previous games. But lets enjoy the fact the we were playing one of the best ODI teams in the world - and we absolutely slaughted them.

We ripped their pants down and penetrated them so hard we knocked their false teeth out. It was a complete massacre - 174 all out, and one batsman stood between them and being bowled out for 80. The pitch doing a bit? Seam bowlers paradise? Not so - 171/0 off 24 overs, England well on course for 350+. For once we've talked the talk and walked the walk.

I'd have dropped Broad, but fair play, 2/37, decent, although others did the damage first up. Jimmy was excellent again and Brezzy Lad once more got vital wickets. Cook has been in excellent touch all series and Kieswetter showed the talent we know he has - should be a real boost going into The Oval - game on!

So is it possible that it was a good toss to win with the pitch doing a lot early and then settling down or was England simply far too awesome?

Of course had England batted first they wouldn't have been quite so incompetent as SL's attack is not stellar and England's batsmen at least have some facility to defend swing.

Red wrote:So is it possible that it was a good toss to win with the pitch doing a lot early and then settling down or was England simply far too awesome?

Of course had England batted first they wouldn't have been quite so incompetent as SL's attack is not stellar and England's batsmen at least have some facility to defend swing.

Today they were just far too awesome - if Sri Lanka had bowled first (Dilshan said at the toss he prefered to bat btw) then there is no way on earth England would have lost by 10 wickets inside 25 overs.

Gary 111 wrote:I know we can be all sarcastic - we're only good with a bit of cloud, point out flawsfrom the previous games. But lets enjoy the fact the we were playing one of the best ODI teams in the world - and we absolutely slaughted them.

We ripped their pants down and penetrated them so hard we knocked their false teeth out. It was a complete massacre - 174 all out, and one batsman stood between them and being bowled out for 80. The pitch doing a bit? Seam bowlers paradise? Not so - 171/0 off 24 overs, England well on course for 350+. For once we've talked the talk and walked the walk.

I'd have dropped Broad, but fair play, 2/37, decent, although others did the damage first up. Jimmy was excellent again and Brezzy Lad once more got vital wickets. Cook has been in excellent touch all series and Kieswetter showed the talent we know he has - should be a real boost going into The Oval - game on!

It was a thumping good win. It just wasn't massively unexpected. The crashing disappointment of England's previous performances in this series stem partly from how ordinary this Sri Lankan side is, away from the subcontinent. WC finalists or not, they're nothing special.

They've got two batsmen and a bowler. The rest is bobbins. And yet we've contrived to lose heavily to their mix of dobbers and serviceable spinners, batsmen who can't play the moving ball, and a guy named Flangelo because in the bobbins stakes, more times than not we can out bobbin anyone.

An enjoyable victory, but after the WC debacle, it's hard to get excited unless there are signs of rebuilding and progression, which there aren't. It all feels quite hollow and meaningless. A false economy.

And I take issue with the suggestion that the pitch wasn't doing a bit. Come on. There was always some movement out there for the England seamers. Bresnan bowled a geometric marvel to Sanga which swung in sharply and then seamed away like a mo-fo. Sri Lanka's bowling was dross. No idea if conditions improved for batting as their bowling was too dismal to take advantage of anything that might've been on offer out there.

The only thing that we learnt is that Ali Cook's game is continuing to develop. 95 off 75 balls would have been unheard of from him a couple of years ago.

I don't know - we also learned that Dirtbag hasn't yet fallen into line with the current modern thinking of the England bowlers to never, ever, under any circumstances bowl a yorker.

And also, he bowls really wide of the wicket. I'm sure he wasn't that wide in game one.

Also, we learned Trott can catch a ball while standing in the slips. Which is interesting, as he's long been rumoured to be a good slipper, England's slip stocks are so low that Grassman Cook's been drafted into the cordon in Tests, and Trott has never even been within sniffing distance of the position up until now.

I think Dirtbag should be persisted with. He reminds me a little of Rana Naved in his bowling action and willingness to bowl yorkers. He started out bowling dross yesterday but he came back really well so good on him.

Dello wrote:I don't know - we also learned that Dirtbag hasn't yet fallen into line with the current modern thinking of the England bowlers to never, ever, under any circumstances bowl a yorker.

And also, he bowls really wide of the wicket. I'm sure he wasn't that wide in game one.

Also, we learned Trott can catch a ball while standing in the slips. Which is interesting, as he's long been rumoured to be a good slipper, England's slip stocks are so low that Grassman Cook's been drafted into the cordon in Tests, and Trott has never even been within sniffing distance of the position up until now.

Trott's so useless (slow, anyway) elsewhere, sticking him in slips seems a pretty good option

Simon Katich would beg to differ.

lardbucket wrote:

Dello wrote:I don't know - we also learned that Dirtbag hasn't yet fallen into line with the current modern thinking of the England bowlers to never, ever, under any circumstances bowl a yorker.

And also, he bowls really wide of the wicket. I'm sure he wasn't that wide in game one.

Also, we learned Trott can catch a ball while standing in the slips. Which is interesting, as he's long been rumoured to be a good slipper, England's slip stocks are so low that Grassman Cook's been drafted into the cordon in Tests, and Trott has never even been within sniffing distance of the position up until now.

Trott's so useless (slow, anyway) elsewhere, sticking him in slips seems a pretty good option

He's got one of the better arms. I guess that's why they have him plodding around the outfield. I don't know. It's a mystery.

Henry wrote:Simon Katich would beg to differ.

I hadn't forgotten that, but the point still stands. McGrath's flying fluking catch at deep backward square leg didn't suddenly make him the world's best outfielder, either.

Gotta be pleased with the win. I thought we'd crab it. Nothing like the painting of doe-eyed fluffy animals holding hands, skipping over a lovely meadow to the backdrop of a rainbow as Gary has it though, let us please be realistic... The SLers bowled sh!thouse. Filth. Hmm, should we tuck Cook up? No, let's bowl wide half-trackers that he can flay over point. It was a horrendous performance with the ball. Well done to Cook and Beddy, though, smashed it. All of the denigration still stands, as I've said let's not kid ourselves.

Trott? A cracking outfielder, don't care what lard says about him being a clodhopper - his arm makes up for his lack of speed. Bullet arm.

Brass Monkey wrote:Gotta be pleased with the win. I thought we'd crab it. Nothing like the painting of doe-eyed fluffy animals holding hands, skipping over a lovely meadow to the backdrop of a rainbow as Gary has it though, let us please be realistic... The SLers bowled sh!thouse. Filth. Hmm, should we tuck Cook up? No, let's bowl wide half-trackers that he can flay over point. It was a horrendous performance with the ball. Well done to Cook and Beddy, though, smashed it. All of the denigration still stands, as I've said let's not kid ourselves.

They came out blazing because they were worried about the weather that was around. Funny how we've batted best when we've had the circumstances dictated to us by weather, like here at Trent Bridge and at the Oval last week.

Must be a message in there somewhere?

Maybe you're onto something... certainly seems to help Cook out. Beddy seemed to thrive on there being plenty of time. It was weird that SL just had no clue of how to bowl in these, or the Oval's, conditions. They look as clueless as us in 'foreign' conditions. So it must be a combo of the two. I'm pretty dumbfound on the subject - seems we're all at sea on slow decks, but the ball came on nicely last night and we thrash it

Kieswetter clearly likes to give himself 10-15 balls to get in, which I guess is no bad thing in ODIs.

Henry wrote:Kieswetter clearly likes to give himself 10-15 balls to get in, which I guess is no bad thing in ODIs.

Aye, it may not be a bad thing in some situations, but if the more limited stroke-makers in Cook & Trott are bogged down we could be 30/1 after the mandatory 10. That will be bad times on a belter.

Basil wrote:

skully wrote:So Nick Knight said the pitch was "green and tufty" and Jimmehhh made the most of it by the looks. But then it became a rolled pancake for England's innings???

Anywho, well done England. And does Cook rate a "Chefohl^TM"?

Best to assume that Nick Knight knows ****** all.

Best moment on the Sky commentary came when it was announced the The Chef and Bedwetter had broken the record for England's opening stand against the Lankies previuosly held by Knight and Atherton

Sir 'Beefy': "Knight & Atherton? How long did it take them? A week? Are you sure it was a one-day game?"