Sri Lanka v England, 3rd test, Galle, 18-22 Dec

pretty average series in the end, With a little more aggression/luck with the weather Sri Lanka might have won 3-0 but england with a little more application could have just as easily got away with 0-0.

Right...so batting for a draw and 3 wickets go in an over, one caught mid-on, one stumped and one run out. That's absolutely f*cking hilarious.

Farkin PMSL @ Poms.

I always expected we would lose this series even before it started, but it's the manner of the defeat that's disappointing.

Usually even in a losing effort there's one or two players who stand out, but here nobody really did. No batsman averaged 50, no frontline bowler much under 30, and just generally sloppy cricket with bad fielding, run-outs and sessions of madness where the initiative was firmly handed to Sri Lanka.

As I've said before, our players aren't world-beaters, but they're better than what they have shown here, and there's plenty of players with something to prove in New Zealand, otherwise there's the prospect of something of a clearout in the summer.

At least Cook ended the series on a high. Hopefully this signals the end of the less than impressive form he's be in recently. I think partnering Vaughan will be a good thing for him over the next few series: not only does it give the right/left handed combination, but he'll probably learn a lot too.

Assuming Vaughan stays in the side. Collingwood should take over the captaincy next season but leave Cook out of the ODI side. He's the natural successor to Boycs and Atherton and trying to turn him into a one-day player will simply ruin him for Test cricket.

I wouldn't even have Collingwood in the side. He's shite.

Vaughan, Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Bell, Shah, Prior, Broad, Harmison, Hoggard, Panesar.

For New Zealand.

beamer wrote:I always expected we would lose this series even before it started, but it's the manner of the defeat that's disappointing.

Usually even in a losing effort there's one or two players who stand out, but here nobody really did. No batsman averaged 50, no frontline bowler much under 30, and just generally sloppy cricket with bad fielding, run-outs and sessions of madness where the initiative was firmly handed to Sri Lanka.

As I've said before, our players aren't world-beaters, but they're better than what they have shown here, and there's plenty of players with something to prove in New Zealand, otherwise there's the prospect of something of a clearout in the summer.

Aye, spot on.

What can they prove in New Zealand? New Zealand are only just above minnow level at the moment. Anything less than a 3-0 series victory would be a dissapointment, imo.

Jeez....from 200-2, a respectable score, 2 minutes later it was 200-5

FFS!!!!! says it all

England =

Well England is afflicted by the same problem that hurt BCCI for so long until not so long back. And that is the 'bench strength'.

Today even oldies like Ganguly need to perform to keep their place in the side. Because of high competition for every slot, every one needed to lift their game and they have done so.

The likes of Mal Loye need to be bought back and Vawn ought to drop down to #3. The only guy who looked like he was competiting for his place was Prior.

The likes of Mal Loye need to be bought back

:|

I think he is an aggressive kriketer. Something different from the routine humdrum of English kriket.

If he can work a bit on his technique, he has the right approach IMO. And also most batsmen peak around their 30s. He needs to be given a couple of series.

Henry wrote:

The likes of Mal Loye need to be bought back

:|

Yeah, that surprised me too. I might play him in ODIs but in tests we want Strauss to learn to drive more and Tresco mentally healthy again.

Tall openers always have that capability to dominate IMO.

Bucky, we are in a kirket forum not a basketball forum.

I just go by my instincts.

And considering the performance of Hayden and Vandort, it seems I do have them silly stats on my side as well.

Henry wrote:What can they prove in New Zealand? New Zealand are only just above minnow level at the moment. Anything less than a 3-0 series victory would be a dissapointment, imo.

How many sides go to NZ and trash them in tests? Not many...

Aye. Will probably be fairly tight...

Goodness me ... look at that.

England should win but yeah with the weather and the pitches it's pretty hard to totally dominate the kiwis at home.

Im sure right now england will take any sort of series win even it's a scrappy 1-0.

JKLever wrote:

Henry wrote:What can they prove in New Zealand? New Zealand are only just above minnow level at the moment. Anything less than a 3-0 series victory would be a dissapointment, imo.

How many sides go to NZ and trash them in tests? Not many...

You'd expect Hoggard and SiBo to do well there, and Harmi will carry on doing a good third seamer job. I think Monty will get a few wickets.

Is Bond fit? He's key to the whole thing.

Rob I wrote:

Is Bond fit?

rofl

So the positives then:

England played Murali in patches better than they have for a long while.

Prior batted almost as well as you can expect a keeper to bat.

Alistair Cook's career not imploding yet.

Sidebottom, although finishing with dreaful figures showing the 'right stuff' with bat and ball.

Eric Air Emu wrote:So the positives then:

England played Murali in patches better than they have for a long while.

Prior batted almost as well as you can expect a keeper to bat.

Alistair Cook's career not imploding yet.

Sidebottom, although finishing with dreaful figures showing the 'right stuff' with bat and ball.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Though I may add Mick's batting until the misfortune and twattyness and Bell's batting until the twattyness.