Sri Lanka v England, 3rd Test, Colombo, 23-27 November, 2018

Can SL do better in the dead rubber?

Some suggestions we might only play one seamer in this one...

beamer wrote:Some suggestions we might only play one seamer in this one...

Well Jimmy is rested for Broad and Curran is replaced with our latest number 3 so i don't see many wickets falling to seam.

England off to a shaky start. 37/2 with both openers gone.

Have England finally found their no. 3?

Jonny going well on 53* atm.

Who is Bairstow so angry at? The only person I can think of is Foakes, due to him having the audacity of being a better keeper and scoring a century on debut.

Great way to make your new team mate feel welcome Jonny, you f*ckwit.

Nice century, more of the same please, but support your team mate who is clearly a better keeper rather than having a sook about it.

You sound angrier than him, tbh Vilks.

It was directed at the Media Box. The mutterings he wasn't worth a place back in the team. Not directed at his team.

Maybe England have, through a succession of incidents and incidents, hints & allegations (thx Al) found their long-lost #3. But he might soon be needed in either of the opening spots instead. Carpet still can't get going, and though supposedly a Subcontinent/spin specialist, and after a fine start, Jet has gone right off the boil again.

When I saw the changes for this Test, I though: Buggins Turn, as I feared. Just keeping the displaced duo sweet. And Curran unjustly dropped for the second time in his fledgeling career, to make way for a favourite. But then I read the injury that kept Curran out of most of the end of the second Test was still iffy or worse than iffy. And Jimmy maybe was pissed off. So hey ho.

I've always liked Bairstow, nervous as he is. I hope they don't pander to his ambition, an give him back the big gloves too soon. He's needed mostly with the bat.

England didn't collapse as is the classic England performance for much of a century. But they wilted. Some lousy dismissals. Especially given the fact that, thanks to prodigally bad DRSing and butterfingers by their opponents (and prodigiously shocking umpiring for much of the day), they were lucky. Bairstow's dismissal can be excused. He was clearly knackered after four hours or more of concentrating in sultry heat. But most of the others, well.

He's vice captain and so presumably safe, but if England need to drop people, I wonder if Buttler should still be one of the first names on the team sheet? Bizarre as it is to be wondering who England can drop. Not usually the problem. Usually more a case of which few deserve to keep their place.

Or maybe the selectors should just have done with it, and put out 11 wickies.

PeterCS wrote:You sound angrier than him, tbh Vilks.

I can assure you I'm not angrier than this:



I'm not even angry, I'm pleased he made a century and it would be fantastic if he managed to start scoring decently more regularly as he has barely averaged 30 for the past couple of years. If he can regularly make runs at number three, even better.

But he is the third best wicket keeper in the team and is piling unnecessary pressure on to the new guy who is clearly a better keeper. Poor team man to make such a big deal about the gloves, but I hope he keeps making the runs. He has a test average of 37 so I don't quite understand his entitled and Billy Big Bollocks attitude.

"I'm happy with my start. But I've not given up my keeping - I want to make that very, very clear. It's still something I've worked hard on and something I want to do."

"I am not giving up on my keeping. I have worked hard for the last nine years. I am not going to give up after two games you miss".

Way to support and get behind the new guy (who again, is clearly a better keeper). Lots of ego there.

PeterCS wrote:You sound angrier than him, tbh Vilks.

It was directed at the Media Box. The mutterings he wasn't worth a place back in the team. Not directed at his team.

Maybe England have, through a succession of incidents and incidents, hints & allegations (thx Al) found their long-lost #3. But he might soon be needed in either of the opening spots instead. Carpet still can't get going, and though supposedly a Subcontinent/spin specialist, and after a fine start, Jet has gone right off the boil again.

When I saw the changes for this Test, I though: Buggins Turn, as I feared. Just keeping the displaced duo sweet. And Curran unjustly dropped for the second time in his fledgeling career, to make way for a favourite. But then I read the injury that kept Curran out of most of the end of the second Test was still iffy or worse than iffy. And Jimmy maybe was pissed off. So hey ho.

I've always liked Bairstow, nervous as he is. I hope they don't pander to his ambition, an give him back the big gloves too soon. He's needed mostly with the bat.

England didn't collapse as is the classic England performance for much of a century. But they wilted. Some lousy dismissals. Especially given the fact that, thanks to prodigally bad DRSing and butterfingers by their opponents (and prodigiously shocking umpiring for much of the day), they were lucky. Bairstow's dismissal can be excused. He was clearly knackered after four hours or more of concentrating in sultry heat. But most of the others, well.

He's vice captain and so presumably safe, but if England need to drop people, I wonder if Buttler should still be one of the first names on the team sheet? Bizarre as it is to be wondering who England can drop. Not usually the problem. Usually more a case of which few deserve to keep their place.

Or maybe the selectors should just have done with it, and put out 11 wickies.

Some bizarre shit in here.from the weird nicknames to the suggestion that England have been collapsing since 1918.

You're entitled to your opinion, however bitter and twisted, as ever. And as abusive as usual.

PeterCS wrote:You're entitled to your opinion, however bitter and twisted, as ever. And as abusive as usual.

Really. Which part was actually bitter and twisted? The suggestion you produced weird nicknames or the absolute nonsense that England have been collapsing since 1918.

Supply proof that anyone else uses these nicknames or that England have been collapsing for a century.

Once again you have proved you are unable to accept that anyone might dare to dispute your views.

vilkrang wrote:

PeterCS wrote:You sound angrier than him, tbh Vilks.

I can assure you I'm not angrier than this:



I'm not even angry, I'm pleased he made a century and it would be fantastic if he managed to start scoring decently more regularly as he has barely averaged 30 for the past couple of years. If he can regularly make runs at number three, even better.

But he is the third best wicket keeper in the team and is piling unnecessary pressure on to the new guy who is clearly a better keeper. Poor team man to make such a big deal about the gloves, but I hope he keeps making the runs. He has a test average of 37 so I don't quite understand his entitled and Billy Big Bollocks attitude.

"I'm happy with my start. But I've not given up my keeping - I want to make that very, very clear. It's still something I've worked hard on and something I want to do."

"I am not giving up on my keeping. I have worked hard for the last nine years. I am not going to give up after two games you miss".

Way to support and get behind the new guy (who again, is clearly a better keeper). Lots of ego there.

Aye, he is more driven than most in his ambitions to be a star, to the fullest of his abilities and beyond. (Maybe some connection with his biography? I'm not sure.)

For all that, I'm not sure I spot any personal belligerence or resentment towards Foakes. You'd probably have to (privatel) ask Foakes (and Buttler) how they see it, to be sure of the impact of his fire on his teammates.

I'd suppose, though I know I may be wrong, if he had such a grudgey Billy Bollocks attitude as you infer, he'd not have been selected at all for this Test?

But two extracts below might suggest he's a) insanely motivated to achieve the very best he personally can reach; b) aware he has to keep improving; while indeed, c) annoyed to be written off, by members of the media in particular.

And the flash of anger. Remember, say, Nasser jabbing his thumb at the Number 3 on his back? That sort of reaction, I'd suppose. Bracing to see, but ambition at its fieriest usually is.

....................................................................................................

“You don’t want to accept that, do you? You don’t know what’s round the corner, so I’m working on both my primary skills like I have done over the last three years.

“You don’t know how the make-up of sides work, or how injuries happen, like we’ve seen over the last few weeks, how quickly that comes around.

“So, yeah I’m still working on all my skills. That will continue to be the case all the way through.

“The last two-and-a-half years I’ve been in the team, and it was only three Tests ago I was in the top ten batters in the world. And then you’re not playing.

“But that’s part and parcel of sport. That’s good for the squad. You’ve got competition for places.

“And if we want to push each other, and push other teams around the world, then that competition is really good for us, because we’re going to be striving to be better, striving to score more runs, striving to be a better keeper, to take better catches.” (Reported in the Independent, 21 November)

"If I'm not keeping wicket then so be it. Ben's come in and he's done well." (To Sky News, 22 November)

PeterCS wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

PeterCS wrote:You sound angrier than him, tbh Vilks.

I can assure you I'm not angrier than this:



I'm not even angry, I'm pleased he made a century and it would be fantastic if he managed to start scoring decently more regularly as he has barely averaged 30 for the past couple of years. If he can regularly make runs at number three, even better.

But he is the third best wicket keeper in the team and is piling unnecessary pressure on to the new guy who is clearly a better keeper. Poor team man to make such a big deal about the gloves, but I hope he keeps making the runs. He has a test average of 37 so I don't quite understand his entitled and Billy Big Bollocks attitude.

"I'm happy with my start. But I've not given up my keeping - I want to make that very, very clear. It's still something I've worked hard on and something I want to do."

"I am not giving up on my keeping. I have worked hard for the last nine years. I am not going to give up after two games you miss".

Way to support and get behind the new guy (who again, is clearly a better keeper). Lots of ego there.

Aye, he is more driven than most in his ambitions to be a star, to the fullest of his abilities and beyond. (Maybe some connection with his biography? I'm not sure.)

For all that, I'm not sure I spot any personal belligerence or resentment towards Foakes.  You'd probably have to (privatel) ask Foakes (and Buttler) how they see it, to be sure of the impact of his fire on his teammates.

I'd suppose, though I know I may be wrong, if he had such a grudgey Billy Bollocks attitude as you infer, he'd not have been selected at all for this Test?

But two extracts below might suggest he's a) insanely motivated to achieve the very best he personally can reach; b) aware he has to keep improving; while indeed, c) annoyed to be written off, by members of the media in particular.

And the flash of anger. Remember, say, Nasser jabbing his thumb at the Number 3 on his back? That sort of reaction, I'd suppose. Bracing to see, but ambition at its fieriest usually is.

....................................................................................................

“You don’t want to accept that, do you? You don’t know what’s round the corner, so I’m working on both my primary skills like I have done over the last three years.

“You don’t know how the make-up of sides work, or how injuries happen, like we’ve seen over the last few weeks, how quickly that comes around.

“So, yeah I’m still working on all my skills. That will continue to be the case all the way through.

“The last two-and-a-half years I’ve been in the team, and it was only three Tests ago I was in the top ten batters in the world. And then you’re not playing.

“But that’s part and parcel of sport. That’s good for the squad. You’ve got competition for places.

“And if we want to push each other, and push other teams around the world, then that competition is really good for us, because we’re going to be striving to be better, striving to score more runs, striving to be a better keeper, to take better catches.” (Reported in the Independent, 21 November)

"If I'm not keeping wicket then so be it. Ben's come in and he's done well." (To Sky News, 22 November)

I am assuming those are direct quotes from Bairstow.

But a simple look at his cumulative career averages would suggest he wasn't one of the ten best (batters) in the world.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/guru?sdb=player;dnp=0;team=0;notopposition=0;country=0;caughttype=0;runslow=;tourneyid=0;recent=;result=0;homeaway=0;submit=1;bowposition=0;end=2018-09-11;overshigh=;conclow=;seriesresult=0;stumpedhigh=;daynight=0;csearch=;startdefault=2012-05-17;opposition=0;ballshigh=;bpof=0;wicketslow=;start=2012-05-17;finals=0;filter=basic;dismissalslow=;notcountry=0;batposition=0;ballslow=;enddefault=2018-09-11;runshigh=;stumpedlow=;viewtype=bat_cumulative;class=testplayer;overslow=;caughtlow=;keeper=0;continent=0;scheduledovers=0;wicketshigh=;innings=0;groundid=0;followon=0;scheduleddays=0;playerid=52161;season=0;caughthigh=;dismissalshigh=;conchigh=;dismissal=0;captain=0;toss=0;.cgifields=viewtype

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:You're entitled to your opinion, however bitter and twisted, as ever. And as abusive as usual.

Really. Which part was actually bitter and twisted? The suggestion you produced weird nicknames or the absolute nonsense that England have been collapsing since 1918.

Supply proof that anyone else uses these nicknames or that England have been collapsing for a century.

Once again you have proved you are unable to accept that anyone might dare to dispute your views.

Lordy. Tiresome to see you up on your high warhorse and charging *yet again*, Nigel.

As I've said three or four times now, I try always to avoid you, knowing what it leads to, how you appear to love a messy scrap. But you go on, and on baiting people, me especially. You seek me out. Do you need the attention?

Why don't you just ignore my posts if you detest them so much? You can easily mute my posts if they upset you so furiously, and save everyone your choleric rants.

Have you ever heard the phrase: "If you've got nothing reasonable to say, don't bother saying it"? You often give an impression of looking in the mirror, and projecting what you don't like about your lot in life out on to others. But you especially love laying into me, it seems. For fun?

Just a thought: Maybe you should finally try to sort out your anger issues, instead of throwing it all around? It rarely works as therapy. It just spreads nastiness & bad feeling.


> re: England collapsing for nearly a century. Have you heard of "hyperbole", and "ironic humour" (apart from your own flaming sarcasm, that is)?



> And you get worked up about silly nicknames? Then how can you bear to grace this Forum of wildly proliferating ("silly") Australian nicknames with your contributions?

What have you got against "Carpet Burns"?

And answering the other half of your challenge - the one other nickname I used -:

You do know what Keaton Jennings calls HIMSELF, don't you, before hurling your enraged challenges at me? Or do you just enjoy making a show of yourself?

Direct quotes from Bairstow.

The lad's not a saint.

Good comeback knock by Bairstow.  He lost his way during the summer and was, I think unsettled by Buttler's selection.

Ah dear, as usual you ignore the thrust of my argument. You simply cannot bear to be disagreed with.

Since your "return" to this forum I have done my best to ignore your usual pontifications, which are your normal response to anyone who disagrees with you. The usual response is throw out 15 paragraphs of densely constructed bullshit, which never go anywhere. Pseud's Corner anyone. Private Eye.

And as regards silly Aussie nicknames. I and number of other forummers, notably Brass Monkey, have been taking the piss out of those for years. Clearly you missed those posts.

And then "hyperbole". Arrant nonsense to avoid answering the charge at hand.

I see you also make arrogant assumptions about my life. I will refrain from responding in kind even though I have certain feelings about those.

As regards Jet Jenings I will agree I was wrong. I didn't realise he had his adopted his father's nickname as his own Twitter name. A bit strange, but there you go.

Basil wrote:Good comeback knock by Bairstow.  He lost his way during the summer and was, I think unsettled by Buttler's selection.

Yeah, and obviously some personal issues as well, he’s always someone you have to be concerned about from a mental health point of view, for obvious reasons.

He knows how to make a statement on the cricket field though, I think his anger was aimed at the media and the Twitter twats, not Foakes, Buttler or the coaching regime. Who knows, he might make that number 3 spot stick for a while, though I would have my doubts about him coming in first wicket down on English seamers or pacy Aussie pitches.

beamer wrote:

Basil wrote:Good comeback knock by Bairstow.  He lost his way during the summer and was, I think unsettled by Buttler's selection.

Yeah, and obviously some personal issues as well, he’s always someone you have to be concerned about from a mental health point of view, for obvious reasons.

He knows how to make a statement on the cricket field though, I think his anger was aimed at the media and the Twitter twats, not Foakes, Buttler or the coaching regime. Who knows, he might make that number 3 spot stick for a while, though I would have my doubts about him coming in first wicket down on English seamers or pacy Aussie pitches.

Yeah, the mental health issue is something I also thought about.

If he wants to make a go of number 3, you would think he has to give up,on the keeping aspirations,

vilkrang wrote:Who is Bairstow so angry at? The only person I can think of is Foakes, due to him having the audacity of being a better keeper and scoring a century on debut.

Great way to make your new team mate feel welcome Jonny, you f*ckwit.

Nice century, more of the same please, but support your team mate who is clearly a better keeper rather than having a sook about it.

Vikky getting it all wrong again as he tends to. Vikrang calling one of our best players a f*ckwit. Oh the irony. :-)

PeterCS wrote:You're entitled to your opinion, however bitter and twisted, as ever. And as abusive as usual.

What Mr Taipan wrote wasn't bitter or twisted, he made a perfectly good point. You and Vikky need to look at what you wrote, rather.

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:You're entitled to your opinion, however bitter and twisted, as ever. And as abusive as usual.

Really. Which part was actually bitter and twisted? The suggestion you produced weird nicknames or the absolute nonsense that England have been collapsing since 1918.

Supply proof that anyone else uses these nicknames or that England have been collapsing for a century.

Once again you have proved you are unable to accept that anyone might dare to dispute your views.

Hear hear, he is as bad as Vikky, particularly with his inane and naive political views.

Decent start by Lanka to their 1st innings.

Three posts in a row directed at me! My my, I really have got under someone's skin (without even trying to ) .

And aye Skulls, Lankans going well although as ever if we'd taken our chances it would be a different story. England score looks below par though, perhaps a few more of our batsmen should have cashed in.