Sri Lanka v England, 4th ODI, Colombo, 10th Oct

JKLever wrote:Yep. Stupid decision to leave Maharoof out.

He's injured mate. Has a side strain.

Ah well Shah's in - so we can look forward to the game being finished in three blows then!

Assuming England win this is the best run by the ODI side since they beat Canada, Kenya and Ireland in consecutive matches in the WC and the best against Full Member sides since they won the last 4 matches of the Commonwealth Bank trophy beating Australia 3 times and New Zealand once.

The best run of consecutive victories by an England ODI side is 8 which has been achieved twice, first from 23 May 1991 at Edgbaston against the West Indies to 27 February 1992 at the MCG when the West Indies were again the losing side in the WC until a no result against Pakistan at the Adelaide Oval in the following match on 1 March halted the run (England won 11 out of 12 consecutive games including the no result game which England would probably have won easily had the weather relented since Pakistan had been bowled out for 74).

The second occasion England achieved 8 consecutive victories was from 22 May 1997 against Australia at Headingley to 29 March 1998 at the Kensington Oval when West Indies were on the losing end. West Indies secured their revenge on the same ground on April Fools' day.

JKLever wrote:

Yep. Stupid decision to leave Maharoof out.

He' crocked with a side strain ....

Basil wrote:Ah well Shah's in - so we can look forward to the game being finished in three blows then!

You were saying B@zza ...

Migara wrote:

JKLever wrote:Yep. Stupid decision to leave Maharoof out.

He's injured mate. Has a side strain.

Ah, right.

Hooray!

Congrats England!

Not many teams win the series be it ODI or test in Sri Lanka. England have won the ODI series!

Told you they should've dropped Cook. Waste of time, that fella.

Back-to-back ODI series wins for England against teams that actually play cricket for a living - I can't remember the last time that happened.

It's not pretty, but I guess when you've been as useless as England have for so long, the first stage of rebuilding is becoming hard to beat and giving the opposition a game.

Well played.

Dello wrote:Told you they should've dropped Cook. Waste of time, that fella.

Back-to-back ODI series wins for England against teams that actually play cricket for a living - I can't remember the last time that happened.

It's not pretty, but I guess when you've been as useless as England have for so long, the first stage of rebuilding is becoming hard to beat and giving the opposition a game.

Well played.

Seconded.

Although i still maintain Cook isn't a one day player.

And a further big up to Roger Daltrey.

If ever there was a cricketer who exceeded my expectations its him

When his trousers fell down during the Lankan's innings, I saw Ryan's Sidebottom.

Dello wrote:When his trousers fell down during the Lankan's innings, I saw Ryan's Sidebottom.

Better than seeing his frontbottom i'd suggest

WEll done Cook, but M o M? Surely should have gone to Sibo.

Cook & Pietersen's 110 for the 3rd wicket was 8 short of the England record against SL (Barnett & Lamb at The Oval, 1988). Collingwood's 4th first-baller in 123 ODI innings.

WTF happened to this forum? I couldn't get it...time-out error for ages...you bunch of cnuts.

Oh, and well played England...peerages all round IMHO.

Well done Cookie and Pietersen. Wow, what's up with the Lankans at home!

Basil wrote:

JKLever wrote:Hmmm, Sangakarra hit 69 off 102, silva 67 off 101, and Cook 68 off 100

Yet some people think Bell should be scoring at a run a ball on these SL wickets? Come on chaps, slate the guy because he hasn't got a score this series not because of his run rate FFS!

It's Bell mate - he should be scoring at least three times as quickly as anyone else!

Ok chaps. Merls did highlight where I did and still slate him for not getting a score and not withtanding his 100, I still don't see he scores anywhere near enough runs at 3. His average is 38 and probably so are his mode and median averages as well. 1 x 100 in how many ODI's and your happy with him at 3?

I was posting those because he was scratching around digging us a hole, and I was sat in the knowledge he would get out to a softc0ck shot in the 20's or 30's. With Cook at the other end, if KP goes cheap were then having to chase the game in the middle overs against the spinners!!!!!

Irrespective of your opinion on whether he is an OD player or not, One thing he certainly is for certain is he is NOT a numbe 3 in OD cricket.

Basil, I expect him to score at a better strike rate than 35, that for sure.

I'm not making excuses for Bell (well, actually I am) but his game is all about timing. When the ball's coming on, he frequently looks quite fluent, but on a slow and low pitch he doesn't have the power to score quickly.

He should, however, be working on running quick singles, as a strike rate of 35 is, as you point out, unacceptable.

Winkle Spinner wrote:I'm not making excuses for Bell (well, actually I am) but his game is all about timing. When the ball's coming on, he frequently looks quite fluent, but on a slow and low pitch he doesn't have the power to score quickly.

He should, however, be working on running quick singles, as a strike rate of 35 is, as you point out, unacceptable.

Perhaps, but in 50 odd ODI's or whatever it is he should have at least tried to further his game. His running between the wickets is also pretty poor.

And before anyone points out, His SR ended up at 5o, yes I know, but only because one of The Lankans bowled a couple of long hops the balls previous to his dismissal.

So where did this decent, tightish bowling from England appear from?

doctorspin wrote:So where did this decent, tightish bowling from England appear from?

We stopped picking shi1te like Saj and Plunkett.

At which point the buffet was closed.

holcs wrote:

doctorspin wrote:So where did this decent, tightish bowling from England appear from?

We stopped picking shi1te like Saj and Plunkett.

At which point the buffet was closed.

fair doos; so why did that take so long then....(meaning 20+ years)?

doctorspin wrote:

holcs wrote:

doctorspin wrote:So where did this decent, tightish bowling from England appear from?

We stopped picking shi1te like Saj and Plunkett.

At which point the buffet was closed.

fair doos; so why did that take so long then....(meaning 20+ years)?

It was a big farking buffet!

and we were sh1t as well.

holcs wrote:

doctorspin wrote:

holcs wrote:

doctorspin wrote:So where did this decent, tightish bowling from England appear from?

We stopped picking shi1te like Saj and Plunkett.

At which point the buffet was closed.

fair doos; so why did that take so long then....(meaning 20+ years)?

It was a big farking buffet!

and we were sh1t as well.

OK, well at least that's sorted then. What a brilliant place DELLOLAND! is!