Sri Lanka v England, 1st Test, Galle, 26-30 March, 2012

Come on, England. One more before the close makes it interesting.

Lead of 188, likely to be mid-200s even with a collapse, is probably too much anyway, but at least it gives us a sniff.

Allan D wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Allan D wrote:Thanks, Dello (as well as Swanny), for returning us to the business at hand. I find blokes discussing their salaries a bit like kids discussing the size of their excrement - fascinating to themselves but nauseating to everyone else.

Sorry Allan, I'll try to find some incredibly abstract and pointless stats off of Google / Cricinfo to put up. I don't know, like:

'this is the highest partnership by two batsmen from the North-West who've eaten some sandwiches that involve curry paste whilst the sun was hidden by some cumulonimbus clouds.'

At least it would have some relevance to the thread.

You want relevance, go on the trivia thread.

With bat and ball, Swann has just about got you ghleymlr0ds back into the match.

Why would Strauss take off a frontline spinner (Panesar) to bring on a part-time spinner (Patel) when Sri Lanka are 60/4?

Swann's been brilliant in the second innings.

Samaramawamablama has a brain fade and gets stumped.

Allan D wrote:
At least it would have some relevance to the thread.

More than 100 times the relevance of my heap of shit, definitely.

About the same amount of usefulness, though.

Only 17 wickets gone down today

Dello wrote:Why would Strauss take off a frontline spinner (Panesar) to bring on a part-time spinner (Patel) when Sri Lanka are 60/4?

Because Panesar's doing some net bowling and basically playing them in with gentle lobs?

Aw, f*ck off. How can you keep Patel on when a wicket's just gone down and a couple of overs are left in the day?

F*cking hell.

So what will be a competitive target here? I should think they'd be happy enough to be bowling at 250.

Not there yet though.

taipan wrote:Only 17 wickets gone down today

Pitch got reported last time they played a Test here, no?

Anyway, the pitch hasn't been the problem today really.

That's the close. Sri Lanka effectively 209/5.

England with it all to do.

Dello wrote:Pitch got reported last time they played a Test here, no?

Anyway, the pitch hasn't been the problem today really.

It was, but that was a bit more crumbling than this one. It made for a good match last time.

OP Tipping wrote:So what will be a competitive target here? I should think they'd be happy enough to be bowling at 250.

Not there yet though.

125. They had enough. We'll fold like a folding machine and start weeping and curling up in the foetal position.

Bat Jimmy at 4.

Come to think of it, reverse the batting order completely, a la Yorkshire.

The sponsors of this series are justretire, wonder if they were hinting at a few individuals.

I'm not sure trike - if the sponsors had been 'justf*ckoffanddieyouutterlyshitexcusesfortestbatsmen' they may have been hinting.

Would have been a suggestive sponsor that.

It's notable that once again England's last four wickets exceeded the first 6. Flower obviously told the batters to "use your feet" after the debacle of the Pakistan series. Only problem was that, with the honourable exception of Bell, they had either forgotten or didn't know how to in a discretionary manner. Some of the sweep shots would have been embarrassing in a junior school match.

Despite the subsequent bowling heroics England still look to be needing 275+ in the 4th innings which rarely results in a win especially overseas but one can but hope.

Sri Lanka already have enough runs. I just can't see how England are going to score more than 200 in these conditions. Our batsmen have a chronic inability to make runs on turning pitches. It's a flaw that has been ruthlessly exposed in the last few months.

Galle mein balle balle.

I'll get me coat.

Game is lost. We won't reach three figures second dig. Time to drop some batsmen. The middle-order really needs somebody who can block the sh*t out of it, like Paul Collingwood used to. Pietersen is going to have to be dropped soon, he's showing no application whatsoever. Strauss ought to be the first to go, but he's the captain, innit. I'd drop Strauss, Bell and Pietersen if they don't make a real impression in these next three innings. Bell made a fifty ... but that's not good enough. Fifties don't win matches.

I guess the second Test will see Patel dropped for Bopara, and the inclusion of a third seamer (Bresnan, when it should be Finn) in place of the wicketless Panesar.

Henry wrote:Our batsmen have a chronic inability to make runs on turning pitches. It's a flaw that has been ruthlessly exposed in the last few months.

Not today it wasn't. Ball barely deviated off the straight. It was just a combination of flight and absolute ineptitude that led to England's downfall.

Pitch started to take spin towards the end of the day. So that's good news for England's second innings...

Though it wouldn't surprise me if England's batsmen suddenly make hay with the ball ragging square when they couldn't buy a run against straight-on-ers in the first innings. They're weird like that.

Think this sums it up pretty nicely:

"On this occasion the destroyer was Herath, a 34-year-old left-arm spinner who, not so long ago, was plying his trade in the North Staffordshire and South Cheshire League with only modest success."

Stunning that he could wreak havoc.