Sri Lanka 2007: Fraser and Brenkley at the Test - Colombo, day three
Some days in Test cricket seem longer, harder and less thrilling than others. This is one such. The day has gone on and and on as has Mahela Jayawardene, the Sri Lankan captain, 120 not out at tea. Sri Lanka, one up in the series, are playing risk free cricket on a pitch that contains no perils. They have not been especially pedestrian - 95 in the first session, 82 in the second - but it has rarely been compelling. One wicket fell by tea, Ryan Sidebottom striking with the second new ball. The tourists have stuck at it and an early word is deserved for Stephen Harmison, wicketless but always wholehearted, occasionally quick and thoroughly deserving of a wicket or too as I'm pretty sure a fellow member of the fast bowlers' union will concur.
Cricket is at its best when a contest is taking place but the pitch here has too little in it for the bowlers. The fare has been rather tedious but Sri Lanka are working their way in to a strong position.
Harmison has done okay. Some good, dangerous balls but also too many that have travelled harmlessly through to the keeper. Should we expect more from a bowler with 200 Test wickets?
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 11 December 2007 at 09:51 AM
Perhaps you're being a bit harsh on a man who has faced a lot of criticism lately. Harmison has always bowled his share of innocuous balls. My point is today that he has never once been short of effort and has tried to flog life out of a corpse. He has certainly warranted his selection. Monty Panesar, however, has been extremely disappointing. Length all over the place when it demanded rigour and patience. His figures (0-86) reveal the story but there is a hint of b and t, suggesting that it will be hard to get out of this against Murali.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 11 December 2007 at 09:59 AM
I would urge that much praise is due for Sidebottom, who has worked so hard on a pitch which is too flat and lifeless to be considered of genuine Test standard. Harmison and Broad have both worked hard, without much luck, but without the magic ball either. Panesar seems out of sorts today. I was impressed to see Pietersen turning in quite a decent spell, with some genuine turn. One has to wonder what he could do with his bowling if he worked at it. I do think that higher standards should be expected of Test pitches, and wish the ICC would do more about this.
Posted by: anotherdayanotherduck | 11 December 2007 at 10:07 AM
Quite right about Sidebottom - just wanted to put in a word for the maligned Harmy. Something lacking in Monty.
The pitch is awful as Murali pointed out last night. he suggested there had been too much use of the heavy roller. What to do? If the ICC got involved the fear is that all pitches would be built to the same template. But this really isn't good enough. The recent one-day series here was dire (despite being an excellent England win), largely because of the surfaces. People will not put up with this when they have T20 to watch.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 11 December 2007 at 10:13 AM
God save us from that over-rated slogfest! I genuinely believe Test cricket is the finest game in the world, can endure some one-day games (of which there are now ludicrously too many) and find 20/20 crude and pointless. What is wrong with Monty? His economy used to be so good! On the subject of the much-maligned Harmy - might he be giving up pace for accuracy? I think part of his problem is a need to find more variety, including a good, consistent yorker.
Posted by: anotherdayanotherduck | 11 December 2007 at 10:17 AM
Hear hear (on 20/20)! Monty seems to be stuck with two simple game plans, both too rigid, rather than varying his pace, changing the angle, making the crease work for him. Either he over-attacks on one angle, or else he goes negative outside the line of the stumps. He needs to be less predictable, although he does bowl the odd beauty.
Posted by: olympian | 11 December 2007 at 10:21 AM
While Gus is away at the radio two points. Of course, Test cricket is wonderful, but not played like this it isn't. And the T20 World Cup was vibrant, unpredictable and full of inventive cricket. A new generation might very well go for it and if I was eight again and this was my first taste of Test cricket my inclinations would be likewise. Panesar actually needed not to vary it much here but to bowl and bowl and bowl, boring them to their downfall. But he never found the rhythm. The odd slower ball perhaps but it is not his natural pace. This is a steep (but welcome) part on his learning curve. And this pitch is still not up to the job.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 11 December 2007 at 10:36 AM
Back after 30 minutes on TMS. Is Monty bowling at the right pace? Pietersen, who has looked more threatening, is consistently 3-5 mph slower than Monty. I'm not in to this over the wicket, down the leg side approach. It may make the figures look good but it won't get many wickets.
Sorry Stephen, I agree with olympian and anotherdayanotherduck on Twenty20 cricket. If that is the future of cricket the game is in trouble, which it is not.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 11 December 2007 at 10:42 AM
God preserve us from anyone seeing this as their first and only Test Match! I agree that it is boring and pointless, and does nothing for cricket. I still find 20/20 to be the cricket equivalent of junk food, and would take much persuading otherwise - still, perhaps we can agree to differ. Any thoughts on Pietersen as a bowler?
Posted by: olympian | 11 December 2007 at 10:43 AM
Mr Fraser, you never said a truer word! I think that after the initial exhilaration, 20/20 becomes like a more annoying ODI - and we all know how dull the current tidal wave of ODI has become. It used to be the case that international cricket was a treat to savour. Now there is a glut of secondrate matches on secondrate pitches. I think today's batsmen have padded their resumes on such pitches - and the game has suffered. Can you really say that a hundred on a flat pitch is worth much? Think of the current series between India and Pakistan. Runs galore, and monumental tedium! Even Ganguly made a double hundred, for heaven's sake....
Posted by: olympian | 11 December 2007 at 10:47 AM
The cricket may be tedious but I reckon the Sri lankans will be delighted with the position they are working their way towards, namely a sizeable lead on a pitch taking more and more spin. Sri Lanka must be strong favourites to win this game now.
Test runs do appear easier to come by but I like Ganguly, he's a pretty good player.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 11 December 2007 at 10:52 AM
Nearly eight years ago in Durban I saw Pietersen bowl against England for KwaZulu in Natal. I had actually forgotten about it until two months ago I had cause to look at the cuttings. I wrote then that he had some accuracy and could turn the ball and maybe had a future. Well, he has a future all right - as he showed in that match with 60-odd including two inside out sixes. He seems to have gone off bowling, though I remember him telling me in an interview just before he got into the England set-up that it would have to be as a batsman who bowled off-breaks. There is something there - the ability to turn it for a start - but it needs work. While Gus is at TMS might I suggest he asks Vic Marks, a former opff-spinner what his views are on Monty cutting his pace? What he lacked here was consistency, and therefore control. T20 is a game of many but different virtues. If it is junk food it often comes with real chips and bliue cheese dressing.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 11 December 2007 at 10:52 AM
It might be worse. Imagine if someone like Jason Gillespie made a double hundred... Surely that would be the ultimate nightmare? Ah, but I was forgetting -the nightmare is already upon us. Admittedly against Bangladesh, but even so.... was anyone awake at the end of the epic?
Posted by: nj | 11 December 2007 at 10:52 AM
Dare one point out the impact of a diet of chips and blue cheese on the heart? (I would hate to be called pedantic, after all!) And would you really want a series of such meals? I like blue cheese myself, but still.... As for the great 200, I would not call Ganguly a bad player - but not truly special, either. Somehow, he always seemed rather limited against real pace. Still, congratulations to him on securing his 200. I do have to say though that Pakistan probably fielded the worst attack they have possessed in the last 20-25 years. being more optimistic, I wonder if Pietersen could become a real all-rounder with some work on his bowling? I think we can agree that his batting is up to snuff.
Posted by: olympian | 11 December 2007 at 10:59 AM
What has gone wrong for England since 2005? They seem to be flatlining as a team, although they have many of the necessary parts to do well. Is it because of the injuries to the bowling attack? Or is there a more deepseated malaise?
Posted by: nj | 11 December 2007 at 11:02 AM
Stephen, Vic says Monty always bowls at 53-54 mph and it is how he bowls when he is at his best. Not the most fascinating of replys but its probably one spinner defending another. I am not in a strong position when talking about variation. I went through an entire career without learning to bowl a slower ball. Before anybody says it; yes they were all pretty slow by the end.
KP has looked good, he spins th ball as much as any orthodox finger spinner. Bowling a lot might mess his back up though.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 11 December 2007 at 11:03 AM
If England wanted somebody to bowl over the wicket they could have used Ashley Giles, a master of that art. Olympian, I'm glad to hear you are fastidious in your approach to your dietary requirements as you are to cricketing matters but on the grounds that you are only as good as recent matches - the SA v NZ mismatch, the I v P bore (and India's pace attack was fairly moderate too) and this - Test cricket is not in great health. We must be ever vigilant because whether Gus likes it or not the barbarians are at the gate.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 11 December 2007 at 11:06 AM
Being fair, I think we would have to say that Tests between Pakistan and India used to finish as regulation, highscoring, dull draws with a bitter inevitability. Not much new there, frankly, especially given the lifeless pitches that usually await the hungry batter! SA and NZ was embarrasing - but NZ is moving into a period of weakness after relative abundance. Sri Lanka has always been a hard tour, especially with a weakened bowling attack. None of this shows that Test cricket per se is the problem. Rather, I would suggest that there is a general imbalance between bat and ball in all forms of the game. (I don't think that adding in Bangladesh and Zimbabwe helped!). I would suggest leaving pitches uncovered, improving pitch quality (pace and bounce), and letting the kookaburra ball become history. The Duke ball does more - and this gives bowlers a fair chance to show skill.
Posted by: olympian | 11 December 2007 at 11:13 AM
I am not trying to pour scorn on the recent Twenty20 World Championship because a lot of people did find it very enjoyable. But isn't it amazing how an event can be depicted when people want it to succeed. Was it my eyes or did I see row after row of empty seats in the early rounds of the tournament, just like at the World Cup in the West Indies, yet I never read or heard negative comments about it.
Twenty20 is a bandwagon and lots of people are jumping on it. Most are in it just to make money and they are not concerned in the slightest about the game they leave behind when Twenty20 has had its day. Somehow the game has to protect itself and that means limiting the amount of Twenty20 not selling itself for a fast buck.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 11 December 2007 at 11:14 AM
Olympian is a man after my own heart.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 11 December 2007 at 11:15 AM
I agree with Gus that 20/20 in excess will do more harm than good. I suspect its final effect will be to turn cricket into an eccentric variation on baseball, at which point it will hardly be worth watching. To me, it seems like a sugar high - and we all know how hard you crash afterwards.
Posted by: olympian | 11 December 2007 at 11:17 AM
Not every ground in the SA T20 was full, but they were never, ever as empty as they always are there for Test matches (Boxing Day at Newlands perhaps apart). Test cricket has been splendid these past 15 years but it cannot drop its guard.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 11 December 2007 at 11:21 AM
I guess that food metaphors are dangerous terrain on which to base an argument. My objection would be that 20/20 does not give you the chance for the tactical challenges, the subtle variations, the individual achievements that make Test cricket such an uncertain and fascinating spectacle - where one day can reverse the course of all that went before. 20/20 simply does not do this, and this, to me, is why it lacks interest. I think an occasional 20/20 tournament is fine - but it should not push out other forms of cricket. I would also cut down the ODIs. A 7 game series is just too long. 5 games at most, please! Otherwise, the surfeit is cloying. I love watching or listening to England - but even I breathed a sigh of relief when the latest round of ODIs was over.
Posted by: nj | 11 December 2007 at 11:25 AM
Well, if grounds are empty, this is because of high prices, or audience exhaustion. I had the impression that TV revenue provided most of the cash in cricket now - and how many people watch (or listen) at home? Empty grounds may mean a shift in audience patterns, rather than loss of audience - or a problem with the format. Or should we embrace the Boycott 4 day Test format?
Posted by: olympian | 11 December 2007 at 11:28 AM