The pitch has not helped to produce an entertaining match, that is true, but we would not want every Test to be played on the same surface because it would only encourage certain types of cricketer. Saying that, I don't know which type of cricketer, other than a dogged batsman, this type of surface would produce. I suppose Tests like this make the good matches feel all that more memorable.

Vaughan and Bell were each out to careless shots. Vaughan's two 50's in this match are excusable. He has a good conversion rate 16 x 50's to 17 x 100's. Bell is 17 x 50 and only 6 x 100. It's concentration for Bell, as we said in Kandy but I would rather see him caught at long on than short leg.

For those wondering whether England will earn a draw here the heavens have opened and it is unlikely that there will be any more play. Four days Tests - Why? Why have you got this desire to change Test cricket Stephen? We struggle to get 90 overs in in a day so what chance have you of getting 110. Five days gives a better chance of a result too. Leave test cricket alone.

Out of curiosity, did CMJ also advocate uncovered pitches, bats that weigh less than 30 lbs, and the abolition of rain? True, Tests were not always 5 days in length - there were also Timeless Tests. Which model should we return to? The four day idea makes as much sense as Boycott's vision of Test cricket under lights. Most games would be drawn, and the only likely result would be reckless batting, no quick bowlers, an endless diet of medium pace or slow bowling, and, in general, a thoroughly ghastly spectacle. In short, 20/20 to the max. No thank you!

The biggest flaw in the four day argument is, obviously, that a rain day would have a totally disproportionate impact. What's more, you could not hope to "make up" so many lost overs when the average day required 110 to be bowled. Also, how many injuries will putting an extra 20 overs in the day produce, especially given the excess of games already on the card? Plus, would you really like to see a seven game Test series - which is what the marketing rabble would demand, begging bowls outstretched and tongues wagging.

Well, the ban-the-beamer lobby does have a point, since beamers are quite likely to produce a serious injury, especially at pace, and against a tail-ender. Sree Santh was generally giving the impression of a decline into lunacy at the time, and an enforced break might have benefitted him as much as it benefitted India.

Back from conferences. Mahela had a little dig at England's scoring rate. CMJ's lecture was balanced, reasonable and eloquently argued. He allowed for a fifth day in the event of severe rain delays, too. A lot of time is wasted in Test matches. Gussie's right, Tests are much more alluring now. One of my earlier memories was from an Ashes Test at Old Trafford in 1964. Australia made 656-8 dec, England replied with 611 in which Kenny Barrington made 256 in 11 hours and actually cemented his place as my boyhood hero, which he remains. Wouldn't happen now, methinks. I should just like to reiterate that it is not change that is bad, it is change for the sake of it. Remember those barbarians and where they are. No doubt this is to be continued.

Ah, Angus. Do you think any of the issues you raise will matter a jot? Policing, corporate, stewarding: in New Zealand, in Pakistan, in well just about anywhere but England? Test matches aren't watched. It may be that you are right - and I hope you are because Test cricket is a truly wonderful creation, except maybe in Colombo in December 2007 - but if the questions aren't asked the answer will eventually be obvious. Ask questions always. This is a cheap shot but then England played plenty of those in the Test just gone, but is this what a career in professional cricket does to your senses? To be, certainly, continued but can you please leave me alone on the journey to Galle tomorrow?

Sorry Brenkley, see what a drop of alcohol does to even a mild mannered, sensitive individual like me.