Sri Lanka 2007: Fraser and Brenkley at the Test - Galle, day one
Well, here we are at Galle for the first day of a Test which, for once, is perhaps more than a cricket match. First, apologies for the absence of F and B at the Test - communications in Galle have been a tad tricky. This game has been a long time a'coming. No cricket has been played here since the tsunami on Boxing Day 2004 devastated the ground, a large part of the island and cost somewhere between 31000 and 40000 people their lives. There was an unequivocal determination on the part of all concerned to play this match although the revamped stadium is far from finished and the weather has conspired against it. Play eventually got underway at noon. England inserted Sri Lanka, probably because the pitch was an unknown quantity, and Gus Fraser may think they are alrteady regretting it.
Before we get on to the cricket I'd like to say how well the England cricket team has conducted themselves here over the past five days. The ground here is not ready for international cricket but they have not once moaned about the lack of facilities etc. The are fully aware of the situation and realise that more than a game of cricket is taking place here, even if it is one they desperately want to win.
The toss was a difficult one but I was not convinced it was the correct decision. When a captain is unsure how the pitch will play he tends to bowl first, especially in a situation like this. On day one it is likely to do what it does slowly and possibly quicken up as the game progresses. It is likely to get harder to bat on too, especially on days three and four.
England's bowling has been say so, they have not made the Sri Lankans play as much as they should, but Sangakkara and Jayawardene are magnificent players. What did you think about the three decisions, are England 2-1 up?
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 18 December 2007 at 10:46 AM
Hear, hear about England's approach. Exemplary and sincere. Your verdict on the verdicts is spot on. They might, however, have traded both lbws (one high and wide, the other pitching outside leg) for the apparent edge behind by Sangakkara which wasn't given. Asad Rauf, who gave both leg befores, was defying his standing as a really top official. Kumar fortunately has not inflicted the damage he might have done. Dropped on two he added only 42 more before hooking Harmisonm down Panesar's throat at deep square leg. Monty was relieved and delighted at taking a straightforward chance. Good for him, but his bowling has been off key again today. England back in it. Get Jayawardene out before the light forces them in and they may be happy.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 18 December 2007 at 11:22 AM
How do you feel England have bowled? I don't think they have bowled that well, they haven't made the Sri Lankan batsmen play enough for my liking.
It is strange, in many ways this is an old English style pitch but how many of the bowlers know how to bowl on it. The pitches even first class cricketers play on now are so uniform with extreme pace and wrist spin being the most dangerous options. Here though I cannot help but feel that an old-fashioned English seamer, nagging away at off-stump would have been very effective.
Panesar is economical today but two balls turned sharply in his first over then not a lot happened after that. Why?
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 18 December 2007 at 11:31 AM
Monty, as in Colombo, appeared to have trouble getting his length right. By and large he was too short.
It swung early on but hasn't done much since then. Not sure it's quite an old-fashioned English pitch, since it's a bit slower than that. But it's offering something if the batsmen have to play. I've just read The Flame Still Burns, an engrossing biography of Tom Cartwright, a clever, archetypal English seamer. He would have made 'em think. But maybe old-fashioned English seam and swing bowling has gone out with old-fashioned English pitches.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 18 December 2007 at 11:40 AM
It's all that Surrey and Ongar loam that they put in pitches now. English pitches are, indeed, a thing of the past.
England took two wickets and conceded eight runs in 10 overs after tea. Very good but you then begin to wonder what they were doing earlier in the day. I think Chaminda Vaas could be a real handful here.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 18 December 2007 at 11:46 AM
Loaming in the gloaming I guess. Whatever happened to marl. Vaas certainly could pose problems, but if England can somehow bowl the home side out for 250 they are in this game. Bad light has stopped play for the day 147 for 4. Jayawardene once again stands between England and progress. A good match is in prospect.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 18 December 2007 at 11:54 AM
Yes, these games are so much more fun than those in Colombo. I reckon 250 could be a pretty good score on this pitch but it is impossible to judge until both teams have bowled on it. During my career we used to play the West Indies quite regularly on pitches that changed during the 10 minute interval between innings. They often transformed from shirt frontd to minefields. It could have had something to do with their bowling.
Its raining hard again here now, I hope that doesn't ultimately spoil the Test.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 18 December 2007 at 12:03 PM
Well, I suppose it all depends on how the pitch decides to behave in the afternoon of day 2 and for day 3. I suspect that the morning will be the best time to bowl, with a touch of moisture, and so England will feel hopeful that they can knock over Sri Lanka in the first session, and then bat second and third sessions, when the heat will sap the bowlers, and any devils in the pitch should have gone. I think Vaughan made the right choice under the circumstances, since he has to conjure 20 wickets from somewhere, and batting first was more of a risk on an unknown ground. Admittedly, I am wondering if this might be Chaminda Vaas' swansong ground. These conditions might suit him better than anyone, and I suspect he will look forward to using them.
Posted by: nj | 18 December 2007 at 11:56 PM
This has been a strange old series for England, by anyone's standards. England have looked fairly solid against Murali, Harmison is apparently reborn, Vaughan is starting to look like a marvellous batsman again, England have seen successive 100 run opening partnerships in the same game, KP has not gone big (yet!) - and Paul Collingwood has dropped an easy catch. Is it the water? I agree that Vaughan made the right choice, although England might have bowled better in the first hour. Puzzled by Panesar's relative failure in this series - although he looks better in the field than ever before. (Small bonus, I know, but still....)
Posted by: olympian | 19 December 2007 at 12:00 AM
I suppose, after a night away, Vaughan probably did make the correct decision. As nj said it gives England the most time to take 20 wickets. Last night we had the mother of all storms in Galle and that should help England when play starts on day 2.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 19 December 2007 at 03:34 AM
For England to win - and to justify Vaughan's decision to bowl first - they have to dismiss Sri Lanka for under 250. I still think it was a risky decision that may well be vindicated. I agree about Harmison, seeming by the way to confirm the old suspicion that bowlers thrive on bowling. Play to start at 11am. But you can smell the rain in the air again,
Posted by: stephen brenkley | 19 December 2007 at 05:27 AM
Well, after that first session of day two, I can't see England winning much of anything, except the number 5 slot in the Test rankings. Not quite what one would hope for. I think Cook was perhaps less guilty than some for missing his halfchance, but the Prior drop was bad - and made worse by an obvious and unjustifiable change of mind. I think Prior's batting has come on impressively, but he has missed a couple of stumpings, and this was a bad drop. England ought to have had two wickets this morning, but they gave them back to Sri Lanka without a fight.
Posted by: nj | 19 December 2007 at 07:18 AM
Alas, yes, England do look sick of Sri Lanka. They look tired, without energy or ideas. I know that this is a tough tour, and that the pitches have been indifferent in quality, but they seem to be giving up without a fight against a Sri Lankan team that is far from exceptional. Is this just a young side that has been stretched a bit too far, too soon? What England lack, in my opinion, is the "magic" bowler who changes everything with a single delivery. We have a solid, competent attack, who seldom have truly bad days, but who equally seldom have amazing days. We need Flintoff or Simon Jones badly, but whether we shall see either of them again seems like a prediction too far. The fielding today has looked like the fielding of a tired team that is mentally spent. Vaughan must be suffering out there, having to find a way to lift a team that is sinking under the weight of exhaustion, and, perhaps, some sense of despair.
Posted by: anotherdayanotherduck | 19 December 2007 at 07:26 AM
It is infuriating to watch England losing to a team with two fine batsmen, and one really great bowler. You feel that England ought to have the beating of Sri Lanka, even allowing for the conditions and the poor quality pitches, but still.... Somehow this England team just don't seem to have gelled into a unit, although why that is remains a mystery. I wonder whether the Moores regime is being a bit too nice and letting them slacken mentally? Fletcher was a dour old so-and-so, but the team really did fight for him.
Posted by: olympian | 19 December 2007 at 07:31 AM
You have to wonder about whether Galle was really ready to stage a Test match. We have lost so much time already, and the ground is not complete. Yes, it is good to see cricket returning, and no-one grudges the local people their happiness after the tragedy of the tsunami - but surely Galle could have been better prepared, or could have waited for the next tour? I don't think it would change the result, given how England are playing, but it does look rather poorly managed, all things considered.
Posted by: nj | 19 December 2007 at 07:36 AM
Cook should have taken the catch. Prior may wear gloves but it would have been a good catch had he taken it. He pulled out, wrongly, believing the ball would carry to Bell but he did not.
Every team would love a 'majic' bowler but they rarely come around. England have good bowlers but success is gained through endeavour rather than genius.
England's fielding has been poor. They look laboured. How hot it is here does not come through on the television but back to back to back Tests are too much. It is inevitable that there will be some tapering off in form.
Galle is not ready to host a Test but it has been uplifting to be here this week to see the ground reopening. This is more important than a game of cricket. It was apt that England were here because a lot of English money has been used in rebuilding the area. Politics is the reason for the delays.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 19 December 2007 at 09:03 AM