Sri Lanka 2007: Fraser and Brenkley at the Test - Galle, day two
A long day for England with relief on the stroke of tea. All at once, they look tired and ready for home. Mistakes in the field may have cost them their opportunity to square the series. Four clear cut chances have gone begging, none quite in the dolly category but all eminently catchable if Tests are to be won. Matt Prior was twice guilty moving to his right - his weaker suit - as was Alastair Cook who could not cling on to a harder chance in the gully at the very start of the day - Tillekeratne Dilshan had not added to his overnight seven at the time -and not long before tea all but ignored an edge as it past him at second slip. The opportunity that Prior did take - smartly to his left off Dilshan's glove - was not given by the umpire.
The result was a wicketless day until just before tea. Mahela Jayawardene, attempting a scurried single to register his second hundred of the series, saw Dilshan narrowly (very narrowly) run out and then the other Jayawardene, Prasanna, edged behind to give Ravi Bopara his first Test wicket. Too little, too late, maybe. The feeling is, Gus, that Sri Lanka may be over the hill even if they are not far away.
And a rather large lady is warming up her vocal chords in the bus station behind the Pavilion. England do look tired, the opening day's play seems to have taken a lot out of them.
This England team is not a good fielding side. The slips are not regulars and there are too many lumberers in the outfield. Bopara, Collingwood, Pietersen and Bell are the only quality fielders and a couple of them are prone to errors.
The way the second new ball seamed and swung about I think England will find batting quite difficult out there when they eventually bowl Sri Lanka out.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 19 December 2007 at 10:27 AM
It should not perhaps be forgotten that England have lost Trescothick, Strauss and Flintoff from their slips cordon. Giles, too, was a gully to be reckoned with. The close to the wicket catching especially is vulnerable and because of that the importance of the wicketkeeper is heightened.
It has been laboured today. But they can be forgiven. It is a privilege to be here for this match, but I think it is fair to say we are all feeling slightly jaded at present. Not so Jayawardene, however. He's some player - maybe better than very fine.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 19 December 2007 at 10:37 AM
I'm afraid I can't agree with Mr Brenkley on this one, there is not really much of an excuse for the poor standard of catching throughout the side.
For a team that would struggle to take 20 wickets over 10 days let alone five it is absolutely imperative they take their chances when they come along. Fielding is not something that should be glossed over because it makes a huge difference in the outcome of games and it is something that all players can get better and better at with the proper practise and coaching expertise. By the looks of things their new fielding coach Richard Halsall has certainly got his work cut out.
The fans in the stands don't cut players any slack when they shell catches for good reason as I'm sure Mr Fraser will testify on behalf of the crowds in Brisbane.
Posted by: David Watkins | 19 December 2007 at 10:49 AM
I'm afraid I can't agree with Mr Brenkley on this one, there is not really much of an excuse for the poor standard of catching throughout the side.
For a team that would struggle to take 20 wickets over 10 days let alone five it is absolutely imperative they take their chances when they come along. Fielding is not something that should be glossed over because it makes a huge difference in the outcome of games and it is something that all players can get better and better at with the proper practise and coaching expertise. By the looks of things their new fielding coach Richard Halsall has certainly got his work cut out.
The fans in the stands don't cut players any slack when they shell catches for good reason as I'm sure Mr Fraser will testify on behalf of the crowds in Brisbane.
Posted by: David Watkins | 19 December 2007 at 10:52 AM
Without wishing to make excuses for England because Sri Lanka have had the same workload too, but are back to back to back Tests good for cricket. I know tours would be longer and we would spend even greater time away from home, but everyone would benefit from a week's rest and a practice game between, say, the second and third Test.
Sadly Test cricket seems to be more about quantity rather than quality, and it is the individual board's fault. This Test could well liven up when England begin to bat.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 19 December 2007 at 11:15 AM
Lest we forget, England could have batted - though Sri Lanka would have bowled too had they won the toss. The pitch may flatten a bit yet, which at least is in England's favour. Your point about matches between Test is well made - every game is a big game at present - but equally I should imagine you want to go home for Christmas. As for quantity, are three Tests here and 15 in a year too much? But generally speaking there should be more time between Tests. It is hard to keep regenerating.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 19 December 2007 at 11:40 AM
They could have batted but your decision at the toss should not be dictated by the fitness of your side. Money is the reason for the congested fixture list. England want seven Tests and two series at home each summer and that is why they have to tour twice.
It was not that long ago that England used to make one tour each winter, a set-up that gave the players a decent rest and the chance to play games between Tests if needed. For England, the mind was willing, although it seems to have weakened here in the last two hours, but the body often fails to respond. There are times when your mind cannot tell your body to do something it does not want to.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 19 December 2007 at 11:47 AM
England usually play seven Tests at home and six away in their Test season - 65 days of Test cricket. Is that too many. Should they in fact play, say, two lots of three at home and play only three away. Or two lots of two home and away. And fill the rest with Twenty20? Yes, now we're talking. Do you sense that what should be a special occasion being made less special?
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 19 December 2007 at 11:58 AM
It's not just 65 days of Test cricket. There are at least two days of preparation before each Test which equals another 26-39 days. We then have 20-25 one-dayers with one or two days of preparation and half a dozen Twenty20's with similar arrangements. Conservatively, it all adds up to a minimum of 160-170 days at a cricket ground and that does not include other matches, early tour practice session, training at the gym etc. We already play enough Twenty20 cricket and deep down I think you realise this.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 19 December 2007 at 12:07 PM
You're right, I do. But do we have too much Test cricket? Or do we need to space it out more? And you, like me, are looking forward to being home for Christmas, I'm sure, Gus. England by the way have kept going. I suspect the truth is they're not quite good enough to beat Sri Lanka.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 19 December 2007 at 12:14 PM