Great batsmen go through periods when they do not look like getting out and Sangakkara is there at the moment. Even when he does give a rare chance, as he did to Ian Bell at slip on 98, it is dropped.

He looks bullet-proof. He seems to have so much time to play every shot and gets everything behind the ball. It is disconcerting as a bowler when you can't see the stumps, what have you got to aim at. He is reminiscent of Chanderpaul last summer. In a way they have similar styles.

Well done Stephen. Who was it that inferred Sri Lanka were in a state of near disarray before the Test. Yes, yours truly. You have to admire Sri Lanka's resilience. On four occasions they have been in real strife but on each occasion they have fought their way out.

In the whole shake up of the match Bell's drop is not that important but England's slip cordon is not that convincing, even though Bell took a good catch yesterday to dismiss Vandort.

England have tried hard and not a lot has gone their way but they will do well to save the Test from here. Anderson is an enigmatic figure, bowling good balls that are edged for four and then bad balls that get walloped to the boundary. it's not been his Test. Bopara needs to do something to justify his selection too.

You love a fifth bowler but how many overs has the fifth bowler bowled. Bopara came on when Sri Lanka were 266 ahead and the game had gone. If you can get five bowlers in your side, as you can when Flintoff plays, all well and good but I hope that Bopara was not picked for his bowling.

Most bowlers prefer playing in a four man attack because the ball comes to you more often, normally for an hour a session.

I would disagree with you there. If there is no natural all-rounder a team should contain six batsmen, one of whom can bowl a bit, a keeper and four bowlers. 20 overs a day is not too heavy a workload.

What happened here four years ago will give England confidence, especially Vaughan who scored a fine hundred. Jayasuriya could be a problem for the left handers, apparently there is a lot of rough for him to aim at. To draw from here, with the weather not interfering, would be a good affort.

What land is Stephen Brenkley on!? Five batsmen and five bowlers! I should think not.
The two greatest teams the game has seen - the 1980s West Indians and the recent Australian vintage - both employed a pretty straightforward six batsmen/four bowlers combo and it hasn't done them too much harm. In each case the wicket-keeper made a big difference. Clearly Adam Gilchrist is an astonishing player while Jeffrey Dujon certainly knew how to handle a bat. England's selection in this match only really has one question mark over it - Ravi Bopara. His bowling shouldn't have gotten him the nod over Shah, especially now that Paul Collingwood is bowling and unless he comes good with the bat in the second innings, his place should be queried - although I would suggest that he must play in the next match because if he was good enough this week the selectors must back him to be good enough next week.
And as for Mr Brenkley's assertion that England's tail cannot bat, I thought Ryan Sidebottom handled Murali better than most of the top order. Matthew Hoggard appears to be adding a couple of shots to his stout defence and I believe Monty Panesar has the basics to become a useful contributor. Perhaps Mr Brenkley should give the England bowlers some credit for obviously working on their games since the summer

I like to think I have both feet firmly on the ground. The facts are there. West Indies had a rotating quartet of four extremely fast bowlers (though they also picked a spinner more often than is generally supposed). Australia used four bowlers because they had Warne and McGrath. England won the Ashes with five bowlers. Sri Lanka have just made 442 for eight in the third innings, perhaps partly because England had four bowling specialists. Of course, it's not clear cut and of course Ryan S and to a lesser extent some of the others did well in the first innings. But RS (career average
11.9) is not a Test number eight. England need 350 to win the match. Not quite QED, David and Angus but not as in the clouds as you seem to suppose. Look at history.

No of course not. And all along I have said it is difficult. think used the expression wise after the event. But when this squad was picked they must have known what they were letting themselves in for. I should also point out that Matt Prior was being touted at one time last summer as a potential number six.

Perhaps we can all agree that it is not the best balanced side at present when you have to bowl out Sri Lanka on their own pitches. Though perhaps not. All to do tomorrow for England. A draw would be marvellous. Let us hope Murali is exhausted from the celebrations.

Hmmm.. for my money, Sri Lanka got the best of a so-so pitch, and benefitted from a moderate England attack, with an honorable exception for Hoggard in the first innings. I wondered before the Test began about whether we should have brought in Broad rather than Anderson, and I suspect that this was, in retrospect, a mistake. Anderson has many qualities, but I am not sure he is of Test standard. He lacks pace and consistency, and seems destined never quite to fulfil his potential. Broad may be untried, but he is quicker, seems to have the luck that bowlers need, and has more promise for the number eight slot than anyone else, although Sidebottom really did play remarkably well. Thus, I must disagree with Mr Watkins, To me, it is more of a gamble, and a bad one, to play three very similar bowlers on an unhelpful pitch. If you do not think two similar bowlers will do the job, picking three is not likely to help. I would have taken Broad, not Harmison, on the grounds that Harmison is so maddeningly consistently inconsistent. I also suspect that England are trying to rebuild, and that some of the pieces just do not meet requirements. But then, what team can afford to lose bowlers like Flintoff and Simon Jones?

Sorry for the double post! I thought the internet had swallowed version one.

I live in hope of seeing a good wicketkeeper who can bat in the England ranks. I also live in hope of reaching a hundred years of age in the West Indies, surrounded by nymphettes, while Bill Gates calls to ask if I can spare a few billion to bail out Microsoft. Am I asking too much?
On a more serious note, I think that England need to be more realistic about the wicketkeeper/batsman equation. Much of the problem arises from the odd frailty of the English batting lineup. For some reason, they bat well enough individually, but seem oddly limited when it comes to building good, long partnerships. Why this is, I am not sure, but it is interesting that so few of them go on after making a century. Is there a lack of self-discipline? Or do they not have the hunger needed to do the extra work? I feel that if our batsmen really buckled down, and were determined to make everything of their talent, we would have much less anxiety about the wicketkeeper having the dexterity of Houdini, coupled with the run-scoring skills of Bradman. We should be able to pick a good wicketkeeper at seven, who can hold a bat and resist valiantly, but who does not drop routine catches or miss stumpings. As matters stand, we contrive to get the worst of both worlds, and the team suffers. I suspect that we never gave Alec Stewart his due - and what we would give to have him back!