Why do cricket teams, and particularly the England team, delay the announcement of their team to the last moment. Rugby teams do it midweek, which makes sense because those that are picked can get ready for the match. I suppose the pitch can change or not quite be what was expected but that, really, is the only excuse.

The bowling is interesting, especially as I went for Stuart Broad this morning. I would not say it was panis or a desperate plan; desperation is the word that comes to mind.

I like Stephen Harmison a lot and feel quite sorry for him over the way he is portrayed at times but we have both watched him bowl at practice and Broad has been the far more impressive of the two. England must be prepared to accept that he will bowl some loose stuff but they will be hoping that he can half a dozen balls right and they may take wickets.

I would play Broad ahead of Harmison, but do not see any reason why Harmison should not play ahead of Abderson. If you are going to play an at times wayward bowler who keeps picking up injuries why not play the big man.

I like the way Moores and England are treating Broad. They realise they have got a very exciting young bowler and are trying to look after him. There is work to be done on his bowling action - his left arm falls away when he is tired - and he does need to get stronger. Chucking him in for three consecutive Tests here might have done him no good at all.

But he is getting stronger, that can be seen by looking at him. Last summer he looked painfully thin at times but now he has a decent pair of legs on him - a crucial thing for a bowler. I think he is ready to play now, he can bowl one side of the wicket, so captains can set a field to him.

It is interesting to note that the two current young players you listed above struggled to begin with. I am not going to get in to the argument that cricket is better now than it was 40 years ago but I will say the pressures are greater and a lot of players struggle with that.

I like Broad's attitude too - he fancies himself in a pleasant way. I too believe Sri Lanka are still vulnerable but how are England going to defeat them. Come on Stephen hit me with your gameplan.

Win the toss - bowl. Apparently the pitch is in a similar state to that in Kandy and the first day will offer England their best chance of bowling Sri Lanka out cheaply. I agree with your suggestions but not at the expense of control. It was interesting to hear that a couple of the England players think they may be able to unsettle Sangakkara by bowling short at him. It's worth a try.

England need a good start Cook and Vaughan need to put up a partnership, as you pointed out in todays paper. I thought the batsmen played Murali okay but two of them need to get hundreds.

So bowl them out for 230, score 450 and then chip away at them in the second innings. Sounds a piece of cake.

I am not as optimistic as you. England played pretty well in kandy and they were not good enough. Murali did not bowl that well either and England are without Hoggard. Still there is room for confidence in these remarks. I was optimistic before the last Test and look what happened. I seldom seem to get these things right. At times I wonder why The Independent employ me.

Well, gentlemen, it seems we find ourselves in the familiar position of not quite knowing what to expect. I agree that Broad has great long term potential (and yes, might make a good number 7/8). Reports on Harmison have swung back and forth over the last two weeks, from suggestions that the big man was back, to claims that he will never be the same again. Perhaps a third slip would be wise? I wonder whether England have missed a trick by not bringing Tremlett. That said, I would pick Harmison ahead of Anderson. I like Jimmy very much, but I can't see him becoming a Test bowler with consistent menace, or even consistent economy and containment. Harmison is wild, but offers more venom (and might thump a couple of sixes at number nine, given some judicious prodding!).
As for the game to come, I would rather bat first and build a big score, if possible. Sri Lanka benefitted greatly from having the pitch at its nicest in their second innings, and I would prefer not to bat fourth against Murali again. I am not sure why England's openers have been so poor lately, but I still think a good part of the problem this England team has is that batsmen are not good at building partnerships. Individual innings are fine and good, and the batting generally has a healthy set of averages, but where are the big, matchwinning partnerships, not to mention the big hundreds? To me, the lack of both suggests a lack of concentration, and a tendency to relax when a "good enough" score has been achieved. Perhaps England should try thinking in the style of Sir Clive Woodward, and look for a specialist in this area?
On a more hopeful note, I must admit to being very pleasantly surprised by Prior's performance. Prior to it (pardon a pun) I thought he looked short of the discipline and focus required to bat at Test level, with a tendency to swish and depart in puzzlement. Perhaps this will turn out to be his breakthrough innings? Bell looked far more impressive against Murali than I would have dared to predict, and seems to be emerging as the most consistent middle-order batsman in the ranks, although KP did get an absolute brute of a ball. My bet is a big hundred by an enraged KP this time around.
As for the result? England to win by two wickets/40 runs in the middle session of day 5. Never let it be said that my predictions were not whole-hearted!

In response to olympians comments first. I agree with your views on Anderson. He, like a number of young English fast bowlers, has a lot of potential but at the moment he is neither one thing or the other. He is not producing the match winning performances and he is not offering control. He shows glimpses of what he is capable of and he created more half chances than any of the other seamers in Kandy but no side, especially in a four man attack, can afford to have someone conceding five runs and over regularly.

Tremlett was unlucky not to tour. He bowled very well against India at the end of last season. I get the feeling the selectors feel he is a little fragile - too prone to injury and niggles that affect the way he bowls. But someone of his physique is bound to be a handful. The Indian batsmen were happy to face Stuart Broad las summer but did not fancy Tremlett at all.

In regards to nj: Many people expect, wrongly, Panesar to develop in to a Murali, Warne or Kumble. It is a ridiculous expectation. These are two of the greatest bowlers of all time.

Unless Panesar can develop a different ball, and there is no indication that he is trying to, he will always be slightly limited. Being left arm helps because he spins the ball away from right handers and has the rough outside off-stump to work with against left handers. But, even so, he is still a class above anything England have had since Derek Underwood. Emburey, Edmonds, Tufnell, Giles all averaged mid to late thirties; Panesar currently averages around 30. That is a big gap in class. Panesar will probably end up averaging between 29-32 which is very good for a finger spinner. It is hard to say who is better than who though.

Adil Rashid has plenty of potential but a lot of people talk about him as a batsman who bowls, not a leg-spinner first and foremost. He has a nice action but he is young. he did well at the start of last season, then got clobbered by the Indians playing for England A. His summer petered out after that. It takes a long time to conquer leg-spin and he needs to be given it. Rushing him in to the England side would be unwise.

nj, apologies for the error that caused a rather pedantic response. I'm sure you were aware of what I meant to say.

Swann performed well here during the one-day series but he did not look particularly threatening during the warm-up game he played in. England, I feel, have taken a view on him and that is that he will not trouble the Sri Lankan batsmen.

England's seam attack does not lend itself to two spinners. The only combination you could play safe in the knowledge that a player is not entering a game without a niggle is Sidebottom and Broad, and Sidebottom has entered the match with a heavy cold. If Broad and Swann played half of England's bowling attack would be making its debut, a far from ideal situation

As is the way with these things, a night goes by, minor technical problems in Colombo intervene (Gus went off to kick the turf awhile) and Olympian's extremely valid point about partnerships gets overtaken by events. Cook and Vaughan have assembled England's first century opening stand for 15 matches and it is on such platforms that large first innings totals and victories are built. Vintage Vaughan and more of that no doubt in Day One's chat. On the subject of bowling Tremlett was unlucky. He gets bounce, and nothing worries good batsmen more.
NJ on spinners continues a trend which worries me. Because England has been so short of spinners and because he dismissed some cracking batsmen when he first got into the team (nobody there will ever forget him getting out Tendulkar in Nagpur in his First Test)there was a tendency to bestow on Panesar greater gifts than he possessed. He needs more variety - apparently he is working on a doosra and bit more cricketing nous. But he is a proficient bowler and keen to learn. Don't by the way underrate Vettori who has to bowl on New Zealand pitches and does so with some control. He averages 34 a Test wicket, which in these days of finger spin as cannon fodder is acceptable. And Harbhajan from memory took 28 wickets in two matches against Australia in 2001. That was then, this is now, but he's still no slouch. Don't rush Rashid (he was intimidasted by India at Chelmsford, with the field badly set) but he can bat. It would be daft not think of him as an option. What an improved cricketer Graeme Swann is, one who knows his game, but as Test match spinner, although he gives it a rip, he might be eminently milkable. Posssible one-day banker and another advertisement for learning the trade in the county championship.

nj,

Apologies for my 'pedantic' remark, probably at the end of a hot, sweaty day. At least I know where you are coming from now.

Rating the other spinners is a difficult one. Panesar has more potential than Vettori and a better Test record, to date, but he could still learn a lot from him, particularly in one-day cricket. Harbhajan is capable of outstanding displays and he also possesses a doosra, which makes him, potentially, a more dangerous bowler. Stardom and celebrity may have got the better of him and he also plays on a lot of flat pitches on the subcontinent.

Kaneria is a decent leggie. He is outstanding in county cricket but his record in Tests is ordinary. Again he plays on a lot of unhelpful surfaces too. Harris, i believe, is pretty ordinary.

We must assume Panesar will continue to improve. He gives the ball a real rip and he is younger than Vettori and Kaneria with a lower average. So I would agree with you he probably is a better bowler than the others.