I agree it was a combination of good bowling and not very good batting (at times) Shot selection was not great, then again the pundits always waffle on about how it shouldn't be all out defence and batsmen then get out playing shots.
Shame it couldn't have been 81 all out, what England were skittled for in Sri Lanka just before the 06/07 Ashes I believe.
I'm not going to give Strauss too much credit, while plenty will talk about the effect Bell being left short of his hundred would have had, he needs to make sure of his own personal landmarks in good time. Strauss had little enough time as it was to try and force victory, wasting FOUR OVERS was not clever in the slightest no matter how much Bell spin anyone puts on it. England got lucky that things went their way, had Sri Lanka put up much resistance then four wasted overs and the lack of the third seamer would have added up to a drawn game. Any suggestion the batting on was deliberate to somehow con the Sri Lankans into thinking England had given up is pure speculation and I'm sure 100% incorrect.
Strauss is now on 17 wins as captain, just nine behind Vaughan having played 19 less Tests and not nearly as many against the relative minnows. I don't count that abandoned Test in West Indies and if it weren't for their flat tracks I'm sure he'd be a few wins closer.
Interestingly :
1st Innings leads (captains)
Strauss : P20 W15 D5 L0 (Won 75.00%)
Vaughan : P29 W22 D6 L1 (Won 75.86%)
1st Innings deficits (captains)
Strauss : P12 W2 D5 L5 (Won 16.67%)
Vaughan : P22 W4 D8 L10 (Won 18.18%)
While Vaughan has the slight edge in converting leads/deficits to wins, he also lost way too many - even losing from 93 runs ahead of Sri Lanka at half-time. Most of his defeats were from 100+ runs behind as you'd expect.
With Strauss a lot of the defeats are because of frail batting :
ENG 318 & 51 vs WIN 392
ENG 102 & 263 vs AUS 445
ENG 180 & 169 vs SAF 423/7d
ENG 233 & 222 vs PAK 308 & 148/6
ENG 187 & 123 vs AUS 268 & 309
Kinda looks like England's totals from down under in 06/07, definitely not a pretty sight some of those totals. They might not look all that low, bar the obvious excursions below 150, but scoring less than 200 is not clever on most pitches and 250 is below par these days which eight of those innings fall below (well below in some cases)
One other thing on yesterday, England had pretty much everything go for them, even managed to miss a chance or two. Some bad luck on the part of one or two Sri Lankans who might have felt unlucky to get the slightest of edges.
Oh and for me the review system needs to be applied more often. It's all very well reporting that it is X% accurate, what you need to compare is how many incorrect decisions remain and most if not all of those will be 'unreviewed' because of limits on reviews. The 'if they had reviewed it' scenario is the one that worries me, I know the system was supposed to eradicate glaring errors, but sides are using it more tactically which was inevitable, either a batsman knowing if he is out then his side is in trouble, or fielding sides wanting a wicket or just willing to gamble on an LBW being close enough.
it was never going to be about definite errors, if they were that clear then the errors wouldn't be made in the first place. It was always going to be applied to the uncertain, I think the review system needs reviewing if not applying to more calls. Give the power over to the umpires allowing captains, or their nominated representative when not among the batsmen, to discuss with them reasons they want something reviewed and I reckon it will work. If a batsman says "I think I edged it" then the umpire can review an LBW, if the fielding captain says "I think that LBW was close" the umpire can say why he didn't give it. While they're discussing it of course the TV umpire can have a quick look and advise the onfield umpire if he thinks it needs reviewing and you get a kind of three way vote with 2-1 winning it.
I don't see how BCCI and IPL is interfering with other countries. It's a player decision to play in the IPL or not, you don't play in the IPL, you don't get paid, that's obvious. It's not like a player will play 12 matches for his franchise in 3 years and will still get his full payment. Some players play for their country and some just simply play for money, if players are playing for money, you just cannot blame IPL and BCCI for that. Players are not forced to take part in the IPL, it's their decision, no one is forcing them.
