Sri Lanka in England 2011

[Themer]

Mid-Innings watchman in.

----------

Anderson's bowled very well here regardless of the pitch, very tight on a good line. Bresnan's been a bit loose although the pitch has helped him somewhat in my opinion.

England should win from here. I hope they do anyway.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

This is one of the pleasing aspects about the England team these days - if they collect a bad defeat, they often come back strong in the next game - and they sure are doing that! England are heading for a crushing win here.

Edit: Athers just said the very same thing.

And England win by 10 wickets! Great stuff.

 

[aussie1st]

Can't complain about Cook's strike rate this time He could be just what the English need to lift their ODI game, he seems to be carrying on where he left of in the Test arena by producing consistent runs.

SL sure have been inconsistent for the runners up in the WC.

 

[Sureshot]

That was a demolition, favourable conditions, but the conditions clearly didn't make us get what they got in half the overs.

Good bowling, agree with Beefy that we could have bowled them out for less, but that was a 250 wicket as a good score. Good to see Dernbach in the wickets, some nice yorkers at the end there.

Cook and Kieswetter, can't say much apart from they destroyed it. Some towering sixes from Kieswetter and Cook putting away both good and bad balls.

 

[War]

Nasser Hussain: Stirring stuff from England, but did we learn anything new? | Mail Online

 

[angryangy]

Good bowling alone would have given them a couple of early wickets, but tactical errors forged a collapse. Mahela and Kandamby were more or less just fishing at the wide ball, hoping to make glancing contact. It works when the ball isn't wobbling, zipping or bouncing, but when it is, you really have to be centimetre-perfect. It's not that they needed to be defensive, but if they were going after the wide ball, the best option would be to cut it hard.

Such a wicket can be interesting, but probably not the most sporting. Even though it might only ask for an hour of discretion from the batsmen, it usually only asks one team to do so. However, it did keep the series alive and I assume the English press are going mad trying to comprehend the situation, so it produced good results.

 

[Owzat]

England made most of advantages and from 20/4 were always struggling. To score another 154 runs for their last six wickets was a good effort and should put the result into perspective - in the sense what might have been but for the early wickets after a rain delay

Thereafter you can be critical of Sri Lanka, not taking a wicket is a poor effort, but I guess once you get past a certain point you give up - especially when you didn't have a dog's chance to start with.

Still think the side is wrong, the one 'down side' to England winning so easily is that the middle order will probably remain when, had they batted, a bit more could have been concluded.

Haven't we been here before, England do well and even win a one day series, but come the real Test every four years they flunk bigtime

 

[6ry4nj]

Owzat, just curious as to who you support.

Would "Anyone But England" sum it up?

 

[sifter132]

I think he supports England too much Same as I do when I see the Aussie squad named, I think of the 2 or 3 changes that could be made to make it perfect and I tend to harp on those, rather than saying that the squad is mostly good. Owzat just wants the best for his team.

Just thinking about England's team. I wonder if they've considered floating the batting order a bit more. eg. have Trott replace Cook only, never have them paired together. If Kieswetter gets out, bring in KP. That way you'd always have a steady player paired with a stroke maker and the focus could be on the partnership rather than the individual strike rates. You could even extend it, so Bell replaces Trott only, and Morgan replaces KP only. A Cook/Trott/Bell trio should be able to bat through an innings at one end.

 

[ferg512]

Hopefully todays game could at least be a close one

 

[Owzat]

I think he supports England too much Same as I do when I see the Aussie squad named, I think of the 2 or 3 changes that could be made to make it perfect and I tend to harp on those, rather than saying that the squad is mostly good. Owzat just wants the best for his team.

Thankyou and quite right. I'm not 'easily pleased', England won the last game and first game not because they are classy but because things went their way. When it comes to the crunch England aren't good enough, and the crunch is 1996, 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011. We keep picking the same team and showing the same failings, we aren't preparing for the World Cup but just fighting for the next game and individual matches and series count for nothing.

England will no doubt play the same XI throughout, results papering over the cracks. Did we not learn from getting our arses kicked? We might be 2-2 in this series, but here's a few past series

2011 World Cup : QFs, humiliated by Sri Lanka, Ireland and Bangladesh
10/11 Australia : Lost 1-6
2009 Australia : Lost 1-6
08/09 India : Lost 0-5

Sure we've won a few inbetween, against Scotland, West Indies, Bangladesh, Pakistan, but against the top sides we don't often win and when we do it is narrow (2-1 vs South Africa, 3-2 vs Australia)

What 'improved' in the last match? Not a blinking lot. Cook and Kieswetter got themselves some runs, Anderson did the damage to make the Sri Lankan's 20/4 and the rest benefitted or were passengers. How often will that happen? Outside of England, not very often.

Then maybe it's just because I've been an England fan for over 20 years and have seen our Test team improve, but sadly is still over-rated, and our ODI team fall to pieces time and again. Maybe it's just I'm not stupid enough to believe everything is hunky dory because we won the Ashes, or a couple of games in a one day series with advantages on our side having seen us hapless and hopeless in the World Cup which is where it really matters.

So a counter question to 6ry4nj is - are you naive, just easily pleased or would 'just incredibly thick' sum it up? I didn't do the above to please your tiny mind, if my support doesn't meet your expectations or approval I couldn't give two sh1ts because I couldn't give two sh1ts what you think. Perhaps you just don't get how forums work, they are DISCUSSION and not just places to post smilies and say "didn't they do well" like airheads

 

[6ry4nj]

Thankyou and quite right. I'm not 'easily pleased', England won the last game and first game not because they are classy but because things went their way. When it comes to the crunch England aren't good enough, and the crunch is 1996, 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011. We keep picking the same team and showing the same failings, we aren't preparing for the World Cup but just fighting for the next game and individual matches and series count for nothing.

England will no doubt play the same XI throughout, results papering over the cracks. Did we not learn from getting our arses kicked? We might be 2-2 in this series, but here's a few past series

2011 World Cup : QFs, humiliated by Sri Lanka, Ireland and Bangladesh
10/11 Australia : Lost 1-6
2009 Australia : Lost 1-6
08/09 India : Lost 0-5

Sure we've won a few inbetween, against Scotland, West Indies, Bangladesh, Pakistan, but against the top sides we don't often win and when we do it is narrow (2-1 vs South Africa, 3-2 vs Australia)

What 'improved' in the last match? Not a blinking lot. Cook and Kieswetter got themselves some runs, Anderson did the damage to make the Sri Lankan's 20/4 and the rest benefitted or were passengers. How often will that happen? Outside of England, not very often.

Then maybe it's just because I've been an England fan for over 20 years and have seen our Test team improve, but sadly is still over-rated, and our ODI team fall to pieces time and again. Maybe it's just I'm not stupid enough to believe everything is hunky dory because we won the Ashes, or a couple of games in a one day series with advantages on our side having seen us hapless and hopeless in the World Cup which is where it really matters.

So a counter question to 6ry4nj is - are you naive, just easily pleased or would 'just incredibly thick' sum it up? I didn't do the above to please your tiny mind, if my support doesn't meet your expectations or approval I couldn't give two sh1ts because I couldn't give two sh1ts what you think. Perhaps you just don't get how forums work, they are DISCUSSION and not just places to post smilies and say "didn't they do well" like airheads

You don't seriously claim to be an England supporter! Talk about 'with friends like these, who needs enemies' ! Lord Haw-Haw was a better England supporter than you are! The Aussies have given up sledging now that you're doing it for them. If you seriously think there's a single word in the above that constitutes support for England, why don't you point it out?

Btw, I only asked a question. How did you think being personally insulting would help your case?

 

[Themer]

Perhaps you just don't get how forums work, they are DISCUSSION

And perhaps you don't. We're now discussing whether you're an England fan or not.

Additionally why do you feel the need the start flaming anyone who disagrees with you? Gets boring very quickly.

 

[Ollie_H]

Jesus Christ that got personal so quickly and just wasn't called for at all!

----------

That was so far over the line.

----------

Just thinking about England's team. I wonder if they've considered floating the batting order a bit more. eg. have Trott replace Cook only, never have them paired together. If Kieswetter gets out, bring in KP. That way you'd always have a steady player paired with a stroke maker and the focus could be on the partnership rather than the individual strike rates. You could even extend it, so Bell replaces Trott only, and Morgan replaces KP only. A Cook/Trott/Bell trio should be able to bat through an innings at one end.

That's what's we have been saying for the past however many pages . But more than that I mean if Cools batting at the rate he was batting at in the last ODI then maybe there is no need to worry, or maybe it's better to bring in another attack minded player. England just have to be dynamic, making a decision like you (and the rest of us. Me included, I've just changed my mind a bit) have suggested is going from strict to a bit looser. They just need to be a bit more able to make decision.

I hope people get what I'm trying to say..

----------

Oh, and great decision from England to bring Patel in.

 

[Ollie_H]

England showing everyone in cricket why you never take the batting powerplay early .