Sports - Horses for courses and beating England

Sri Lanka didn’t just surprise themselves but the entire cricketing world when they came out of Lord’s with their heads held high. The magnificent fight back spearheaded by skipper Mahela Jayawardane and the tail only went to show the steel the Lankans were made of.

The knowledgeable English media called this effort different names. Geoff Boycott the famous former England captain and opening batsman was of the view that England didn’t deserve to win. “Your guys had great fighting spirit and we were not good enough to win after so many dropped chances.” Christopher Martin Jenkins of the BBC test match special fame called it the “Great escape” “The Sri Lankans were allowed to get out of jail by England with their indifferent fielding” was the view of Alec Stewart the former England skipper who is in the role of a TV and Radio commentator. Michael Holding the former West Indies fast bowler was lavish in his praise for the Lankan team” I think without doubt the Sri Lankans have it in them to perform. After having the worst of the conditions their effort was superb” No doubt there is truth in every word uttered especially after the English Media was speculating a three day finish.

Having said all that what really happened at Lord’s and how did the Lankans save it? This question has been asked and I am sure adequate answers have been given. But it is important that we learn from our mistakes and move forward.

Team Selection at Lord’s
There was a lot of criticism that the team for the first test was meant to save the game and not to win it! May be it was the correct strategy when the side games showed that the team wasn’t really there. The batting hadn’t clicked and the key bowlers were struggling. So the decision to look at Lord’s in that light could be justified. But with Lord’s out of the way and Sri Lanka gaining more psychological points from the draw what should be the thinking for the next game at least?

It is not just my view but the view of many former cricketers that the team should have the fire power or more precise wicket taking bowlers to capture 20 wickets. With the confidence in the Lankan camp now on an obvious high, I am sure that thinking should be to put it in to practice. It is now an accepted fact that we didn’t have the bowling at Lord’s to bowl a side out twice. Looking at our bowling line up our seamers on display were typical English and the type that the English Batsmen would have faced in their dreams (With the exception of Chaminda Vaas) so to speak. What we need to do for the next game at least is to look different. This is assuming the Warwickshire pitch would be as placid as the one we saw at Lord’s.

The approach for the next tests
To begin with we have two match winning bowlers who were sitting on the bench in the 1st test. Lasith Malinga who could touch the 90 mile mark with a very unusual slinging action and Malinga Bandara probably the best exponent of leg spin bowling since the retirement of D S De Silva and who is capable of winning a match on his own. To start off Sri Lanka should look at Lasith Malinga to partner the great Vaas. With Maharoof’s greater ability as a batsman he would make up the ideal 3rd seamer’s spot and say No. 7 bat. Muralitharan will naturally take one of the last two bowling places, which brings us to the question as to who should be the fifth bowler in the side? Many are bound to feel that Nuwan Kulasekera with his batting heroics should be an automatic choice. However the question that one might ask is “Was Kulasekera played to score runs or get wickets? If his first task is to get wickets then the 1st test at Lord’s is nothing to talk about. If that is the case does he deserve another look in if Sri Lanka is looking to get ahead of England? Whilst it might sound terribly unfair by young Kulasekera, my nod would go for the leg spinner Malinga Bandara who is a bowler capable of getting amongst the wickets. Bandara is a player who has delivered whenever he was given the opportunity both in India and in Australia and who was good enough to be the player of the year for Gloucestershire in 2005. However playing Bandara would be one thing, but giving him adequate bowling in the match is another thing. Whilst it was pretty apparent that Marvan Atapattu had plenty of confidence in the young spinner, the same cannot be said of Mahela Jayawardane. Having captained in the series against Bangladesh and Pakistan, Jayawardane never seem to have the confidence to persist with Bandara at the bowling crease for a longer period which eventually led to him being dropped from the one day side. The reluctance on the part to use the leg spinner who is no doubt a match winner as his figures in Australia would demonstrate, could only make the youngster being pushed out of the side, which Sri Lanka cricket could ill afford.

Getting back to the team selection and the changes, the logic behind it would be to do something different to what the English are used to. Ian Botham the former England great once in conversation said “In the 80’s you will never look at any side beating the West Indies with pace. We were always looking to the spin and may be a swing combination” Fast bowling to the West Indies was second nature and they would just cash in on that.” “The ultimate defeats the West Indies faced were caused by spinners, Bob Holland, Murray Bennet and Alan Border of Australia whilst for Pakistan it was Abdul Qadir.

My argument for Sri Lanka’s bowling combination is based on the same theory. Let’s get the English camp thinking. Let’s look at exploiting them in the area they are known to be vulnerable. I believe it is important that we identify the roles a player is selected for. One cannot get emotional in decision making. As the old saying goes “You have to have horses for courses”. And in this case the correct combination to defeat England.