Second test at cairns Australia v SL

[Richard Jenkins]

What a test match. This had everything. Hundreds, a hundred and fifty, world records equalled, runs scored (and quickly) wickets taken. As I type sri lanka have to bat out five overs with two wickets remaining. So Australia could win or a draw could happen . Sri Lanka need 174 runs to win . Australia can of course ask for the extra half an hour to finish the game, but it is getting darker and darker. nail biting stuff. It's a draw! Too dark for the extra half hour. What a superb test match.What a superb match , hundreds,(hayden did both innings!! and Atapattu) hundred and fifty(Langer), five fors(Chandana) , ten fors in the match(Chandana ten for 210) , world records equalled,(Shane Warne) 1500 runs or there abouts scored great team and individual efforts. Well done both teams

[Rachael]

Ah.. I would have followed this test with interest had both teams contained a battery of bowlers worthy of the International stage... or even some passable imitation thereof as might have been managed with Murali playing... but with an attack that would make the worst England have ever fielded look respectable.. up against a batting line-up second only to India's... the idea that this could ever have been a decent contest was so far into the realm of fantasy as to completely disappear.

So it proved: Australia scored runs at will off a team without any real teeth... Sri Lanka showed that on the pitch in question, not even the great Aussie attack posed much threat... and then after a slogging-session that exposed just how little strength in depth exists in Sri Lankan bowling (cricinfo: "Chandana, finishing with 5 for 101 in 18.4 overs, was presented with one of the most generously gift-wrapped 10-wicket hauls in Test history")... there was a very tame declaration which left Sri Lanka no reason to bat positively and chase a result.. followed by an almost inevitably succesful rear-guard action and a draw that looked predictable even four and a half days earlier.

[Richard Jenkins]

Sorry you feel this way Rachael. If a match seems predictable or inevitable then perhaps it's time to stop watching cricket. But no match is predictable, that is the joy of this game! Even 'minnows' can topple 'giants' ( hope these terms aren't too derogitory) Look at England; After their test triumphs against WI and NZ, everyone thought, well no, not everyone, but I thought the ODI's were a shoe in. How wrong! And after the first test in this series most people would have backed australia, or a draw. But Sri lanka could have won,the decleration wasn't that tame, as could have Australia. Besides, Ponting was 1 up and had to ensure that he didn't loose the match. Wining it is a bonus. A draw is acceptable when declarations are made in tests. Surley you agree that this was a test for all players? Or are you suggesting that actually the game shouldn't be played . Behind all of this you lament Muri's absence; Well that's his choice. perhaps the aussies would have welcomed him with open arms . or closed fists. We'll never know. Certainly players make themselves unavailable for tours and hence selection for many reasons. When the selectors meet they can only choose the best team available , something increadibly subjective.

To state that any person has no talent is bewildering and perplexing, and I feel that neither teams performance merited this analysis. Certainly any player who takes ten-for in a match shouldn't and couldn't have the effort described as 'gift wrapped' unless there is some other darker reasoning behind this assertion. When a player scores a ton in both innings, even if the bowling is rubbish (which I don't believe it was) they still have to do it. I've never scored a hundred, and I never will, so anyone who does it deserves respect, regardless of the level or the opposition. Besides, often as not it's the bad ball that takes a wicket. I think this was a decent contest. Look at the history, and how far sri lanka have come; Most observers would say they did push the aussies , even if they didn't push long or hard enough.

When England face the aussies, it will be intersting. Everyone wants to beat them, and they have pushed cricket to a new level. India aren't far behind, and sri lanka , well I reackon they play at a similar (or better ) level than England; Indeed , England's winter tour to Sri Lanka showed this to be the case and I don't believe the bowling attack was that different, except for the inclusion of Muri.
Australia top dogs (batting good, bowling good) (world class spinner, paceman and top class openers and wicket keeper.)
India (perhaps 2/3 years behind) (lack a varied enough bowling attack)
South africa( 3/4 years behind) ( lack perhaps experience(skipper 21) but conversley an old a team. Perhaps new guys will change this?)
Pakistan (4/5 years behind) (Bowling good, but batting hot and cold)
Sri Lanka(5 years behind) (overreliant on Muri)
England ( 5/6years behind) (no really top class spinner)
New zealand(6 years behind) ( the sum is not greater than the parts)
West Indies(7 years behind) (crisis?what crisis?)
Bangladesh( 10years behind)( Not waving)
Zimbabwe( ? years behind) (but drowning)
of course I'm basing this on current squads, and these change like the moon, and so the list will of course change.

[Rachael]

I didn't mean to put down the Aussie attack one bit: three A1 players plus, in Kasprowicz, a very, very good if slightly less proven bowler who I admire greatly.. but whilst Vaas impresses me lots (I might have him in the RoW XI to play Australia in this "world series" thing.. Zoysa, surely, still has a lot to prove (a credible 3rd or 4th seamer more than a genuine strike partner for Vaas).. and the other Sri Lankan bowlers are, Internationally speaking, lacking a bit of credibility.

The comment about Chandana's 10-for being "Gift wrapped" was not mine: that was a direct quote from a cricinfo match report.. which did nothing to dispel the impression that the current Sri Lankan attack is weaker than England's was when Gus Fraser was the lone competent member.

Credit must go to Australia for managing to get somewhere close to a win on a pitch that had "draw" written all over it.. and against a very reasonable Sri Lankan top / middle order (a batting line up that's far stronger than the bowling line-up)... but the fact that a really top line Aussie attack couldn't get the Sri Lankan side out for under 450 1st time around (India would have still been batting in the first innings on day 4) certainly suggests that even a line up of Trueman, Statham, Bedser and Laker / Lock would have struggled to put the Aussies under real pressure on that pitch.

Strikes me that whilst some interest might have arisen along the way... a truly great team facing the Aussie on that pitch would have needed 10-12 days to force a win: not ideal. It also strikes me that England, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Pakistan would all have been pretty well un-defeatable in Sri Lanka's place.

There's been talk of late from Ponting that Aussie batsmen have been spoiled of late by batsmen friendly tracks... and that the balance needs to be restored to keep the cricket interesting. Strikes me that this pitch was exactly the sort of thing he was talking about. That's not me carping from the outside.. that's the captain of the dominant side on the planet on the pitches in his own back yard. I applaud him for having the nerve to say it.

[Nikhil]

My impression of the match was, it was absolutely "nailbiting". I was glued to cricinfo till 3 am here, without my team even participating. It was test cricket at it's best for me. One side going for the kill and other just hanging in the match by a thread. It was awesome.

Sangakkara played the innings of his life. But the lower order has to be given lots of credit. They did a wonderful job. Just look at the number of balls they player, Chandana 70, Vaas 44 and Zoysa 31. It's amazing under the pressure Aussies apply.

On the Aussie side, Warne equalling the record is as apt as it can be. For me he's the best bowler ever. Murali, with all the due respect, is a little bit of freak. Haydon is proving he's one of the two batsmen in the world now. Lehmann is proving a good enough replacement for Waugh. The only problem is Katich, but I saw him against India, and he has a very good technique. Martyn seems to have rediscovered his touch and a silky one at that.

All in all, it was a good series, though the first test match pitch played too much of a part in the outcome for one's liking. With Murali, the second match would have been a tad more interesting, with a SL victory not as unlikely as it seems now.