Moan moan moan....

We do like a good moan on here... especially Ern!!

The fact is that two three days were always going to be a problem, and this has been born out again. But how could anyone predict two injuries!! That is seriously unlucky...

Now on to the team - all the batters looked in ok form just a few days ago, maybe what they needed was a bit of a jolt, and this will give them that.

I do like Ern's normal comments on Vaughan, Bell and Cook - change the record Ern, it's boring!!

I like to look at the positives rather than anything else.. and there are a few

1. The maturity of Bopara
2. With Shah and Bopara in the runs - there is some good competition for places
3. Hoggard back to his bowling best
4. The Sri Lankans may not be quaking in the their boots, but after their series loss against Australia there are still lots of questions about the make up of their team
5. No need for replacements yet, so there is still time for Harmison and Anderson to get fit, both were removed as precautions more than anything else

Who??

Ramprakash - 50+ Tests but never did it at Test level
Key - less experienced than Cook at Test level
Trescothick - not there yet mentally
Crawley - is not, and was never really, good enough at Test level (unless the bowlers bowl at his legs all day)
Adams - Not experienced at all at Test level
Strauss - even more out of form than the rest of the team
Ed Smith - No!!!!!

Well despite all my reservations, this has turned out to be a useful game. Chasing 240 runs under pressure is much better practice than an easy win.

I am more confident now that England can make an impact in this series, and I feel Sri Lanka have as many problems with selection as we do.

Delighted that we won this as it shows our batting is getting there too.I am still concerned about Harmison and Anderson being injured and personally i hope they aren't involved in the first test simply because i think it is too big a risk.

Bopara is the one to come out of this game with most credit as 68 runs and 3 wickets in a low scoring game is an excellent effort,i hope he gets the nod ahead of Shah for the first test.

Sri Lanka have problems with their bowling line up though they may be helped as the injuries they have mean that they can't stupidly drop Vaas or Malinga who should always play.

I am looking forward to this series as i think we have a chance of winning it but wouldn't be surprised if we lost it.

Good fight to get a result, with only one frontline seamer fit for most of their second innings! I'd go for this side:

Cook
Vaughan*
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
Mustard+
Hoggard
Harmison/Anderson (if Harmison isn't fit)
Sidebottom
Panesar

I was torn between Shah and Bopara, as both have done well at different stages of the tour games, but Shah's selection would be consistent and we don't want to swap too many names around. Bopara would be first in should a batsman be injured/out of form however. Mustard will do way better than Prior in both areas of his game, and has a domestic fifty against Murali to his name, but I suspect Prior will be picked and must show his worth.

Edit: As for Sri Lanka, I really don't get why they are so enamoured with Fernando simply because he no-balls less now, he's not performing and hasn't for a long time. I'd go for: Vandort, Tharanga, Sangakkara, DPMD Jayawardene*, Jayasuria, Silva, HAPW Jayawardene+, Maharoof, Vaas, Malinga, Muralitharan.

I'd go with much the same side, though I'd be less worried about using Swann / Broad ahead of Harmison and Anderson: I'd perhaps still go with one of your pair... but that has to be a decision based on medical advice and net-session evidence that I am certainly not expecting to get!

On the Shah issue... Bopara's promising.... but an ability to impose himself and rotate the strike against lesser bowlers doesn't necessarily make him the best batsman for a big duel with Murali: though less dramatic in terms of impact, Shah has shown great composure and discipline in these warm up games... and as his ability against spin is second to none in this England squad... I'd play him.

Not that long since in 2004/05 it was said I was wildly optomistic, and had rose tinted spec's.

No FF - how many times do England players break down on tour?, remember the last two tours of Australia - the first when Simon Jones damaged his knee, and Flintoff had to go home early also injured.

Remember 2006 when they chose a crocked Flintoff to captain the side, as stand in for an injured Vaughan? - and they took Trescothick when it was plain he was not mentaly fit, and Harmison who's touring track record has a lot to be desired.

Not bad luck FF - bad selecting.

What have I said against Cook?, and Bell and Vaughan are erratic at best - against better teams anyway.

Bopara is a good prospect - but hardly mature, same as Cook,and Shah would benefit with more experienced and in form players to start a test career.
Hoggard is in good form , he was only out of the side due to injury, but to play Sidebottom in the same side is pure folly IMO.

Harmison being he is here - should if fit be played, if not Anderson for at least some variation.

Hoggard - Sidebottom and Broad in the same team is just not on at test level (boring) as that sounds or not.

Rob Key - he could also play well against lesser teams, he certainly has experience.

Ramprakash - well he did get an offer he could refuse, he was (just) in the selectors minds.

Ed Smith - never got a half decent chance - nor was he lucky like Bell and get back in the side due to others being injured (Vaughan Pakistan 2005).

Adams - he has at least tasted success, probably could have done a job.

Now with respect FF - this is one of your blind spots, if you remember Crawley was in decent form when he was injured - he never got his place back for reasons unknown, he just dissapeared - he was NOT dropped.

__________________
Ern

Bomb blasts in Sri Lanka last night.

Let's hope the series gets off the ground, safely.

One also that most of the selectors have as well, and his figures don't make great reading - 37 Test average just 34!! Compare that with Cook, Bell and Vaughan all 40+!!

Key is the same averaging just 31!!

Lets go for First Class Cricket

Key 175 games - average 41
Smith 186 games - average 41
Adams 325 games - average 39
Shah 182 games - average 43

By picking Shah they have selected a guy with as much experince as Key and Smith, not as experienced as Adams.. but who has the superior record?

As for injuries, I agree Harmison should be in the team, and that is why he was asked to prove his fitness, sadly, he was just not fit enough. What more could the selectors do? The fact is that with Flintoff, out, and Jones, probably not likely to play again, who else could the selectors go for.

For me you can only pick the best team available and with Trescothick mentally unfit, Flintoff and Jones out long term, Harmison still struggling, there is not a huge amount of experienced options available to the selectors!!

Thankfully it looks like England wont go for the dreaded Hoggard, Sidebottom and Broad trio .

According to cricinfo "Harmison and Anderson are fighting it out for the third seamer spot".

The also say I just hope that they are both fit enough.....

__________________
Mark.

Forget that we don't agree on the merits of Adams et al, this part of your post really backs up what I have said since 2004 - England IMO don't have great strength in depth.Bopara and the young brigade have lots of potential, but bringing in more than a couple of newbies at any one time is not that good an idea, the side then lacks maturity, the side can take a thrashing like in Australia in 2006, denting the confidence of the young players on the recieving end.Mahmood has taken lots of stick, but it has to be remembered that both he and Plunkett were pitched in at the deep end in 2006, and they were just not experienced enough to bowl at players like Ponting and Hayden.
Both since have taken a back seat due to the terrible squad selection for the ashes in 2006, and little better in Sri Lanka in 2007.OK so England have had bad luck with injuries, but that begs the question as to why English players suffer so many injuries.Flintoff, Hoggard, Vaughan, Simon Jones, Harmison, Giles and other have all been injured, and in most cases for a long period of time.
What is wrong with the England coaching system that so many of our key players are injured in a short period of time - in fact since 2005 - something is terribly wrong with the England coaching system.
Also when a team does so poor as England have done since 2005, starting in Pakistan that year - how come one wonders if Mahmood and Plunkett are discarded, and Fletcher had little option but to resign - why don't the selectors have to go also, after all it's they that pick the squads.

__________________
Ern