Quite right. Prior has had a fantastic series (bar a dreadful shot at Kandy) and he should be given credit for that. I don't think - long term - he is the best man for the job, but he's in possesion and, at the minute, he is doing exceptionally well. What irks me is that, during the last Test, Rachael spoke about a 'straight-forward' missed stumping off Sidebottom. That is not possible. Also, all the talk of coming in front of the slips - given how poor our cordon is now, it's hardly surprising he's trying to take everything is it!? The days of Tresco, Flintoff, Strauss (and Giles at gully) are gone and it's a shame.

If I were Prior's coach I'd be very encouraged by the guy's displays on this tour: the discipline with the bat has been a revelation... and the signs of improvement with the gloves have been clear enough. I have nothing against Prior and have nothing but admiration for what Prior is achieving by working hard on his game - and I look forward to the day he puts the same effort into just keeping his trap shut during play!

I've never doubted that with enough hard work and dedication... Prior could reach the sort of cricketing level that Stewart reached with the gloves... and at least the level of Flintoff or Symonds (and possibly beyond) with the bat: like Geraint Jones (who I also put in that bracket) he's got the natural athleticism and eye along with a proven ability to adapt and develop and a decent match-temperament.

My issue is merely with those who say that is enough: to my mind it's giving up on excellence.... it's settling for mere effectiveness... and that's not, for me, enough.

Hussain was an effective batsman. Giles was an effective spinner. When he's fit enough to bend his back, Flintoff is an effective bowler... but national selection should be about getting together players with the potential to be far more than just effective - and quite frankly, just as Hussain didn't have it in him to be another Gower, and as Giles didn't have it in him to be another Underwood, and as Flintoff didn't have it in him to be another Trueman... so Prior doesn't have it in him to be another Taylor.

Now... if NO alternative player looks capable of becoming the next Gower / Underwood / Trueman / Taylor then fair enough... but the likes of Hussain/Giles/Flintoff/Prior should surely NEVER take the spot of players with the promise of Bell/Panesar/Broad/Read... and signs of such players being "effective enough" to keep them in the side should be met with the same despair that was called for when (for instance) Stewart was "effective" enough to retain a spot ahead of the (far more talented and deserving) Russell or - most notably, and even less excusably - Piper.

First of all.. I agree that Prior is only effective with the gloves.. however, the fact is that he is a bigger package than just a pair of gloves.. he is also able to, as he has proved, contribute with the bat. Read on the other hand was only "effective" with the bat, and sadly this was just not good enough. As for Stewart, by the end of his career IMO he was more than just a batsmen who could keep, and was a very effective all round player.

In terms of Flintoff, you again miss the fact that he is not just in the side for his bowling, or his batting, but for the fact that he is worthy of his place as a batsman, a bowler and a fielder. He is a genuine all rounder and as such will be an incredibly difficult gap to fill. But I will let Ern argue his case, as he is much better at that than me.

Where I agree with you 100% is that I would rather see Panesar and Bell in my side than Hussain and Giles, however, the fact is that if half the batsmen had the stubbornness of Hussain and all the team able to make the most of their ability like Giles did, I would be a very happy man indeed.

The funny thing is, two of the batters you like the most are Boycott and Richardson, but neither were naturally gifted, and in fact Boycott was as manufactured as anyone could be.

I think we are in an OK position. Sidebottom was his usual reliable self and Broad, who must have been worried having been warned twice, responded well.

I was very happy to see Harmison steaming in; the most I've seen him for a while. The main dissapointment for me was my boy Monty. He must be encouraged to throw it up a bit more tomorrow. The pitch looks flat so a flight job needed.

I've defended Hussain, Collingwood and Giles as well... and would defend Flintoff if he were being unfairly ridiculed: whilst we would all (I hope) love to see successful Test sides getting the exceptional best out of players with the undoubted talent of the likes of Ramps, Read, Lewis, Tufnell and Caddick... no one should be dismissive of the hard work and dedication that is involved in getting even the most talented player delivering consistently - and if we cannot also admire those players who embody hard work and dedication then we've lost the plot.

Doesn't mean we like the idea of a side built around the likes of Boycott, Hussain, Collingwood and Flintoff... but it does mean we need to acknowledge that they actually made more of their limited talents than did the likes of Ramps, Chris Lewis and Tuffers.

ps. My issue with Ern regarding Flintoff is NOT to do with giving him due recognition - it's just that I want to give him recognition as a player who has exceeded all reasonable expectations by sheer hard work and determination to learn... where Ern seems to think Flintoff was some sort of "natural" in the manner that Botham was as a bowler and that Thorpe was as a batsman.

First I don't agree that Boycott's as manufactured as FF makes out, just because he was metronomic does not mean he was not gifted.
He must have been a natural to some degree - to have the eye to play the best pace bowlers there ever was.
I would have no objection to England bulding a side round the likes of Boycott, Hussain, Collingwood and Flintoff, because these types of players are grafters, and as such would allow a side like England to play the likes of Tuffers or Ramps, I draw the like at Chris Lewis due to the fact that he was IMO lazy, and unreliable.

There is no doubt that you have given Flintoff recognition ( about that in a mo), but anyone would have to agree that Flintoff has got by with sheer hard work.
Example is that when he was injured the first or second time - he alone made the decision to go fell runnning to get himself fit, also when he was overweight and looked ready for the chop, he responded in the same way.

Also he would always take more than his share of the bowling, a real grafter (drinking apart) he was the perfect role model for how to be the perfect team man - and a captains dream.Funny one this - I was reading an old thread last night from 2005, and in it you praised Flintoff saying he had a "good eye" for batting, I have forgot the name of the thread pity I did not save the page to favourites, he was no Thorpe but was talented as a batsman when he was needed - his lack of form since 2006 in India has coincided with his eternal injuries.
Regarding Ian Botham - I believe that Flintoff if fit is the better bowler, Botham was gifted to a point, but was also a lucky bowler who took countless wickets from poor deliveries - like wide half vollies.
Flintoff on the other hand has been most of the last three years Englands best bowler, with absolutely no luck at all.
I suppose there is a lesson there for bowlers to bowl at a full length more often

Indeed - but I would say that Ramps was just as dedicated as Flintoff or Collingwood - he would no doubt would have done much better under Fletcher, Tuffers I am not sure about.

Gooch could be another considered as a grafter - not everyones favourite, but I think he was the first captain to put the team into physical training (running) before a match.

__________________
Ern

Well finally we break that wonderful partnership.Well done Vandort on the ton and thankyou to Sidebottom for getting the wicket.

Highlight of the day for me though was Ian Bell straight away saying the ball had hit the ground when it looked like he had caught Jayawardene at gully,something for Chamara Silva to look at as he must have known that he was claiming a false catch when they dismissed KP.At least we play it straight.

Panesar has been poor,probably the worst he has bowled for England so far,he doesn't even look like taking a wicket despite the ball turning a fair bit.I bet Murali ties us in knots in our 2nd innings.

The difference for me in the batting between the two sides are that Sri Lanka are more patiant, they show a side don't have to score at nearly four an over to be effective.

Same thing with Sidebottom - not my favourite by any means, but he has shown that patiance brings rewards.
Well dobe to Bell on his sportsmaship, he probably had the good sence to realise the catch would have been scutinised in any case - a good decision by him.

__________________
Ern

Exactly Ern,they know if they bat for another 80 overs that they will have a huge lead and England will be fighting to save the match on day 5 against Murali.We failed in Kandy when trying the same thing and this pitch has more bounce so Murali should be more dangerous.

If Sri Lanka get a 100 run lead we will lose in my opinion.

I'm puzzled as to why the Captain doesn't bowl himself more often - I've always thought his off spin was rather under rated. Monty is having one of those days when the rhythm isn't quite there, the seamers are bound to be drained by the heat, Vaughan could be a partnership breaker in such circumstances.