Greg, I'm not happy with it but will accept it for what it is. We have an inexperienced bowling attack playing in the most difficult environment in world cricket. What do you expect to happen? It's not like we can call on Freddie or the Hogster to help us out. Jones and Giles are long gone. With any amount of luck Sidebottom and Broad would have had more wickets and Harmison is bowling on a pitch as unresponsive to his type of bowling as any in the world.

We're off to New Zealand after Christmas. Am I the only one who thinks that Sidebottom, Hoggard and Harmison will thoroughly enjoy themselves out there? And Broad wouldn't mind a bowl there either!

I really don't get what you are saying, the fact is that no England player got 100, and Sri Lanka managed to post a score in excess 0f 500 - nearly getting a big score does not count.

Again if the pitch is offerning nothing for bowlers, how come England was not able to post a competative total?, this could excuse Englands inexperienced bowlers, but not the batsmen.

Jayawardene scored 195, and Vandort scored 138 - the highest England could manage was 81 and 87 from Vaughan and Cook.

This is a weak England side, caused mainly by injuries to Flintoff and Hoggard - but the batting is at full strength, and they should have batted Boycott style staying at the wicked for long periods in required IMO when the bowling is weak.survival rather than run scoring.

__________________
Ern

Milo was pointing out that when it comes to posting HUGE individual totals.... you are reliant on lucky breaks: Vaughan, for instance, did nothing wrong to get out... and has shown himself better than almost any England player of his generation at turning starts into really BIG scores - he's converted an impresive 8 of 17 centuries into significantly bigger scores... and has posted 6 Test scores of 150+... which is a conversion rate most Test players would take without hesitation.

Note: Collingwood had no problem turning a good start into a huge total when he got going in Adelaide... Bell has posted an unbeaten 162 in Tests and an unbeaten 262 in 1st class cricket... Cook scored a double-century for Essex against the touring Australians.. and Pietersen has a Test best of 226.

ps. Your hero, Trescothick, returned just 3 centuries from his first 69 innings. Despite this, he averaged a respectable 39.28. Bell has only played 56 innings and has already posted double the number of three figure scores (plus a higher top score and a significantly better average). Tresco then went on to convert a VERY high percentage of 50s into centuries - so maybe some slack is called for.

Ps. one of these is Bell in Oz.. and the other is Tresco in Oz... and one of the two only passed 50 once in 10 innings....

Code:

                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
filtered               5   10   0   261  72   37   37   26.10   0   1   1
filtered               5   10   0   331  87   71   60   33.10   0   4   2

ppps. Whilst Bell failed to score a century in a single, 5 Test series when Australia toured over here... Tresco failed to post a 3 figure score in two tours (yes, 20 innings): I do not hold that against Tresco... whose strength was always his consistency - you might want to extend the same courtesy to Bell... who did his part in 4 innings out of 10 last time around.

But he was out Rachael - if he gets out he won't make a big score, I can't see that bad luck stopped all 11 England players from reaching a century .
What Vaughan did wrong was to get out when it mattered.
You imply that Vaughan was unlucky the way he got out, and say he would have gone on to make a big total (and I say imply) - yet lambast Flintoff when he get caught on the boundry when had he been lucky and the ball had carried a few more inches, he would have been applauded for scoring a 6 - how unlucky can you get?.
I don't believe I have mentioned Ian Bell in this thread Rachael, so I have not been discourtious towards him, I believe all the batting has not performed that well, you forget England are one test down - and struggling to save this match.
Bell against Australia in England.
Bell's career average against Australia - Home and away.
Trescothick against Australia in England.
Trescothick's career average against Australia - home and away.
Rachael look at Bell's record against Australia compared with Trescothick, even if he has made more 50's and 100's, look at the averages of the two players - who was most use to his captain?.

While we are on the subject of high scores Trescothicks high score is 209 against South Africa with bowlers like Pollock,Ntini and Kallis Cricinfo - 5th Test: England v South Africa at The Oval, Sep 4-8, 2003

Bell has a high score of 162 against the might of the Bangladesh bowlers Cricinfo - 2nd Test: England v Bangladesh at Chester-le-Street, Jun 3-5, 2005
And in the same match that Bell got his 162, Trescothick scored 151 - not much difference.

__________________
Ern

Even on a flat pitch, most batsmen will struggle to get started in at least 1 in 3 innings... and quite possibly in 2 in 3 innings: getting started is tough. Moreover, it only takes on error to end an innings: having the concentration of Bradman is admirable... but the example of Trescothick shows the virtue of having patience with a player - despite a long record of failing to convert 50s into big scores... he eventually started delivering big-time.As Barry Richards frequently notes... a thick edge that clears the rope is no better than a thick edge that goes to hand: what makes a shot good or poor is the control over where the ball goes (the placement) rather than the outcome. If Flintoff plays gets a thick edge that that doesn't carry the fielder I've no sympathy... as clearing the fielder just lets him get away with something poor. The difference with Vaughan's shot is clear enough: his shot was perfectly executed... and no fielder on earth could have caught it - the ball getting lodged between the fielder's pads really was just freakishly bad luck.I was not criticising Tresco... My point was simply that it took Tresco a while to work out how to turn his consistent contributions into matchwinning contributions... and you've no basis for doubting that the self-evidently more talented Bell can learn to do the same thing.

I was merely suggesting that but for a few bad umpiring decisions and a very large slice of luck, England would probably have scored a 500. Only then can we analyse the 'toothless' English attack.

Surely even you Ernest can accept that England should have scored a bigger total! Or are you suggesting that Pietersen, Cook and Vaughan would have been dismissed anyway?

If Jayawardene had been given out to a ball going down legside on 90 and Vandort given out to a catch that wasn't caught, how many would Sri Lanka have scored? My point was that apart from the two big scores (which could have easily been Cook and Vaughan's innings on another day), the England and Sri Lanka innings were pretty identical.

If England have had a poor test match, then Sri Lanka have not really achieved very much either. A draw is fair on such an poorly competitive pitch. So we now move on to Galle.

That pitch was a disgrace, England took 18 wickets (no they didn't, thanks Greg, they took 9) and Sri Lanka 13 - who has the bowling problems? Malinga went at 4 an over and was entirely toothless in the fourth innings, Fernando was similar, Vaas only took 2 wickets and Murali was nearly outdone by a part-timer. Panesar was poor but Harmison and Sidebottom were outstanding on that pitch, Pietersen could have had a stumping and must be used more in Galle, and Broad worked hard and apparently bowled fairly well. With Hoggard, Harmison and Sidebottom in our ranks in Galle, I'd back them over Vaas, Malinga and Fernando. All our batsmen have to do is stick around against Murali and hope Monty raises his game a bit, and I think we've got a good chance of winning.

Cheer up guys, we're in with a good chance and in Sri Lanka that's hard task.

I must have missed the other 9 we took then.

I can't see us bowling them out twice unless the pitch in Galle is a shocker.

Balls, my mistake - I blame tiredness. Anyway, we bowled second on a flattening pitch so what I'm trying to say (whilst getting my numbers wrong rather absent-mindedly!) is that the bowling performances were pretty equivalent. The difference is we've got Hoggard coming back and Panesar to improve, so I think we have the upper hand in improvement before the next test. Plus, if we drop Bopara who has been anonymous and bring in Shah whom we should have started with, there's more ability in the spin-playing department.

I need a break.

Spot on Colly. The pitch really ruined the game, if Murali isnt threatening on a fifth day Sri Lankna wicket then you know it is flat!

At least there were a few plus points to come out of this match:

Vaughan and Cook at least looked like a solid opening partnership both getting good runs.
The bowlers worked really hard and Harmison (the pick of the bowlers) showed even on dead wickets he is still a threat.

Although the fact that none of the batters again went on to get a ton is a big negative point.

__________________
Mark.