About Panesar, at the end of the third day he was going at four and a half per over (from memory, 58 off 13) but his final innings figures showed that he was going at three an over (152 from 50) plus the two wickets he took. So on the fourth day he took 2-94 from 37, showing that he definitely improved throughout the game. But I think it's clear that batting isn't England's concern at the moment, bowling is, so they have to drop Bopara for Swann and bring back Hoggard.

Let's hope they do form a partnership at the top of the innings, that is was has been lacking with England since the break up of Tresco/Strauss partnership.
Since then middle order batters have been exposed to new ball bowling far to early - lets hope this is a begining, and that Vaughan stays fit.
That's right - all he has to do is bowl fast and accurate, nothing fancy and he will be hard to get away, and will take wickets.

Again right - even in Englands heady days of 2004/05 the batting was fragile - yes there was individual decent scores, bet hardly ever as a team.

It's fair to say that Englands success in that period was down to the bowlers.

The England batting is improving - but need to start again with basics, and that means crease occupation making sure they don't lose matches - and the runs will come with confidence.

Also a successfull team often gets more than their fair share of any luck that's going, but that's just a bunus.

__________________
Ern

I don't think bowling is Englands main problem, they can only bring back Hoggard when fit as he was not dropped.

Panesar or Swann - Sri Lanka can play spin bowling, playing two spinners would IMO be playing to their strengths.

__________________
Ern

Every commentator I heard reckoned the pick of the bowlers was Sidebottom, a player who has found his rhythm and has been exemplary with the new ball. Sadly, of course, he swings the new ball the wrong way for implementing the obvious plan against left-handers like Vandort and Tharanga... and Hoggard's absense and Anderson's absense left Vaughan with no-one to swing the new ball the other way.

Harmison and Broad both bowled in an encouraging manner... but on such a dire pitch the only chance for a seamer is to exploit any movement in the air with the new ball: neither have the skills to manage that. The sooner the new ball combination is once-again Hoggard and Sidebottom the better!

ps. Swann AND Panesar in the next Test is a must: England MUST have a spinner who turns the ball away from the left-handers and another who turns the ball away from the right handers. If Hoggard's fit then he and Sidebottom are also musts. I really don't care whether they bat Prior at 6 and play Swann and Broad to add depth... or stick with Bopara/Shah at 6 and play just two seamers - though Harmison should surely figure ONLY if Hoggard fails his fitness test.

We suffered badly agaisnt the Aussies uptop and i dont think we have ever really recoverd from that, hopefully the seeds of a sucessful opening partnership have been sown. Getting off to a good start gives you the initiative quickly and puts the bowling team onto the back foot something we havt experienced as a batting unit since '05.

I've also said that. He showed in this match if he's bowling half decent, even on a featherbed he will always be a better bet than Broad, Tremlett or Sidebottom.
For a tidy as Broad bowled he never threatened. Harmy could have easily had 5 wickets and that he got 2 men out with lifters on that wicket really says something.

Edit: Sidebottom only threatened when the ball was swinging, once it got past 15 overs old he posed no threat, all of the articles I've read suggested that Harmison was by far and away the pick of the bowlers -the most economical and the most threatning.

I do agree that Swann should play in the final test. If Hoggards fit Hoggard, Harmison, Monty and Swann look the only attck capable of taking 20 wickets.

__________________
Mark.

But then you will only threaten the Sri Lankans for 10 overs out of 90. Can you really bowl a test team out in 10-15 overs.

__________________
Mark.

Better 10 overs than no overs: without reverse swing... no seamer is going to pose a threat after the shine has gone... and the ONLY way the ball will threat even in the first 10 overs is with swing - the 'pace/bounce' approach just ain't going to work.

Harmison bowled better than might have been expected.. but he stil had no meaningful impact with the new0ish OR older ball!

Well 2 spinners against Sri Lanka IMO is a risk as the spinners have looked les potent than Broad - it will probably happen so interesting times.

A blast from the past - I wonder how this Rachael team below would fair in Sri Lanka this series

Changes in the England team? (Rachael branch - other sub-branches)

__________________
Ern

You can make that argument, but even so there's likely to be a lot for the spinners anywhere in Sri Lanka, and as Rachael pointed out, having the offie and the leftie would cover both the left-and-right-handed batsmen. Those two bowling in tandem would very likely apply a lot of pressure, and take wickets as well (hopefully). Hoggard and Harmison are musts, and Sidebottom should also get in as well, so that leaves Anderson (too inconsistent) Broad (impressive, but not really threatening in Colombo) and Swann (adds variety, good bat at 7, more county experience than Broad). So faced with those three choices, I'd rather go with Swann.

Of course you could just play 4 bowlers, but the English batting is strong and in form, so having either Bopara or Shah would be fairly pointless IMO. Prior's certainly good enough to bat at 6.

If Hoggard is fit i would certainly do the same,Prior is batting well enough to bat at 6 and Swann may be a bit high at 7 but if hoggy isn't fit enough it won't matter too much as Broad will still be a useful number 8.

We need to win and our bowling has been found wanting so we need to strengthen it by bringing in Swann.