In fairness... the ball was swinging as much in the morning session as any bowler could ever want: CMJ noted that Sidebottom was getting so much swing early on that he was finding it almost-impossible to control - he was just about unplayable at times. IN those conditions, Broad is of limited use: the alternative to Hoggard would have had to be Anderson, simply because he's a genuine swing bowler.

In fairness... Hoggard's fitness was more than adequate for bowling cutters, and in that mode he is very effective: Mike Selvey reckoned Hoggard was being a bit tentative with the new ball... but all concerned seemed agreed that Hoggard's second spell was excellent and seemed to be delivered without any obvious discomfort.

It should have been -
Kandy - Hoggard, Sidebottom, Broad
Colombo - Sidebottom, Anderson, Harmison
Galle - Hoggard, Sidebottom, Harmison

Anderson used whenever Hoggard is injured.
Tremlett used when Harmison is injured
Broad and Bopara should have stayed in the ODI team for a bit longer as they will be around for many years to come. Tremlett and Shah have been very unlucky.

I could say a lot of things about the above statement but most of them would get me into trouble so It'll suffice to say that I do not agree with that statement in the slightest. It actually surprises me that someone with such an obvious depth of knowledge of the subject matter would hold this opinion.

England at the moment do not appear to have the slightest clue as to how to assemble a bowling unit capable of bowling effectively on Sri Lankan wickets and this is the reason they will lose this series and end up 5th in the table. What I can tell you is that swing bowlers are not the solution to bowling effectively on these wickets. Vaughan (and Moores) appear to have this thing at the moment about swing bowlers and this is one of the reasons they've struggled in this series.

How can you say Broad would be of limited use in these conditions because he's not a genuine swing bowler when Harmison, the only other specialist seam bowler playing took 3-72 compared to 1-75 for Sidebottom and 0-97 from Hoggard? Even Bopara as useless a bowler as he is in Test Cricket bowling seam up took a wicket.

It may have escaped your attention Rachael, but if the ball swings, then it will probably seam around as well and Harmison did not take all his wickets due to height and bounce but by seaming deliveries, Broad being a similar bowler to Harmison, in my mind would have been as equally effective.

Therein lies the problem, England have consistently got the mixture of bowlers wrong, not bowled well or at the wrong lengths on all the pitches they've played on, Panesar has been largely ineffective as well and a losing series is the result.

Bowling cutters? I despair. Is Hoggard a swing bowler or not? If he is, why an earth are you content that his fitness allows him to bowl cutters when his main strength lies in swing?

England consistently got their bowling selections wrong and will lose the series as a result.

Great job Peter Moores you clown.

To be fair to the bowlers Scott had the fielding been remotely up to international standard Sri Lanka would have been knocked over for less than 250 and the game and series would still be on. Whatever the balance of the attack or the personnel involved if they have to take effectively take 13-14 wickets an innings and give players of the calibre of Mahela Jayawardene two innings (not forgetting of course the lucky dip element involved in every nick at Darryl Harper's end ) they've got absolutely no chance in these conditions. Yes they didn't bowl well and wasted a golden opportunity to exploit the extra life in the surface when compared to the previous two tests but they were yet again badly let down by their teammates and one can only hope that the new fielding coach Richard Halsall is something of a miracle worker. Failing that we could try going into a test match with at least the one genuine slip fielder .

A few points here guys. Firstly I agree about the standard of our fielding. At the minute if you nick one against us you know you have about a 65% of getting away with it.

Secondly I had high hopes for my boy Monty but although he has taken a wicket or two he hasn't really come up to scratch I fear. I know hes still learning but he had to be right on top of his game for us to compete here. Still a mystery to me why Swann hasn't got a game yet. Our seamers have not been that effective so 2 spinners had to be worth a go IMO.

Thirdly we must pay tribute to the excellent Jayawardene (apologies for spelling) Its interesting how captaincy affect certain players. A call to Ninj or Seamer to see some figures on various players as I would be keen to see that. We do n]know however that the SL skipper has really come on since he got the stripes.

Very hard to see a way out for England now and I feel we probably can't even save this game never mind win it. However great to see Galle back in action after all the troubles they have had; things like that do put the game into perspective I guess.

With the new ball there was indeed loads of swing on offer- think overcast Headingley in May. However niether Sidebottom or Hoggard were ever "unplayable" although the ball swung they never troubled the bats and the one wicket that Sidebottom did take didnt swing much.

Moores meduim pace ideas wont work at international level. If we are to play medium pacers then ONLY Hoggard or Sidebottom should be selected regardless of the conditions. Harmsion, our only quick bowler has constantly threatned, been economical and but for some bad fielding would have bagged at least a 5 wicket haul.

I feel Moores tenure as a coach could be coming to an end soon as he clearly does not understand interantional cricket. We struggled in the 80's and early 90's because we had no pace in our attack, we now have a few decent quick bowlers around and we play 2 meduim pacers .

For me the game is lost, I cant see us winning it and a draw is useless in terms of the series result. Hopefully this is the wake up call the management need.

__________________
Mark.

Harmison has been bowling 80mph in these two Tests until he gets a wicket when he cranks it up to 85-88 for a couple of overs. It's not his pace that been effective but his bounce and Hoggard and Sidebottom have managed to get a few balls to hit the top of the bat or the batsmen's fingers. At Kandy there was no bounce at all but they still shouldn't have played 3 swing bowlers with the ball only swinging for the first 15 overs.

But the great thing is that if needed Harmison can crank the pace up a bit. In that heat and humidity he's never going to be able to sustain top pace for long...... Although the speed gun may say 80 he will still hit the bat a lot harder that Hoggy/Siders bowling at 80.

As for his bounce, it was always known that is effective (on any wicket) unfortunatley everyone apart from Moores realises that. I still dont know why Moores is so obessed with (medium pace) swing - in this match the ball has moved around loads and caused no problems to the batsman. In fact since the India series how effective have our swing bowlers been??

__________________
Mark.

South Beds Mikey

Jayawardene's average as captain is 60.4, as opposed to 50.4 overall. I thought Inzamam-ul-Haq's average as captain would be a lot higher, but it was only 52 as opposed to 50, which is strange as I seem to remember him playing all these match-winning knocks while he was at the helm.

Really?

By my reckoning we've got three bowlers capable of consistantly cranking it up in the high 80's and with a friendly speed gun early 90's; Flintoff, Harmison and Saj Mahmood. The fringe players Tremlett, Broad, Plunkett and Anderson are all capable of the odd quick ball maybe even the odd hostile 2-3 over spell but in reality they are all differing styles of medium pacers. So of the three genuine quicks at Moores' disposal you've got a crock, a guy struggling for form and match fitness and the ulta reliable Mahmood. Now I rate Mahmood more than most England but he's not yet remotely an international standard cicketer so Moores has the straight choice between experienced 80 mph swing bowlers or raw beanpole 80mph hit the deck bowlers. Neither much of an option out there.