The newspaper I read said that England could have had a definite chance to win the match.Sanath Jayasuriya bowled only 5 balls in an over in one of the overs and nobody noticed.It was after the match when the umpires went through the sheets that they discovered it.If that was noticed,England would have needed 3 runs of 2 balls which wouldn't have made Bopara play such a shot.Victory wouldn't have been sure,but you never know.

__________________
Karthik Venkatesan

Well what on earth was the England team and management doing not having picked up that mistake at the time and pointing it out to the match referee sleeping off hangovers ?

To late now.

Sums us up.

But such suppositions can be extended to any limit! For example, if Michael Kasprowicz's attemped leg glance to Harmison in the Edgbaston test of the 2005 Ashes series had been a few inches either way, the overall series results might have been quite different. Such narrow 'if onlys' apply at some time or the other to every team playing cricket and no one is singling out England for preferential prejudice. Therefore, what might have happened is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Not sure it would have mattered anyway. Law 22(5) is absolutely clear that an over is completed when the umpire at the bowler's end calls "Over". The case of the umpire miscounting is specifically dealt with in this regard, and Tom Smith, the leading commentary on the Laws, says quite unequivocally that "If Over is called before the sixth fair delivery, the over shall be deemed complete, there being no opportunity for the additional delivery(ies) to be bowled later".

That's the Law, and it's clear enough. Whether the ICC has imposed a "Playing Condition" to deal with this situation - they are pretty good at over-riding the Laws when it suits them - I don't know, but a look at their website would reveal the answer to that point. In any case, even taking a practical view based on the fact that there are now seventeen officials, 144 television cameras and 2 billion armchair umpires watching the game (none of whom got it right this time, it seems!), unless a counting error were picked up and corrected before the first ball of the succeeding over was bowled, which would require (a) someone to notice; (b) a message to get to the two umpires on the field; and (c) the field umpires to check their count and agree they had slipped up, it would not be possible to correct.

Short overs are not unheard of in any form of the game - similarly you occasionally get a long one. The scorers should note it in their scoring notes, but the correct action for everyone else is to get on and play the next over. Bottom line: we can analyse this all we want, but England lost fair and square.

PS Incidentally, I watched this innings, and I missed it as well. The card shows it was the 26th over - the one in which Ian Bell was run out. That decision took a long time coming and I'm sure that people all over the ground - including in the England camp - were talking about it as it was such a close call (correctly given out, in my view).

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Indeed England could have beaten Sri Lanka, had they batted intelligently and scored a few more runs in the 49.5 overs they faced .

What I will say is that since the start of the Ashes tour it seems that every marginal decision has gone against us. It must be a heck of a payback for the couple that went for us in the '05 Ashes.

__________________
Mark.

Sure, but why stop there? They could have beaten Australia too if Pietersen had not missed his last two ballet lessons. I am sure you'll cook up something soon for the Kiwi match.

Yes but you can never tell Jayasuiya could have gotten a wicket and Sri Lanka could have thumped England. Its a little bit silly to say they would have needed 2 of 3 unless it was the last over that only five balls were bowled.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

I really like your signature script Quagmire; perhaps it is more relevant with certain threads than others.

No, you didnt get the gist of my reply! What i was saying, perhaps a touch sarcastically, was that we lost because over 50 overs SL scored more runs than us!That one missed ball meant b****r all, if we arent good enough to win with the 49.5 overs we faced should one ball make that much differance, especially as Quagmire has said that we could well have lost another wicket.

Similar sort of thing v the aussies really, we werent good enough, no excuses!

__________________
Mark.