First Test. England v Sri Lanka at Headingley. 19/5/16.

[Aidan11]

So a crushing win for England and as an England fan that is always welcome.

Sadly though there are a lot of negatives most of which have nothing to do directly with the match. The crowds were poor and the test ended in half the allotted time. The weather wasn't ideal and the opposition were not great. All of which puts doubt in the minds of the ECB and Sky. Should we have 7 tests? Should we have test cricket at all? The usual questions that come around which usually result in answers that end up shafting the cricket lover.

The series moves to CLS on Friday and if the weather holds the result will likely be the same. It seems to be the only sport where we can have a thumping win and worry that it might not necessarily be a good thing.

[Dr Cricket]

Hopefully the prices come down, really wanna go but don't want to pay 50 pounds and don't want to risk day 4 ticket again.

[Making_Splinters]

I have seen enough of westley to make the claim he is not good enough for international cricket, if he has really improved he would average big in div 2 cricket for a longer period of time and actually score loads of runs in list a cricket against the stronger counties.

Oh, so you've now seen enough of him, well I'm sure it would be relatively simple to actually give specifics about his technique and such to justify your statements. or are we just going to back round in a big circle?

[Dr Cricket]

I have seen enough of westley to make the claim he is not good enough for international cricket, if he has really improved he would average big in div 2 cricket for a longer period of time and actually score loads of runs in list a cricket against the stronger counties.

Oh, so you've now seen enough of him, well I'm sure it would be relatively simple to actually give specifics about his technique and such to justify your statements. or are we just going to back round in a big circle?

Again why are you attacking me why don't you name a batsman that is next of the rank then if it so easy to pick one.
The fact you can't name a batsman proves my orginal point correct there are not really batsman calling to get picked in the side.

[KipperJohn]

It will be forgotten in time that England were 83 for 5 on the first day, Sri Lanka were 77 for 5 on the second day. The difference was that England had a batsman averaging nearly 48 in first class cricket, and in scintillating form too boot, walking to the crease whereas Sri Lanka had a test débutante who averages nearly 10 runs less in first class cricket walking to the crease.

Given the, on paper at least, large differences between the quality of these two sides, it is amazing how finally balanced they were at the same stages of their first innings. Bairstow would survive a few edges and go on to make a ton, Shanaka got a duck and that was that.

Hardly a poor performance by Sri Lanka despite the result and the score card.

Actually been thinking on the same lines. Key points were Bairstow being dropped on 70 and then failing to avoid the follow on.
Would have significantly altered the balance of the game although little doubt England would still have won.
Apart from Anderson, Broad, Bairstow and Hales, England weren't that special.

Better batsmen then SL have got would have struggled against that attack in those conditions - as shown by India and Australia in recent times.

[alfie]

Comprehensive win for England. Given the conditions and the lack of experience in the Sri Lankan lineup it probably wasn't too surprising they couldn't handle Broad and Anderson , both bowling very well. I thought their rather unheralded bowlers did quite well though - had it not been for Bairstow England might have ended with an underwhelming total.

Which brings me to the issue of who comes in for Stokes : assuming bowler-friendly conditions again up North ; should not England rather pick another batsman than a fourth seamer who may hardly be required ? At a pinch , Vince can bowl a few overs ; but unless Sri Lanka make huge strides in technique against the moving ball you wouldn't think Anderson Broad and Finn will be bowled into the ground.
I don't see these County games , of course ; so I'll defer to local experts - but it occurs to me they might do worse than have a look at a form player on his home ground , partly with an eye to the Asian tours : Borthwick ? Collingwood seems to rate him.

[Making_Splinters]

I have seen enough of westley to make the claim he is not good enough for international cricket, if he has really improved he would average big in div 2 cricket for a longer period of time and actually score loads of runs in list a cricket against the stronger counties.

Oh, so you've now seen enough of him, well I'm sure it would be relatively simple to actually give specifics about his technique and such to justify your statements. or are we just going to back round in a big circle?

Again why are you attacking me why don't you name a batsman that is next of the rank then if it so easy to pick one.
The fact you can't name a batsman proves my orginal point correct there are not really batsman calling to get picked in the side.

Ah, this is just like being back on 606, almost makes on nostalgic for those heady days on the BBC.

You stated that none of the batsmen making runs in the LVCC are good enough, yet you are unable to actually back that up in any way. I could say that elephants can fly, somewhat unsurprisingly I'd be unable to really justify this statement and I expect that it wouldn't be taken seriously. That's pretty much where you find yourself right now, a simple question for you to justify your claims - I simply said there are batsmen making runs, you'll find that to be the case - and you're doing your damnedest to avoid it, and occasionally completely contradicting yourself.

A simple demonstration on how to actually construct a point would be to look at Robson and Ballance for example: Robson was rather harshly dropped but did have large issues with understanding where his off stump was and deciding what delivery to play, he's come back this season with those two flaws ironed out and has scored runs. Ballance on the other hand is still playing exactly the same way he was when he slowly but surely got picked apart at international level, a failure to improve and deal with his flaws would suggest that there'd be little point in picking him again.

See, that wasn't particularly hard to do, have an opinion and actually justify it, rather than spewing them left, right and centre then running around like a scalded cat when someone has the audacity to simple ask for a little bit of expansion upon them.

Now, back to the question above, why in your clearly expert "opinion" is Westley not going to be able to face international pace bowling? Or were you just watching for the elephants in the sky with that one? No harm in admitting it wasn't a well thought out point to make, is there?

[Dr Cricket]

Borthwick is a good shout as a batsman but it should be remembered he isn't a really a good spinner anymore so is unlikely to offer much in that front.
If he plays should be picked as a batsman just like smith is for Australia.

[Dr Cricket]

Making splinter you are an embarrassment for just attacking me for an opinion, don't see you attacking Arthur for essentially saying the same thing as me.

[Making_Splinters]

Comprehensive win for England. Given the conditions and the lack of experience in the Sri Lankan lineup it probably wasn't too surprising they couldn't handle Broad and Anderson , both bowling very well. I thought their rather unheralded bowlers did quite well though - had it not been for Bairstow England might have ended with an underwhelming total.

Which brings me to the issue of who comes in for Stokes : assuming bowler-friendly conditions again up North ; should not England rather pick another batsman than a fourth seamer who may hardly be required ? At a pinch , Vince can bowl a few overs ; but unless Sri Lanka make huge strides in technique against the moving ball you wouldn't think Anderson Broad and Finn will be bowled into the ground.
I don't see these County games , of course ; so I'll defer to local experts - but it occurs to me they might do worse than have a look at a form player on his home ground , partly with an eye to the Asian tours : Borthwick ? Collingwood seems to rate him.

England don't seem to know what to think about Borthwick. He's been one of the top English batsmen for the last few seasons, batting at the top of the order, but has not had a look in. england seem convinced he's a spinner who can bat, which is a tad daft.

[Making_Splinters]

Making splinter you are an embarrassment for just attacking me for an opinion, don't see you attacking Arthur for essentially saying the same thing as me.

Didums, all you were asked to do was to justify your statements. Not my fault that you can't seemingly do that. Well Mr Flying Elephants, have fun with the rest of your day.

[Dr Cricket]

If I wanted to I can attack you for your point of saying the England vs Sri Lanka game was closer then you think considering 8 batsman out of 11 in the Sri Lanka side are totally out of their depth in these condition and will struggle to score more than 10-15 runs. Openers can barely handle short pace bowling, only Matthews has shown the game plan to score Runs and the defence to survive. The rest can barely pick the swing and had no idea where there next runs would come. For the bowling got decent bowlers but are likely to give 2-3 bad balls and will be unable to bowl the attacking lines and lengths all day. So in reality wasn't that close really. You get the feelig this is the best sti Lanka can do and England can improve so much on the batting.

Really only mendis, chandimal and Mathews can bat and out of that only Mathews showed to have the defence to survive Anderson and broad.

[Dr Cricket]

Making splinter you are an embarrassment for just attacking me for an opinion, don't see you attacking Arthur for essentially saying the same thing as me.

Didums, all you were asked to do was to justify your statements. Not my fault that you can't seemingly do that. Well Mr Flying Elephants, have fun with the rest of your day.

Again I said it was my opinion it is up to me if I want to justify it or not, why don't you attack Arthur for literally saying the same thing as me.
You are a joke of a person still doesn't even name one player that is the next batsman of the ranks.

[Making_Splinters]

Making splinter you are an embarrassment for just attacking me for an opinion, don't see you attacking Arthur for essentially saying the same thing as me.

Didums, all you were asked to do was to justify your statements. Not my fault that you can't seemingly do that. Well Mr Flying Elephants, have fun with the rest of your day.

Again I said it was my opinion it is up to me if I want to justify it or not, why don't you attack Arthur for literally saying the same thing as me.
You are a joke of a person still doesn't even name one player that is the next batsman of the ranks.

Now that is genuinely amusing. "it is up to me if I want to justify it or not". You've replaced Boycott at the bottom of my posts with that one, many thanks.

[Dr Cricket]

It is actually quite amusing for someone not being able to pick a batsman yet thinks they loads in contention for a spot in the team, not only that attack someone for stating that player is likely not good enough for international cricket.

Think people will take you seriously if you can actually name a player instead just attack other people opinions.