First Test: Sri Lanka v England in Galle, 6/11/18.

[Slipstream]

Ideal preparation for a Test series 2010 v Australia - 2 three day f/c games and 1 four day game against strong sides. 11 players.
Anderson 58 overs Broad 49 in the two 3 day games. The last game was for the reserve bowlers only.

Worst preparation in SL - 16 England players v 15 Sri Lankan. Two 2 day matches. 2nd 2 day match, rain on day 1. Chances of rain on 2nd day.
One of the reasons we are not good overseas. ECB should be ashamed of themselves.

[sussexpob]

Sadly, this could likely be the last test ever hosted at this famous venue. I dont know if its been resolved recently, but I believe much of the cricket ground is under dispute post-Tsunami, because the new pavillion blocks the view of the fort when looking from the town. UNESCO have threatened to remove heritage funding from it, citing the building of the Pavillion and facilities behind it contravene the laws governing the forts status as a protected monument, and I believe Sri Lankan government have agreed to demolish it, which would render the venue unsuitable for further international games.

Kind of ironic really. In protecting cultural heritage in one sphere, you dismantle it another.

[sussexpob]

I think they should pick two seamers and Stokes. I agree that the pace bowlers will have some threat. Though Galle is likely to be the most out-and-out spin track so three spinners also in the first Test seems reasonable.

Galle has a reputation for being a raging turner, but I think thats more to do with what Murali has done on it. I think generally, its been a surface where good bowling wins matches, and that the pitch has always started to offer uneven bounce to the seamers as the match goes on. Mitchell Starc got a 10 for here recently I think, and Rabada bowled really well on it not long ago. I have heard a lot of Sri Lankan commentators say that its not the surface that has produced the spinner wickets, but the location of the ground so close to the sea... the wind whips up in the afternoon, and that has a habit of making the ball just hold a fraction in the air and drift in, and its this that a lot of sri lankas credit for Murali's outstanding record at Galle. Although I dont expect a pitch to be flat, I think it will be geared to the spinners, but as I said.... in the past you got a feeling as much as it spins, it offered up and down bounce as day 4-5 comes. So bowlers should get something.

Pallekele is a newer venue, and I think its been a very lower scorer. Certainly in one days I have seen that this venue, the pitch can be terribly sluggish and hard to make shots on because of timing. Might suit England to play at a 250-300 par score venue ( no one has scored a 500 here, and lots of under 200s).

SCC is a bat first pitch, or has been traditionally. Toss is very important, as is scoring in the first innings. Day 4 and 5 tend to then become very handy for spinners and second innings scores drop dramatically.... be tough for England to win a game here.

England really need to win early in this series when conditions will suit them most.

[Slipstream]

Hopefully

1 Burns
2 Jennings (very last chance)
3 Ali
4 Root
5 Stokes
6 Buttler
7 Foakes wk
8 Rashid
9 Broad
10 Leach
11 Anderson

[andy]

I'd like to see Denly in there, but it seems he's played himself out of the side

[Arthur Crabtree]

I read Buttler would keep.

I think Pope has to play if that's the case. Ahead of Denly too.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Jennings/Burns/Moeen/Root/Stokes/Pope/Buttler/Rashid/Leach/Broad/Anderson.

[dan08]

Think Denly will still get in the XI as Pope also got out for a duck and no one else wants to bat at 3.

[sussexpob]

Denly has spin, which you feel England will utilise for this tour.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Sadly, this could likely be the last test ever hosted at this famous venue. I dont know if its been resolved recently, but I believe much of the cricket ground is under dispute post-Tsunami, because the new pavillion blocks the view of the fort when looking from the town. UNESCO have threatened to remove heritage funding from it, citing the building of the Pavillion and facilities behind it contravene the laws governing the forts status as a protected monument, and I believe Sri Lankan government have agreed to demolish it, which would render the venue unsuitable for further international games.

Kind of ironic really. In protecting cultural heritage in one sphere, you dismantle it another.

Move the fort...?

[Slipstream]

Best keeper up to the stumps.
20 catches dropped v India. This time we won't have 3 or 4 slips. Keeper and Stokes will be more important than anyone. Buttler has admitted he wasn't very good keeping in the recent ODIs.

Denly's bowling econ 6.57 in the two warm up games

[Arthur Crabtree]

Herath needs 13 wickets to be highest wicket taker at the ground.

[sussexpob]

Sadly, this could likely be the last test ever hosted at this famous venue. I dont know if its been resolved recently, but I believe much of the cricket ground is under dispute post-Tsunami, because the new pavillion blocks the view of the fort when looking from the town. UNESCO have threatened to remove heritage funding from it, citing the building of the Pavillion and facilities behind it contravene the laws governing the forts status as a protected monument, and I believe Sri Lankan government have agreed to demolish it, which would render the venue unsuitable for further international games.

Kind of ironic really. In protecting cultural heritage in one sphere, you dismantle it another.

Move the fort...?

UNESCO seem to be pretty out of touch with reality nowadays, an issue that seemingly gets worse as the weight of their awarded heritage status has so much impact on individual countries tourist revenues, that it leads to them becoming ever more authoritarian and detached. The cricket ground may not have been built conforming to UNESCO rules, nor local planning rules being followed to the letter, but why might that be? Of course, the town itself bore the brunt of the Tsunami in Sri Lanka, it was totally devastated, with huge loss of life. Needless bureaucracy is not really what people find at all relevant when a giant wave leaves 100,000 people in a small town living in tents.

The cricket ground felt like a rallying call for the international communities actions in the city, and its swift reinstatement into the international game felt like a bit of a win for the city/country. A return to normalcy. The fact it was rebuilt so quickly, and with such importance, no doubt highlights how important the locals also see the ground as. It brings tourists in, who bring money to spend. All these helps to rebuild lives.

So, UNESCO thing that the cricket pavillion, which is 200 odd meters away from the fort, blocks the view from the town. That in turn totally ruins the value of the site. I think thats a really bizarre conclusion, not only because the view is only blocked from vantage points directly behind it. When they threw up a McDonalds outside the Sagrada Famila, did that devalue its heritage status? The fact they threw up apartment blocks around it to the point you cant see it unless you are directly in front of it, same thing? It feels like Westerners lecturing the poor Asian plebs, setting standards that they themselves do not attach to heritage sites.

I wonder how the locals feel about it? Certainly feels uproar about losing the ground, and uproar at the government for not finding a compromise. UNESCO is a cultural organisation, and while historical sites are of tremendous importance in the pride of local culture, Id have to guess that most Sri Lanka's might find more pride in the hallowed turf of the stadium, than a mark of its prior colonialism that hangs over the town. When I hear of Galle, I think Murali, the greatest and most famous Sri Lankan to ever live, tearing through the heart of visiting teams. Sri Lanka's greatest cultural output in the modern day is its remarkable success against the odds of its cricket team. Is the ground itself not a cultural mark to therefore be saved? Can we not acknowledge to a large degree, the fort is seen as part of that, and that cricket and the fort are well known as providing one of the best places in the world to watch the game, and that each benefit the other? Would the fort actually benefit from seeing less people visit, as international tourists find no reason to travel great distances to just visit it? Does that, in itself, not provide a greater danger to the value of the site?

It all feels a bit crazy and sad. Id like to hope that this wont be the last game at this tremendous venue, but without a compromise from either party, it looks to have gone.

[backfootpunch]

Bookies have the draw as the most likely result

Guess that means rain is forecast

[sussexpob]

Wall to wall thunderstorms according to google