Should Chandi bat at no 6?

The test that pre-maturely ended in Chester-le-Street yesterday was a pretty good start for Sri Lanka. It was the first time the young team put together a fight against a major team with their bats. Loss was already decided on second day, and there is no need to lament on that - it was England in England [like New Zealand in New Zealand]. Death was written all over when we lagged 397 runs as we followed on. But the fact that they made England bat again, and gave them some target to bat for, is amazing. Brilliant Chandimal knock with contributions from few others, especially from Herath

However I've gotta say that if not for fielding mishaps both sides won't get that far. So we've gotta wait and see whether it was a fluke or not. 

In the past I thought Chandimal should be batting at no 4, even when he made his debute as a no 7 wicket keeper batsman. He had every feature of a no 4. But... after few years now, I think he lacks one such feature. That is his average as a no 4. 

Chandi blossoms well at No 6, especially when everything is going wrong. I think he helped SL many times to get out of the pits we jumped into at that lower middle order position. Both his 126 yesterday and 162 against India (shifted due to a night watchman, mind you) came at no 6. He averages 35 at no 4 compared to 45 overall. His no 6 position average is staggering 85 with four out of six centuries. 

More importantly his absence in lower order has seen the team collapsing often, since no recovery player has been groomed thus far.

So I think he should be given what he does best at no 6. No 4 should be given to another stylish batter perhaps fresh out of school. Or perhaps Angelo Mathews.

In the meantime Shaminda Eranga is reported. So does that mean that we're playing Dasun Shanaka in the next test? Eranga didn't bowl that well either.

Also another selection question. Kusal Perera is available, so who will sit out? Obviously it should be Thirimanne, but it seems that SL cricket pundits have given him a slot no matter what he does.

Bored in the sorrow of defeat here are some stats to read (even statistics are more interesting than cricket nowadays). 

Test Batting:

	# Total Matches	# Players with 10000+ test runs	# Players with 5000+ test runs	# Players with 50+  averages (min of 20 innings)	# Players with 40+ averages (min of 20 innings)	Years taken to produce 10000+ player **
ENG	969	1	21	9	49	139
AUS	788	3	18	11	48	116
WI	513	2	12	8	26	76
IND	495	3	10	5	20	55
NZL	408	-	5	-	11	-
SA	400	1	7	5	18	120
PAK	395	-	6	4	16	-
SL	245	2	8	1	9	29
ZIM	97	-	-	1	3	-
BAN	93	-	-	1	1	-

** First player crossed 10000 in 1980s. Test cricket was not this frequent, and transport has not been this quick in distant past

Test Bowling:

	# Total Test Matches	# Players with 500+ test wickets	# Players with 300+ test wickets	# Players with 25- averages (min of 10 matches 40 wkts)	# Players with 30-    averages (min of 10 matches 40 wkts)
ENG	969	-	5	19 **	> 50 **
AUS	788	2	4	19 **	> 50 **
WI	513	1	4	7	19
IND	495	1	4	1	8
NZL	408	-	2	2	7
SA	400	-	4	8 **	19 **
PAK	395	-	3	9	17
SL	245	1	3	1	2
ZIM	97	-	-	-	1
BAN	93	-	-	-	-

** In early days with under arm bowling in non-standard pitch conditions bowlers averaged very low.

Sources Wiki and Cricinfo.