Sri Lanka, playing a world number one team, is expected to lose. Some may recall an Australian tour a year ago, yet, that was played in our conditions. Just like India claims entire Sri Lanka being within their naval military domain, so can they for our grounds - almost Indian territories. So what happened in Galle and SSC should not be a concern. Yet it is.
The issue is not in the fact that we lost, but how we did. How our key players performed and how we took up the challenges. Even more importantly how we selected the teams.
Having played the world number one team in pitches where a coin toss wins games most, we lost both tosses. That gave India a chance to deliver another knockout punch on already bleeding SL who'd fall anyway. Both times they amassed 600 or more. If not for their own demons two years ago in Galle, we'd have lost twice by innings, all told, done and dusted, just in the first innings, just after the toss precisely.
Clearly, SL batsmen did their best, and if not for the 600 deficit that looms in the back of their head, they'd have done better. Other than the first innings of the second test, the batting was all right. Those are the kinda scores that win games in SL usually. Most batsmen did something or the other in the four outings.
The key culprit is Rangana Herath. It is true that he did not do so well against India except for that Galle test, and hence would deliver same bowling figures anyway, but his bowling was all over the place. It is not the lack of wickets that scares me but the lack of beating batsmen so often as he was used to doing. Being a player with lesser armory - little turn more often than not - his weapons were strategies, placement, and guise. Neither of it was on display in either of the games. He'd bowl unusually batting friendly stuff, half pitch to full toss or leg side lollies. The worrying issue is whether it is age.
The impact of ageing is sudden at times, as shown by Sanath Jayasuriya in the latter stage of his career. For a player who depends on the utmost subtlety in accuracy, Rangana Herath may have passed a point of no return to his previous skill level. If so, the accountant of SL Cricket can start his final ritual, the declaration of bankruptcy.
In both games, Lahiru and Malinda respectively played blunders on the first days. Their lack of anything in the bowling other than just tossing it up, gave away a necessary advantage. Shikar Dhawan capitalised on Lahiru where at 3/133 India regained valuable advantage off Malinda's 75k non-turning bouncers. Having said that both players played commendably well since then that they both deserve selection for next game. Malinda bowled turning and bouncing deliveries that beat opposition often and gave two wickets. He proved that his style drastically differs to Rangana, although they both turn the ball in the same direction using the same hand. I think SL should no longer look at him as next Rangana, for he is a different player, hence let him play even when Rangana is around.
So the question pops up about the selection. Fast or spin, India had the capacity to out bowl us. Yet we had more chance for fast bowlers to grab their wickets. Sadly it is a time that we had not many such players. Prasad and Chameera have never recovered or regained form after injury more than a year ago. Lakmal got injured and Eranga's state is unknown other than he was cleared [he left the game with a health issue on top of bowling action being reported]. The next level players of Vishwa Fernando, Kasun Rajitha, Lahiru Gamage, Vikum Sanjaya et al never impressed recently. So only Nuwan Pradeep and Lahiru Kumara were all we had.
Even on that grounds, we should have played at minimum two pace bowlers in the second test. Having only Pradeep as the sole fast bowler, knowing that he always shows a fitness issue of dropping his pace at the end of the day, selectors were calling for trouble. He just delivered what was expected from him - an injury.
With that comes the debate of how the composition should be. Notably with Asela Gunaratne being absent should Sri Lanka play 6-5 leaving the lower order in the risky hands of Niroshan Dickwella and the bowlers. But in comparison, Dilruwan playing as a fifth bowler may well be a better option than an all rounder with nothing in every department. We can postpone this debate for next tour when Asela is fit, but for now, it was proven that our best all rounder, for the time being, is Dilruwan.
Last but not least is Dinesh Chandimal. He's done bad even by his own standards in this year. His highest against anyone but Zimbabwe or Bangladesh is 30 for 2017. And then he was named the captain. Having a history of lack of form taking him away from the automatic selection as the captain, Chandimal may well be going in the same cycle.
My suggestion for Pallekale is that we should not play Rangana. He deserves a break as there are five more tests for the year. He wasn't effective so far, although that does not tell that he cannot win the game, it is a worthy risk to take. We should leave the game in the hands of other three spinners - Malinda, Sandakan, and Dilruwan. And we should play the best two fast bowlers that we have - Lahiru Kumara and the fastest available another player. And of course 6-5.
That game may be lost, but we can use the challenge and conditions to best in order to select the team for the Pakistan tour. A dead rubber is worthy that experiment. A game that Thilanga's family business may list as all odds on India, can be risked with no hesitation.
The issue is not in the fact that we lost, but how we did. How our key players performed and how we took up the challenges. Even more importantly how we selected the teams.
Having played the world number one team in pitches where a coin toss wins games most, we lost both tosses. That gave India a chance to deliver another knockout punch on already bleeding SL who'd fall anyway. Both times they amassed 600 or more. If not for their own demons two years ago in Galle, we'd have lost twice by innings, all told, done and dusted, just in the first innings, just after the toss precisely.
Clearly, SL batsmen did their best, and if not for the 600 deficit that looms in the back of their head, they'd have done better. Other than the first innings of the second test, the batting was all right. Those are the kinda scores that win games in SL usually. Most batsmen did something or the other in the four outings.
The key culprit is Rangana Herath. It is true that he did not do so well against India except for that Galle test, and hence would deliver same bowling figures anyway, but his bowling was all over the place. It is not the lack of wickets that scares me but the lack of beating batsmen so often as he was used to doing. Being a player with lesser armory - little turn more often than not - his weapons were strategies, placement, and guise. Neither of it was on display in either of the games. He'd bowl unusually batting friendly stuff, half pitch to full toss or leg side lollies. The worrying issue is whether it is age.
The impact of ageing is sudden at times, as shown by Sanath Jayasuriya in the latter stage of his career. For a player who depends on the utmost subtlety in accuracy, Rangana Herath may have passed a point of no return to his previous skill level. If so, the accountant of SL Cricket can start his final ritual, the declaration of bankruptcy.
In both games, Lahiru and Malinda respectively played blunders on the first days. Their lack of anything in the bowling other than just tossing it up, gave away a necessary advantage. Shikar Dhawan capitalised on Lahiru where at 3/133 India regained valuable advantage off Malinda's 75k non-turning bouncers. Having said that both players played commendably well since then that they both deserve selection for next game. Malinda bowled turning and bouncing deliveries that beat opposition often and gave two wickets. He proved that his style drastically differs to Rangana, although they both turn the ball in the same direction using the same hand. I think SL should no longer look at him as next Rangana, for he is a different player, hence let him play even when Rangana is around.
So the question pops up about the selection. Fast or spin, India had the capacity to out bowl us. Yet we had more chance for fast bowlers to grab their wickets. Sadly it is a time that we had not many such players. Prasad and Chameera have never recovered or regained form after injury more than a year ago. Lakmal got injured and Eranga's state is unknown other than he was cleared [he left the game with a health issue on top of bowling action being reported]. The next level players of Vishwa Fernando, Kasun Rajitha, Lahiru Gamage, Vikum Sanjaya et al never impressed recently. So only Nuwan Pradeep and Lahiru Kumara were all we had.
Even on that grounds, we should have played at minimum two pace bowlers in the second test. Having only Pradeep as the sole fast bowler, knowing that he always shows a fitness issue of dropping his pace at the end of the day, selectors were calling for trouble. He just delivered what was expected from him - an injury.
With that comes the debate of how the composition should be. Notably with Asela Gunaratne being absent should Sri Lanka play 6-5 leaving the lower order in the risky hands of Niroshan Dickwella and the bowlers. But in comparison, Dilruwan playing as a fifth bowler may well be a better option than an all rounder with nothing in every department. We can postpone this debate for next tour when Asela is fit, but for now, it was proven that our best all rounder, for the time being, is Dilruwan.
Last but not least is Dinesh Chandimal. He's done bad even by his own standards in this year. His highest against anyone but Zimbabwe or Bangladesh is 30 for 2017. And then he was named the captain. Having a history of lack of form taking him away from the automatic selection as the captain, Chandimal may well be going in the same cycle.
My suggestion for Pallekale is that we should not play Rangana. He deserves a break as there are five more tests for the year. He wasn't effective so far, although that does not tell that he cannot win the game, it is a worthy risk to take. We should leave the game in the hands of other three spinners - Malinda, Sandakan, and Dilruwan. And we should play the best two fast bowlers that we have - Lahiru Kumara and the fastest available another player. And of course 6-5.
That game may be lost, but we can use the challenge and conditions to best in order to select the team for the Pakistan tour. A dead rubber is worthy that experiment. A game that Thilanga's family business may list as all odds on India, can be risked with no hesitation.
No comments:
Post a Comment