England Tour of Sri Lanka
December 23, 2007 by Dinsa Sachan
Filed under Tennis
Eat Cricket, Drink Cricket, Sleep Cricket
By Guest Blogger Baseer Rana from Pakistan/UK
For an England team, a tour of Sri Lanka rates amongst the very toughest. Although beating Australia in their backyard is the pinnacle challenge for all the teams of the cricketing world, the sluggish nature of the pitches in Sri Lanka combined with the extreme heat and humidity puts Sri Lanka right up there. Nasser Hussain certainly thinks so. Added to that is of course is the small matter of facing up against the Emerald Isle’s very own spin wizard, Muttiah Muralitharan, who happens to have the small matter of 700-odd test wickets to his name.
It was always going to be a significant series for Murali, who was on the threshold for the most number of test wickets, set at 708 by his spin rival Shane Warne. In fact, Murali had 700 wickets when he landed in Australia but the Aussie batsmen ensured that he merely added 4 to his tally at a 100 runs apiece. It was a dent on a fabulous career record and the little magician was looking to get back to his old ways on hometurf as the English arrived. And so was the entire Sri Lankan team who were smarting from at 0-2 defeat Down Under despite Sangakkara’s heroics in Hobart.
England, on the other hand, were due to arrive without their talismanic all-rounder Andrew Flintoff, who has been ruled out of cricket till summer 2008. However with a 3-2 ODI series win under their belt, England were quietly confident of their chances of making it a double with a test series win. Though the fact remains that Flintoff’s absence leaves a gaping hole in the England test team, as they not only lose their best bowler but have the balance of the team compromised as Flintoff bats at 6.
In Flintoff’s absence, the showdown for the 6th spot was between Middlesex’s Owais Shah and the Essex lad Ravi Bopara. Shah, with an impressive debut in Mumbai and consistent performances in the domestic circuit for the past few years, meant that he had been the fringes of the test team for some time and seemed to be one to take the spot ahead of young Bopara. Though when the pre-Test tour game came along, it was Bopara who impressed with the bat and his brisk medium-pace and thus managed to get the nod for his test debut ahead of Shah. The move had it pros and cons but seemed to be a good one for Bopara’s handiness with the ball meant England could contemplate going in with 2 seamers and 2 spinners or so it looked. Playing 2 spinners seemed to be the way to go in Sri Lanka considering that the move was part of England’s formula during their triumph in the island in 2001. Also the 2nd spinner, Graeme Swann, had been the best spinner on view on either side during the preceding ODI series and is a handy lower-order batsman.
Therefore it was baffling that Swann wasn’t in the starting line-up for the 1st Test. Admittedly, conditions in Kandy do favour the seamers for the first few mornings but spin plays its role as the match progresses. Nevertheless as Jayawardene won the toss and elected to bat, it was Hoggard who led England’s early charge as Sri Lanka found themselves 42 for 5 on lunch on the first morning. Sangakkara’s 92 saw Sri Lanka fight their way to 188 whilst Bell’s fluent 83 gave England a positive start in reply. However, it was the hometown boy who then revved his magic and by the time Collingwood was dismissed, Murali stood proud as the world-record holder for the most test wickets; fittingly in front of his friends and family on his homeground. More crucially in the context of the match, England were bowled out for 281 with a lead of only 93.
Sri Lanka’s reply was more assured the 2nd time around as Vandort and Jayasuriya, who was playing his valedictory test, set up a strong platform which Sangakkara capitalised on by making a world-record 4th successive 150+ score to show why exactly he is the number 1 ranked batsman in the world. The declaration took forever to come but when it did eventually at 442 for 8, England had been set an unlikely 350 to win the test with just a little over a day to go in the test. The Sri Lankan seamers, Vaas in particular in his 100th Test, induced a batting collapse to see England reduced to 139 for 6, with all hopes of salvaging a draw dwindling by the minute. Bell and Prior though had other ideas and put on 100-run partnership. Curiously Murali bowled 30 overs without a wicket on the 5th day pitch but all that changed when he critically took the new ball and removed Prior and Bell within a few balls of each other.
The Sri Lankan bowlers wrapped up the England innings to take the 1st test shortly before the close of play, cruelly denying England a draw, but a fair result nonetheless. The 2nd test in Colombo was a far less exciting affair. Even Murali conceded that the slowness of the pitch made it difficult for him to take wickets and he saw a draw as early as the 2nd day. Thus the result was a formality when the game ended with honours even 3 days later.
It was then time to move to Galle for the final test with Sri Lanka leading the series 1-0. It was fantastic occasion for the stadium as it hosted its first international match after being wrecked by the tsunami in 2004. England needed to win to have a share of the series whilst also hold on to the 2nd spot in the test rankings as anything but a win would have seen England drop down the table for the first time in 3 years! While a win for Sri Lanka would have seen them rise to 2nd place.
England had other worries too. Despite showing semblance of form, none of the batsman had managed to get a hundred. Similarly bowling-wise England had concerns as they hadn’t been able to take 20 wickets in either of the tests. Graeme Swann’s constant omission had started off as baffling but was now bordering on ludicrous. Given Matt Prior’s good form with the bat, there were calls from some pundits to move him up a slot at number 6 to accommodate Swann at 7 since Swann can bat a fair bit and the move would allow England to play 5 bowlers, thus giving a better chance to secure 20 wickets which is a prerequisite to winning a test match. Although England would lose out on the added security on the batting front, the more aggressive option had to be the order of the day in what was a must-win game.
England, though, refused to be that adventurous and stuck to the 6 batsmen + 3 seamers + 1 spinner combination, one that would have been more viable in England but not in Sri Lanka. Not unless that spinner is a Warne or Murali anyway! The non-selection of a second spinner was shocking but with overhead conditions on the first morning suiting the seamers, Vaughan won the toss and promptly asked Jayawardene to bat. The English bowlers didn’t optimise the new ball upfront but even when they recovered to put things right, they were badly let down by the fielders who dropped catches aplenty. The wicket-keeper topped the list as far as missed chances were concerned and although he finished the series with a batting average of 41, it scarcely makes up for the chances not taken. Meanwhile, as England displayed their incompetence, Mahela Jayawardene gave a masterclass in patience en route to his fourth test double-hundred.
With rain eating away precious time from the match, by the time Sri Lanka declared on 499 for 8, more than 2 days of the test had elapsed ending any hopes of England levelling the series. The Sri Lankan bowlers then pounced on a demoralised England who had toiled in the field for 2 days and dismissed them for an abysmal 81; England’s lowest total in Asia. It merely confirmed Sri Lanka’s utter domination in the series and while Cook’s rearguard 118 ensured England didn’t capitulate as badly the second time around, it was only showers from the heavens that denied Sri Lanka a 2-0 victory.
Some questionable selections along with shoddy cricket have seen England lose 0-1 and drop to a lowly 5th in the ICC Test Championship. There is a lot of work to be done if England are to be a formidable force in tests. Interestingly though the last time England toured Sri Lanka, it also ended in a 0-1 defeat but England came back stronger for it and it began a period where England won 11 out of the next 12 tests they played, followed by an away series win in South Africa and culminated with a memorable series win against Australia.
England tour New Zealand next and considering the Kiwis’ test form, I see no reason why a turnaround in fortunes for England shouldn’t be possible. Being the eternal optimist, I am just hoping that England come back stronger from this defeat in Sri Lanka just like they did 4 years ago and I hope it starts another golden era in England’s test cricket.
Baseer is an occasional batsman who likes to flatter himself by thinking that he is a good one!















An in depth match report post , am i on the right site?
England have never been a good touring side anywhere. They get injured, they get bowled out cheaply, their bowlers get hammered and a kind of deja-vu strikes Vaughany when it comes to skipper the team in sub-continent.
Why does even England bother to tour ?
In the past 17 years (1990 onwards) England won 6 matches in the subcontinent – 2 versus Lanka, 2 versus BD and one each versus India and Pakistan. In the comaparable period of years prior to that since 1972 to 1990, England won 6 against India and one versus Lanka (Lanka had just become a test nation halfway through that period). The point to note is that England didn’t win a single match in Paksitan during these 17 years despite fielding a team of England’s best in recent times. To date England doesn’t have a team with the likes of Willis, Botham,Gatting, Gooch,Gower,Lamb, Randall…etc etc.
However, in the period between 72 and 90, they had a win/loss ratio of 1.40 as opposed to 0.55 in the next period.
So in 34 years, England has won only two matches in Pakistan and I feel that’s their main nemesis in the subcontinent.
Also, in the entire decade of 90’s….1990-2000, England failed to register a single win in the subcontinent. All their 6 wins since came from 2000-01 onwards.
Those figures must point towards why England doesn’t tour as well in these parts. Conditions and skill are one thing….they can be learnt and developed, and one can become accustomed to the conditions…especially with all the cricket in modern times.
What we see is a general reluctance to glow beyond a point, or spark only fitfully, by England in these parts. The seeds to this attitude was sowed in the 90’s I feel.
Before that, they’d at least fight for a draw…ECB must examine this closely and the answers to better subcontinental performance may lie within.
SA is the best tourist of these parts followed by WI and Australia. Australia have come to grips with skill and conditions and England can learn from these two teams.
Uncle J Rod,
Well this is my first post of such nature so might have got carried away a touch with the length of the article. Hope it wasn’t too ‘boring’ though.
Thanks Dinnie for the wonderful opportunity.
Soulberry,
Interesting analysis and conclusions but some of stats don’t present the true picture. For instance, you said that England didn’t win any games in Pakistan from 1973-1990. It is true but it almost suggests that England had a torrid time in Pakistan whereas that wasn’t the case as England only lost 2 tests in that period.
Also suggesting that Pakistan has been England’s main nemesis based on those figures is true statistically but doesn’t give an accurate reflection of the teams’ current standings because the teams have changed over the last 34 years. Pakistan in the 70s and particularly 80s was a formidable team however the current side is anything but. At this point in time you’d have to say they are the weakest of the subcontinent teams.
If you go by the numbers alone, then you’d know that even Australia have struggled in Pakistan -winning 3 and losing 7 tests. That would suggest Pakistan have been quite a nemesis for Australia but if you consider the current standings of the two teams, it won’t be surprising at all if Australia beat Pakistan in the forthcoming test series.
I find it quite baffling that you think South Africa have been the best tourists in Asia. I wouldn’t read too much into their recent win in Pakistan because it came against a poor Pakistani side with Yousuf/Inzy missing and them only fielding 2 fast bowlers unusually. I am not trying to discredit them but the truth is any half-decent team would have beaten that Pakistan team. South Africa’s only impressive performance in Asia has been the series win in India in 2000. Apart from that they didn’t do much in India either and have regularly lost in Sri Lanka.
Even more astonishing is the assertation that WIndies have been successful visitors in Asia. They did well at the peak of their powers but the current team has struggled to beat teams at home so we can safely forget about winning away. I highly doubt if the WIndies have done much at all in the sub-continent in the decade.
I’d have to say that Australia have been the best tourists in Asia. Although they haven’t played a test in Pakistan for a decade and India have generally got the better of them at home barring their last visit when they finally won, I’d say they have done better in Asia compared to the other non-Asian teams. But that shouldn’t really come as a surprise considering they are the best in the business at the moment.
*Even more astonishing is the assertion that the WIndies have been successful visitors in Asia.
Sam,
Since 2000, England’s win-loss record in the subcontinent countries reads as : 1-2 in Pakistan, 1-2 in India and 2-3 in Sri Lanka. Its not great but it has not been woefully bad either.
I won’t completely agree with you when you suggest that England haven’t been a good touring team anywhere. Since 2000, the only countries that England haven’t won a test series in are Aus/Ind/NZ. As far as winning in different test nations is concerned, only Australia have bettered England.
Apart from the last 2 years when things have gone horribly wrong mainly due to injuries to several key players, England had been doing quite well. Having said that those issues are no longer an excuse and haven’t been for sometime, and England need to pull their socks up and start putting performances together because they have been in decline and that isn’t the way to go!
Sri Lanka needs to think from now of someone who can take the place of Murali.