Very balanced article from Dilshan

[Lostman]

Hope he actually manages to get the bat to ball tomorrow.

Great to see him back at it up today!

 

[Sanz]

Yeah nothing wrong with the article but it's not balanced.

Looking at how England performed today, it was indeed not balanced. He gave too much respect to England.

 

[smash84]

Looking at how England performed today, it was indeed not balanced. He gave too much respect to England.

so true

 

[Dissector]

England have been pretty hapless at the World Cup since 92 haven't they? After the TT world cup win I really thought they would be contenders this time but obviously the 6-1 thrashing by Australia brought them to ground and despite a couple of good games this world cup has been yet another disappointment. Failed to reach the semis for the fifth consecutive time. By contrast they made it to every semi in the first five world cups and three finals.

 

[vcs]

They still did more in this WC than anything they did in '96, '99, '03 or '07. Shows how utterly abysmal they were in those tournaments.

 

[MW1304]

BBC Sport - Cricket - Cricket World Cup: Tillakaratne Dilshan column

Hehe.

 

[Furball]

England have been pretty hapless at the World Cup since 92 haven't they? After the TT world cup win I really thought they would be contenders this time but obviously the 6-1 thrashing by Australia brought them to ground and despite a couple of good games this world cup has been yet another disappointment. Failed to reach the semis for the fifth consecutive time. By contrast they made it to every semi in the first five world cups and three finals.

We were contenders this time. Between the 2007 WC and this one, the only side we failed to beat in a bilateral series was New Zealand. Between 6-1 reversals to Australia after Ashes series in 2009 and 2011, we beat South Africa (a), Bangladesh (a) & (h), Australia (h) and Pakistan (h) in 5 consecutive ODI series.

We're quite clearly capable of beating anyone on our day. However, of the above 5 consecutive series wins, the only series we won by more than a game was the away series in Bangladesh. So equally, we're also capable of losing to anyone on our day. The T20 win started in ignomious circumstances as well - losing to the West Indies and struggling against Ireland before rain kicked in. Then something clicked, and in the final 5 games of the tournament England comprehensively thrashed every side we came up against. This time round, things didn't click for us, and as much as I hate to use tiredness as an excuse, when the squad spent 3 months in Australia on the most intense tour in modern cricket, then spent 3 days at home before immediately flying out to the subcontinent, it doesn't help physically or mentally. Then you look at the massive injury problems we suffered - Pietersen, Shazad and Broad would all have started the quarter final if fit I reckon. Particularly in the case of Pietersen and Broad - take the best quick and most destructive batsman out of any team's line up in this World Cup and they'll struggle.

Sure, England ****ed up against Bangladesh and Ireland, but we were also unfortunate that the one defeat we suffered at the hands of a top 8 side came in a knockout match. Given how inconsistent we've been though, on another day we'd have blown Sri Lanka away. We weren't far off being capable of winning the tournament, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for our previous 4 World Cup efforts.

 

[smash84]

. We weren't far off being capable of winning the tournament, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for our previous 4 World Cup efforts.

I think there were always questions being asked as to how good the English attack will be in SC conditions and we did find out.

However I do fully agree with that last statement of yours. Much better side coming into this tournament than in the last 4 editions of the WC

 

[honestbharani]

We were contenders this time. Between the 2007 WC and this one, the only side we failed to beat in a bilateral series was New Zealand. Between 6-1 reversals to Australia after Ashes series in 2009 and 2011, we beat South Africa (a), Bangladesh (a) & (h), Australia (h) and Pakistan (h) in 5 consecutive ODI series.

We're quite clearly capable of beating anyone on our day. However, of the above 5 consecutive series wins, the only series we won by more than a game was the away series in Bangladesh. So equally, we're also capable of losing to anyone on our day. The T20 win started in ignomious circumstances as well - losing to the West Indies and struggling against Ireland before rain kicked in. Then something clicked, and in the final 5 games of the tournament England comprehensively thrashed every side we came up against. This time round, things didn't click for us, and as much as I hate to use tiredness as an excuse, when the squad spent 3 months in Australia on the most intense tour in modern cricket, then spent 3 days at home before immediately flying out to the subcontinent, it doesn't help physically or mentally. Then you look at the massive injury problems we suffered - Pietersen, Shazad and Broad would all have started the quarter final if fit I reckon. Particularly in the case of Pietersen and Broad - take the best quick and most destructive batsman out of any team's line up in this World Cup and they'll struggle.

Sure, England ****ed up against Bangladesh and Ireland, but we were also unfortunate that the one defeat we suffered at the hands of a top 8 side came in a knockout match. Given how inconsistent we've been though, on another day we'd have blown Sri Lanka away. We weren't far off being capable of winning the tournament, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for our previous 4 World Cup efforts.

I am almost 100% confident England would NEVER have been able to blow SL away in any sorta game this WC... Talk about overrating a side...

 

[Teja.]

We were contenders this time. Between the 2007 WC and this one, the only side we failed to beat in a bilateral series was New Zealand. Between 6-1 reversals to Australia after Ashes series in 2009 and 2011, we beat South Africa (a), Bangladesh (a) & (h), Australia (h) and Pakistan (h) in 5 consecutive ODI series.

We're quite clearly capable of beating anyone on our day. However, of the above 5 consecutive series wins, the only series we won by more than a game was the away series in Bangladesh. So equally, we're also capable of losing to anyone on our day. The T20 win started in ignomious circumstances as well - losing to the West Indies and struggling against Ireland before rain kicked in. Then something clicked, and in the final 5 games of the tournament England comprehensively thrashed every side we came up against. This time round, things didn't click for us, and as much as I hate to use tiredness as an excuse, when the squad spent 3 months in Australia on the most intense tour in modern cricket, then spent 3 days at home before immediately flying out to the subcontinent, it doesn't help physically or mentally. Then you look at the massive injury problems we suffered - Pietersen, Shazad and Broad would all have started the quarter final if fit I reckon. Particularly in the case of Pietersen and Broad - take the best quick and most destructive batsman out of any team's line up in this World Cup and they'll struggle.

Sure, England ****ed up against Bangladesh and Ireland, but we were also unfortunate that the one defeat we suffered at the hands of a top 8 side came in a knockout match. Given how inconsistent we've been though, on another day we'd have blown Sri Lanka away. We weren't far off being capable of winning the tournament, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for our previous 4 World Cup efforts.

While I do agree with a lot of this post, You definitely cant say England was hurt much by Pieterson's injury. The guy has averaged about 20(literally) since 2009. For a long long time, He's been close to a walking wicket. I'd quite honestly consider dropping him if I were an English selector.

 

[Dissector]

Yeah I seriously doubt KP would have made much of a difference given his woeful form. Apart from one magnificent innings from Strauss England's batting has been pretty ordinary the whole tournament. And their bowling has been pretty ordinary as well except when they got an atypically bowler friendly wicket against SA. And I don't buy the tiredness excuse either. India has been playing much more cricket in the last six months. Ultimately in sub-continental conditions this was always going to be an ordinary team. They played above par against India and SA but the final result isn't a surprise.

 

[vcs]

Yeah I seriously doubt KP would have made much of a difference given his woeful form. Apart from one magnificent innings from Strauss England's batting has been pretty ordinary the whole tournament. And their bowling has been pretty ordinary as well except when they got an atypically bowler friendly wicket against SA. And I don't buy the tiredness excuse either. India has been playing much more cricket in the last six months. Ultimately in sub-continental conditions this was always going to be an ordinary team. They played above par against India and SA but the final result isn't a surprise.

Trott has been fabulous TBH.. and Morgan has done well after coming in. Was incredibly lucky yesterday though. Bowling has been ordinary and turned into cannon-fodder for the subcontinent teams, which was not too much of a surprise given past history and their injuries.

 

[Furball]

Yeah I seriously doubt KP would have made much of a difference given his woeful form. Apart from one magnificent innings from Strauss England's batting has been pretty ordinary the whole tournament. And their bowling has been pretty ordinary as well except when they got an atypically bowler friendly wicket against SA. And I don't buy the tiredness excuse either. India has been playing much more cricket in the last six months. Ultimately in sub-continental conditions this was always going to be an ordinary team. They played above par against India and SA but the final result isn't a surprise.

No they haven't.

No tour in world cricket is anywhere near as intense as an Ashes tour. No other Test series lasts 5 games, with all the tour games in between. Pretty much no other ODI series lasts 7 games.

 

[Furball]

I am almost 100% confident England would NEVER have been able to blow SL away in any sorta game this WC... Talk about overrating a side...

I would expect Sri Lanka to win more often than not but I disagree that England didn't stand a chance of winning.

 

[Dasa]

No they haven't.

Dissector is correct. Disregarding the intensity argument (which imo doesn't have much merit and certainly can't be measured):

England has played 55 days of cricket in the last six months, consisting of five Tests, four First Class Tour Matches, one List-A match (against PMs XI), 14 ODIs, two T20Is and two World Cup warmup matches. The majority of these matches have been in Australia or in the subcontinent for the World Cup.

India, in the last six months, has played 59 days of cricket made up of eight Tests, 18 ODIs, two World Cup warmups and one T20I. The majority of these matches have been at home, with a tour to South Africa.

 

[Spark]

How do four days equate to much more?

Not withstanding playing all your cricket away is much more difficult than playing most of it at home.

And disregarding the intensity argument is silly. Surely five away tests is harder than three.

 

[Furball]

Dissector is correct. Disregarding the intensity argument (which imo doesn't have much merit and certainly can't be measured):

England has played 55 days of cricket in the last six months, consisting of five Tests, four First Class Tour Matches, one List-A match (against PMs XI), 14 ODIs, two T20Is and two World Cup warmup matches. The majority of these matches have been in Australia or in the subcontinent for the World Cup.

India, in the last six months, has played 59 days of cricket made up of eight Tests, 18 ODIs, two World Cup warmups and one T20I. The majority of these matches have been at home, with a tour to South Africa.

1. 4 days isn't 'much' more.
2. India have played the vast majority of their cricket at home. England on the other hand have spent the last 6 months on the road.
3. How many of those fixtures have India's key players played? Tendulkar played a grand total of one ODI between his 200* and the World Cup. Kohli, Yuvraj, Raina, Ashwin, Chawla, Munaf and Nehra don't play Test cricket.
4. Obviously the intensity point is being disregarded because it doesn't suit your argument. If you can find me another example of a modern day tour where the touring side has played 4 FC matches, 5 Tests, 1 List A game, 2 T20Is and 7 ODIs then I'm all ears. India's tour of South Africa simply doesn't compare in terms of intensity.

 

[Dasa]

Yeah fair enough, it's not much more, but it is more.

I disregard the intensity argument because there are so many variables. For instance, I reckon the intensity levels in the 7 ODI series, or the First Class matches before/in between the Ashes Tests weren't very high. I also think the intensity of the two Tests Australia played in India was much higher than the general level of the Ashes Tests. I'm not so sure a Test match being away makes up the difference. Either way, it's completely a matter of opinion with no way to measure it so I disregarded it.

Edit. It's nothing to do with suiting my argument - especially since I haven't actually made any argument clear other than the number of days of cricket played thing, so you've just gone and assumed you know what it is.

 

[Furball]

Yeah fair enough, it's not much more, but it is more.

I disregard the intensity argument because there are so many variables. For instance, I reckon the intensity levels in the 7 ODI series, or the First Class matches before/in between the Ashes Tests weren't very high. I also think the intensity of the two Tests Australia played in India was much higher than the general level of the Ashes Tests. I'm not so sure a Test match being away makes up the difference. Either way, it's completely a matter of opinion with no way to measure it so I disregarded it.

Edit. It's nothing to do with suiting my argument - especially since I haven't actually made any argument clear other than the number of days of cricket played thing, so you've just gone and assumed you know what it is.

lol

 

[Dasa]

lol

Insightful as always.