Even Bermuda game was more important than Aus game - Sangakkara

[Prince EWS]

So its cool for NZ to rest Oram and Bond, but not for SL to rest Murali and Vaas?

Bond and Oram were injured. Or at least, NZ said they were injured (or sick, in Bond's case.) Sri Lanka blatently came out saying the players had been rested.

Personally, I don't think it's okay for either team to do so - I have no doubts Bond and Oram could have played. And really, I'm none too pleased when Australia do it for series or two either. It shows a lack of respect for the opposition and the match they are playing. If players make themselves unavailable for tours, then you can't do much about it, but when players are available and are rested by selectors for any match, I question whether the match should have ODI status.

Tactically it's fine, but realistically I disagree with the process.

[honestbharani]

Both legitimate reasons, Oram had a recurrence of a heel injury while Bond had some sort of gastric ailment.

VERY legitimate, indeed.

[honestbharani]

Bond and Oram were injured. Or at least, NZ said they were injured (or sick, in Bond's case.) Sri Lanka blatently came out saying the players had been rested.

Personally, I don't think it's okay for either team to do so - I have no doubts Bond and Oram could have played. And really, I'm none too pleased when Australia do it for series or two either. It shows a lack of respect for the opposition and the match they are playing. If players make themselves unavailable for tours, then you can't do much about it, but when players are available and are rested by selectors for any match, I question whether the match should have ODI status.

Tactically it's fine, but realistically I disagree with the process.

But what Sanga says is still valid. HOw is SL resting M and V in a meaningless and inconsequential WC game that different from Australia resting key players during a CB series (sometimes even before they have qualified) or a CH trophy?????? It is obvious that a lot of guys int he media are just using this to put down Sri Lanka because they obviously don't do it to a Ponting or a Fleming. But when it is Jayawardene, it is a bit of a free for all, isn't it?

Great points raised by Sanga in this article.

And for this against this poicy of resting and rotation, all I can say is better get used to it. I am not sure if it is morally correct or not or whatever but with the amount of cricket being played these days, this is gonna happen more and more.

[Dissector]

Count me as someone who doesn't understand what the fuss is about. The game was meaningless and given that Murali and Vaas are getting on and that Malinga has had injury problems it was eminently sensible to rest them from what would have been a demanding game. Even if the decision was tactical there is still nothing wrong with it. Teams have every right to make selections according to their long-run goal. There was also the benefit of seeing Maharoof and Fernando together ; I don't think that slot has been finalized yet. Finally in case Murali gets injured for the semi or final and Bandara has to play, it's important that he has some match practice against a top team. So overall it was a sensible decision for a whole range of reasons.

[Prince EWS]

But what Sanga says is still valid. HOw is SL resting M and V in a meaningless and inconsequential WC game that different from Australia resting key players during a CB series (sometimes even before they have qualified) or a CH trophy?????

Well, not a lot, if truth be told. But I think enough is enough really. We hear all along for four years how teams are preparing for the World Cup so they are trying out different combinations and resting players to avoid burnout - then when the World Cup finally arrives, and a game involving two top teams finally rolls around, and players are still rested. It's getting to the stage where the only time we can truly expect to see the best lineups from the best teams will be in the semi finals and final of the world cup - and that's three games every four years.

Sangakkara has a point, but two wrongs don't make a right IMO.

[chaminda_00]

I am puzzled - How can this be a mischevious thread - I posted his whole article, and highlighted what I thought was the key point in his article.

Anyone is welcome to comment.

Mate there was nothing wrong with your thread, im not really sure what is Jason's beef. I'm loving all the Sri Lankan related threads.

On the issue itself, why are people still talking about its not a big deal. Also like Oram and Bond where injuried, I can't believe that no one really attacked them the same way. A bit of a joke really.

[pasag]

So its cool for NZ to rest Oram and Bond, but not for SL to rest Murali and Vaas?

Mate there was nothing wrong with your thread, im not really sure what is Jason's beef. I'm loving all the Sri Lankan related threads.

On the issue itself, why are people still talking about its not a big deal. Also like Oram and Bond where injuried, I can't believe that no one really attacked them the same way. A bit of a joke really.

Said I was over this but there's a pretty clear implication of an accusation of bias against Sri Lanka from both your posts. Prince was spot on here, Oram was ruled out during the week with a heel problem and Bond had a stomach bug. Perhaps they were lying but there is no indication of that. If they were rested I'd be just as cut. However Sri Lanka made no qualms about injuries, despite being covered up by their captain and wicketkeeper. Sangakkara did allude to it in his article but it seemed to be just a side point, however it was quite clear from that article I linked to in this thread that it was planned out by management as a strategic thing which bugs me two fold.

One Jayawardene covered it up at the press conference by saying they were rested for fitness issue and not strategic issues and two Sri Lanka management threw a World Cup game. When you face the best side in the world who you will never beat unless you are playing at 100% and your 3rd best bowler is already out and you leave out your top two bowlers on top of that for whatever reason, you have to ask yourself whats going on.

Now you can point to other teams rotation policy in the WC but 1)that doesn't make it right and 2) teams never go as far as Sri Lanka did. Usually it's a subtle change, not leaving out your two best bowlers when your third is down already. It's not fair to the fans, the people who rocked up, the people staying up all night to watch it at home and who waited all week for the game (me) and to the match itself. And as I've said, Sri Lanka have to do whatever they have to do to win (although the damage done from such a huge loss will hurt them) but I don't have to be happy with it nor do I have to maintain the same amount of respect for them that I've held for a long, long time as a team.

Anyways, spoken on this matter to death, I'll leave it at that.

[Perm]

VERY legitimate, indeed.

I know for sure that Bond definately was injured, whereas Bond was nowhere to be seen during the Australia vs New Zealand game because he was at the doctors. Trust me, I'd be as disappointed as anyone if we just rested them and I would definately be kicking up a stink about it.

[pup11]

I just can't understand what Sangakkara is trying to say there, what the hell does he mean when he says "whats the difference between a game in the CB Series and in the WC" i mean if he can't see any difference in a CB Series game and a WC game then he has seriously got a problem.


If Australian game was so insignificant then i guess the Ireland game was very important for the Sri Lankans, for them to bring back Vass and Murali in that game.

[chaminda_00]

If Australian game was so insignificant then i guess the Ireland game was very important for the Sri Lankans, for them to bring back Vass and Murali in that game.

Yes Ireland > Australia, when will people learn.

[chipmonk]

Here is an article on the same topic.

Sri Lanka steal one from Waugh's playbook

Sri Lanka's judicious decision to "rest" three frontline bowlers drew
criticism from some observers, primarily Australian.


Former captain Ian Chappell took the lead, calling it "ridiculous and
disgraceful." Chappell told an Indian cable TV channel that the matter
should be investigated by the ICC's anti-corruption czar Paul Congdon.
If anything, Chappell's self-righteousness is misplaced. If there is
one country that has used non-critical matches to gain an advantage at
the latter stages, it is Australia.


In a group game against the West Indies at the 1999 World Cup, Steve
Waugh's men laboured for 40.4 overs to overhaul West Indies' modest
target of 110.


The "go slow" materialised because Australia, late in their innings,
became virtually assured of gaining second spot in their group ladder
by overhauling the West Indies' run rate for all matches.


To do this they only had to score a victory target of 111 in 47.2
overs and captain Steve Waugh felt the target was in hand by the 28th
over when Australia were 92 for 4. At this point Waugh switched his
focus to rival teams.


Waugh's priorities were: 1). Getting the West Indies into the Super
Sixes because Australia would then take in two bonus points for
beating another side who made the playoffs. 2). Attempt to keep New
Zealand out of the playoffs because Australia would then advance
without a bonus point given they failed to beat the other sides who
made it, Pakistan or New Zealand.


In the end, the Kiwis had to bat at breakneck speed versus Scotland to
avert the Aussie trap.


Chappell and his fellow critics may have conveniently forgotten it
yesterday, but the Aussie attempt at gamesmanship drew far more
criticism from independent observers. Matthew Engel, the editor of
Wisden, wrote in The Guardian: "The result was a dreadful and shameful
game of cricket... call it immorality if you like, or call it
professionalism, but don't call it cricket."


In the London Daily Telegraph, cricket writer Peter Deeley wrote:
"This was a poor advertisement for the World Cup. Deeley said it was a
"drab contest. The crowd heckled their discontent as the game
generated into a farce in its latter stages. It all sat uneasily with
the concept of a carnival of cricket," he wrote.


The Mirror's Mike Walters said: "Steve Waugh led a scandalous
Australian go-slow", noting that 22,000 fans were chanting "what a
load of rubbish". The Daily Mail's Peter Johnson thundered:
"Australia's blatant gamesmanship reduced the World Cup to a farce.
The spirit of the carnival of cricket evaporated."


By comparison, Sri Lanka's decision was not an attempt to undermine
any one team as the Aussies had tried but simply an effort to preserve
one's limited resources. The World Cup is not a popularity contest!
What matters is not who wins a battle but who wins the war. - (D.A)

[Perm]

Ian Chappell is an idiot, I don't think anyone would dispute that. Calling for the anti-corruption team to investigate, what a tool.

[shehanwije]

I just can't understand what Sangakkara is trying to say there, what the hell does he mean when he says "whats the difference between a game in the CB Series and in the WC" i mean if he can't see any difference in a CB Series game and a WC game then he has seriously got a problem.


If Australian game was so insignificant then i guess the Ireland game was very important for the Sri Lankans, for them to bring back Vass and Murali in that game.

I suggest that you read Sanga's article again. He is clearly articulating that:
1. resting players is a regular oocurence
2. there is no diff. with Aus resting players (eg in CB series prior to even making the finals) and SL resting players in an inconsequentail match such as this
3.he says that the Bermuda game was a more important.

Whilst its probably galling for some Aussie suporters to have to swallow some of these points made by Sanga, its all based on sound fact and its hard to argue against it. To do so would be to allow double standards to come into play. After all, Aus have done similar things in WC matches before - eg: Forfeit a game against SL ('96) and go slow to help WI reach Super 6 stage at the expense of NZ (in '99).

I agree wholeheatedly with Sanga and the teams thinking on not letting Aus have a sighter to the potent SL attack.

Re your second point, its par for the course that SL played Vaas and Murali in a more gentle setting against Ire to ensure that they are fine tuned properly for the semi's. Its for the same reasons that they played Tharanga (over Marvan) to ensure that the chosen players have a hit out prior to the semis.

[shehanwije]

Here is an article on the same topic.

Sri Lanka steal one from Waugh's playbook

Sri Lanka's judicious decision to "rest" three frontline bowlers drew
criticism from some observers, primarily Australian.


Former captain Ian Chappell took the lead, calling it "ridiculous and
disgraceful." Chappell told an Indian cable TV channel that the matter
should be investigated by the ICC's anti-corruption czar Paul Congdon.
If anything, Chappell's self-righteousness is misplaced. If there is
one country that has used non-critical matches to gain an advantage at
the latter stages, it is Australia.


In a group game against the West Indies at the 1999 World Cup, Steve
Waugh's men laboured for 40.4 overs to overhaul West Indies' modest
target of 110.


The "go slow" materialised because Australia, late in their innings,
became virtually assured of gaining second spot in their group ladder
by overhauling the West Indies' run rate for all matches.


To do this they only had to score a victory target of 111 in 47.2
overs and captain Steve Waugh felt the target was in hand by the 28th
over when Australia were 92 for 4. At this point Waugh switched his
focus to rival teams.


Waugh's priorities were: 1). Getting the West Indies into the Super
Sixes because Australia would then take in two bonus points for
beating another side who made the playoffs. 2). Attempt to keep New
Zealand out of the playoffs because Australia would then advance
without a bonus point given they failed to beat the other sides who
made it, Pakistan or New Zealand.


In the end, the Kiwis had to bat at breakneck speed versus Scotland to
avert the Aussie trap.


Chappell and his fellow critics may have conveniently forgotten it
yesterday, but the Aussie attempt at gamesmanship drew far more
criticism from independent observers. Matthew Engel, the editor of
Wisden, wrote in The Guardian: "The result was a dreadful and shameful
game of cricket... call it immorality if you like, or call it
professionalism, but don't call it cricket."


In the London Daily Telegraph, cricket writer Peter Deeley wrote:
"This was a poor advertisement for the World Cup. Deeley said it was a
"drab contest. The crowd heckled their discontent as the game
generated into a farce in its latter stages. It all sat uneasily with
the concept of a carnival of cricket," he wrote.


The Mirror's Mike Walters said: "Steve Waugh led a scandalous
Australian go-slow", noting that 22,000 fans were chanting "what a
load of rubbish". The Daily Mail's Peter Johnson thundered:
"Australia's blatant gamesmanship reduced the World Cup to a farce.
The spirit of the carnival of cricket evaporated."


By comparison, Sri Lanka's decision was not an attempt to undermine
any one team as the Aussies had tried but simply an effort to preserve
one's limited resources. The World Cup is not a popularity contest!
What matters is not who wins a battle but who wins the war. - (D.A)

Good post. Aus also forfeited the game against SL in '96 WC , for convenience rather the security reasons (they did make a visit to Colombo only a few months later for the Singer Cup when the country situ really had not changed much at all).

Aus also deliberatalely went slow in '02/03 VB series match to keep out SL from the finals

"Week of disgrace for Australian cricket, Santhosh S January 21, 2003
Cricket has been shamed for the second time in a week. Australia batted too slowly against England on Sunday night at Adelaide, obviously manipulating the bonus point system. Through their disgraceful tactics, they ensured the exit of Sri Lanka from the VB series. Australia employed similar tactics during the 1999 World Cup"

(read whole article at: http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/c...ry/128011.html)

Such high handed, double standards indeed!

[pup11]

If Lankans were so keen on resting M and V then won't the Irish game have been a better choice for them to do so, because if they were to get injured during the Aussie game it would have given them more time to recover (for semi-final) compared to if they would have got injured during the Irish game.


WC >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CB Series so even if Aussies rotated with players during the CB Series they didn't do that at all in a big tournament like WC.