• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Even Bermuda game was more important than Aus game - Sangakkara

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
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

RTDAS
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

International Coach
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.
 

chipmonk

U19 Debutant
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

School Boy/Girl Captain
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

School Boy/Girl Captain
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/content/story/128011.html)

Such high handed, double standards indeed!
 

pup11

International Coach
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.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
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.
Really even though people thing we have hidden the fact, we always made it fairly clear it was a tactical decison to rest then against Australia. They were always going to be rested for either game once we made the next round, to make sure thye were at peak fitness for the semis. They decide to do with the Australia over Ireland tactical reasons.

Regardless of the fact that WC match is of a greater importance then CB series, resting a player is still resting a players and its not as if Australia haven't done similar things in World Cup, to make sure they get the right team to play or go through in World Cups before or rested players themselves in World Cup matches. It a joke that people can say its ok if we rested players against Ireland, but if did it against Australia is wrong. Thats just stupid.

Personally im not a fan of resting, as you should always play your best side. But you have to do things to make sure your players are at full fitness for the important matches. Its really the shedule that should be getting the blame, not the captains, players or teams. They are just reacting to unrealistic demands on player requirements.
 
Last edited:

shehanwije

School Boy/Girl Captain
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.
.
Resting them in both games was not on...otherwise they may have got rusty prior to semis.

So why did SL rest them in the Aus game? Please read the Sanga article...but just in case you missed the key point in it...
"Giving Australia's batters a free look-in was not to our advantage if we meet again"
..may give you a clue.

What the Lankans deliberately did here is like sacrificing a pawn in chess.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
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.
sangakkara is clearly saying that the team didn't want to expose their two best bowlers to the aussies as well...what is the point in resting them for the game with the irish if that's one of the objectives? ....furthermore, if they are actually carrying niggles, that would always be a more stressful game for them as well....the game was inconsequential as far as deciding the semifinalists goes, sri lanka has a perfect right to rotate/rest their players just like any other country, it's not as if they did not try to win with the players they had on the field, the people who are criticizing this are trying to make a mountain out of what is not even a molehill...
 

pup11

International Coach
First thing first Murali and Vass are not rookies who have just sprung up on the scene yesterday, they have been around for a long time and have played against the Aussies a lot of times.


So there is nothing in their bowling thats a mystery for the Aussies. i just see the move from Sri Lanka as a negative move through which they wanted to make sure that M and V don't get hammered by Aussies leaving mental scars behind.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
First thing first Murali and Vass are not rookies who have just sprung up on the scene yesterday, they have been around for a long time and have played against the Aussies a lot of times.


So there is nothing in their bowling thats a mystery for the Aussies. i just see the move from Sri Lanka as a negative move through which they wanted to make sure that M and V don't get hammered by Aussies leaving mental scars behind.
as you said the two of them are far from rookies, in fact two of the most experienced players around, so being hit around in one match is hardly going to mentally scar them...the point is whatever be the reason, it's sri lanka's decision to field whatever eleven they want to for the match and the reaction to these two being rested is so over-the-top, it is ridiculous....
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
First thing first Murali and Vass are not rookies who have just sprung up on the scene yesterday, they have been around for a long time and have played against the Aussies a lot of times.


So there is nothing in their bowling thats a mystery for the Aussies. i just see the move from Sri Lanka as a negative move through which they wanted to make sure that M and V don't get hammered by Aussies leaving mental scars behind.
Cus they played them so much even if they got hammered they would have no mental scars. Really would Sangakkara and Jayasuriya have mental scars from their innings?
 

shehanwije

School Boy/Girl Captain
Cus they played them so much even if they got hammered they would have no mental scars. Really would Sangakkara and Jayasuriya have mental scars from their innings?

You are spot on....In fact, the SL batsmen had a free hit against the Aus attack....they are all experienced enough to learn from this "free hit".

What did the Aus bats learn from facing the Lankan attack that they may encounter in the finals? Not much I say.
 

Laurrz

International Debutant
jayasuriya will take care of Bracken... he will have the LBW in his ehad... he will be thinking.. will it cut back or will it swing away from me
Sangakkara will be thinking.. will i shuffle around in my crease or not? will he nip one back into me again?
same with Jayawardene and Hoggs wrongun

Murali would've sent some questions if he had played

one big mistake Lankans made ... gave Symo valuable match practice... he has now found his feet
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
jayasuriya will take care of Bracken... he will have the LBW in his ehad... he will be thinking.. will it cut back or will it swing away from me
Sangakkara will be thinking.. will i shuffle around in my crease or not? will he nip one back into me again?
same with Jayawardene and Hoggs wrongun
TBH Sangakkara will just be thinking he got unlucky, it did look like it was going over the top. Jayasuriya will be thinking his got free runs against Tait, but has to watch Bracken more cus his improved as a bowlers, but the way he played him in that match, he was already thinking that. Also Hogg wrong always worried Sri Lanka, they have never played it well really, its nothing new. One match means next to nothing in the mental factor.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
One match means next to nothing in the mental factor.
I disagree, if you dominate a team on Friday and then come up against the same team on Sunday, you will be confident that you can do the business against them. If an individual makes a century against Sri Lanka and handles Muttiah Muralitharan well then going into the next game he will be feeling good about his batting and how well he can pick and play Murali. To say that one game means next to nothing in the mental factor is quite silly, because confidence is a big mental factor and if you play well in one game you will be confident going into the next one.
 

Top