Even Bermuda game was more important than Aus game - Sangakkara

[chaminda_00]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[shehanwije]

Originally Posted by 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.
.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by pup11

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]

Originally Posted by pup11

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]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Laurrz

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]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

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.

[chaminda_00]

Originally Posted by Perm

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.

In a tournment such as this with two or three in between the next meeting any mental factor will mean nothing when they meet again. Yes if we played Australia the in the game straight after their will still be a mental factor. But once if meet again in the final then the confidence from the semi final, win counter the super 8 matches. The same would apply for NZ IMO. And for South Africa if they played NZ in the final.

[shehanwije]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

In a tournment such as this with two or three in between the next meeting any mental factor will mean nothing when they meet again. Yes if we played Australia the in the game straight after their will still be a mental factor. But once if meet again in the final then the confidence from the semi final, win counter the super 8 matches. The same would apply for NZ IMO. And for South Africa if they played NZ in the final.

Agree with your views here. For example, SL will not be complacent when taking on NZ in semi just bcos we won in S8 round - its a new day, and a new game...reputations and past performance count for very little when the teams are as evenly matched as the final 4 are. Murali put this thought into words beautifully when asked this question at a pre-match interview (may have been the NZ game).

[pup11]

I just can't understand why everyone thinks the Aussies v/s SL was of no importance, i mean if SL could have beaten the Aussies they could have very well topped the Super 8's group standing which would have given them a chance to play at St.Lucia where the pitch is more favourable for their style of playing (considering its a slower and lower pitch compared to the one at Jamaica).

[shehanwije]

Originally Posted by pup11

I just can't understand why everyone thinks the Aussies v/s SL was of no importance, i mean if SL could have beaten the Aussies they could have very well topped the Super 8's group standing which would have given them a chance to play at St.Lucia where the pitch is more favourable for their style of playing (considering its a slower and lower pitch compared to the one at Jamaica).

You are right. Thats exactly why its pleasing to see that the Lankans deliberately chose a reduced bowling team, with the accompanying result of coming 2/3 and playing in Jamaica. Net result - if SL and Aus meet in final, then the SL bowling unit is still unknown to Aus, and the Aus bowlers are all familiar to the Lankan bats. So the Lankan strategy for this meaningless match will pay dividends in its favour, if both teams meet in the final.

[JBH001]

Originally Posted by pup11

I just can't understand why everyone thinks the Aussies v/s SL was of no importance, i mean if SL could have beaten the Aussies they could have very well topped the Super 8's group standing which would have given them a chance to play at St.Lucia where the pitch is more favourable for their style of playing (considering its a slower and lower pitch compared to the one at Jamaica).

I thought about that too, and then realised that it makes sense for SL to play on a bouncy pitch favouring pace in the SF, as the pitch on which the final is to be played is also supposedly a track with pace and bounce, favouring pace bowlers.

SL getting over the Kiwi's (if they do) on a track not favouring them would actually be the best possible preparation for a final on a similar track.