Even Bermuda game was more important than Aus game - Sangakkara

[Burgey]

Frankly, they can do what they want with the structure of their side. Even if they came out and said they didn't want the Aussies to have a look at them, so what? They are just doing what they think will help them win the whole thing. These decisions are amplified because of the occasion, and the strategic side of things plays out more often in a WC which goes for so long and which has all sorts of subtle permutations, as opposed to a straight 2 way or 3 way series between different countries.

Surely their biggest concern was their effort with the bat vs Australia anyway.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by shehanwije

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.

Malinga aside, who was clearly injured, thewy've faced tham a 100 times before and generally done well against them. They obviously respect them as bowlers, but they are hardly terrified of them.

[xduncanx]

In any other sport, ie: soccer, rugby.... teams will jump at any chance they can get to rest some of their better players in inconsequential games and if they'd rested these three for the ireland game instead i would have called them stupid.

AUS never having really faced the slinger, and 14 months since facing Murali and Vaas, all of which are some of the most deceptive bowlers. If they feel that they have a chance of surprising the aussies well they've only got one chance.

When it comes down to it, if SL does play AUS in the finals, and as i will be going for SL, i'll feel much better knowing the aussies havn't seen a cricket ball fly out of the umpire's chest before.

[Davey]

on the other hand Malinga hasnt been playing much since his injury so he may be rusty like nothing!

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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.

Fair enough, but as I had mentioned in my earlier post, with the volume of international cricket being played currently, we just have to accept that this is gonna happen more and more and just live with it. Sad really, for I would have felt absolutely ripped had Lara not played at Chennai when Windies were here, so I can understand how others would feel when their fave players are "rotated", but I just think that is the way it is gonna be.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Perm

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.

I am not convinced on that one, sorry. It may have been a work to even take him to the doctor's in the first place.


But even if it was true, still, what Sanga says is still valid. No one kicked up this kind of dirt when Australia do it..... Maybe Jayawardene was stupid in trying to offer excuses for what he did but that's about it, really.

[Mahindinho]

I could be wrong here, but I don't think Australia will have seen much, if any, of Murali's doosra. Malinga's a much improved bowler to the raw version they last faced, too -- I think the tours of England and NZ were crucial in his development.

Australia fear no-one. That's part of who they are. Or "what" in the case of Symonds -- I'm still not sure he's 100% human

A lot of the uproar over resting Murali and Vaas was sparked by the press homing in on it all -- this was bourne out of disappointment, I reckon, as it's been a tournament with a lot of mediocre games and SL vs Aus had the potential to be a cracker.

I think Mahela made the correct decision, but it's one that could haunt him for a long time if SL don't win this competition.

[pup11]

How smart would the Lankans look if they get beaten in the semi-finals because you got to agree Sri Lanka's best chance(s) to beat the Aussies was on slower pitches like Grenada and St.Lucia compared to Barbados.



Their bowling might still be effective on the bouncy Barbados track but their batsmen might really struggle on that track against the Aussie bowlers.

[pup11]

Mahindinho, Mate Murali has been bowling the "Doorsa" for a long time now and Aussie have faced it pretty well, btw Murali's most expensive odi spell (10-0-99-0) came against Australia at SCG in 06.


They have faced Malinga in Test matches (and that was while back) but Aussies haven't faced Malinga at all in odi's.

[NUFAN]

I know it's not the case but it would be funny if there was a rule that said if it rained for both days of the final the team that won in the prelimenary match won the cup!

[andmark]

Originally Posted by shehanwije

Tuesday's match against NZ is our crunch game
By Kumar Sangakkara
Thursday, April 19, 2007


During the last few days there has been a lot written and spoken in the media regarding our selection for the Australia game. Much of the analysis has been ill-informed, offered without great thought or indeed understanding of the Sri Lanka team.

Consequently, many of the critics have been wide off the mark. Personally, I'm amazed that it stirred up so much controversy, though we respect the fact that everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

Nearly all the top cricket-playing nations have rotation policies that they put into action during heavily congested schedules. Australia, for example, regularly rests its senior players for group matches once (and sometimes before) its qualification has been confirmed.

What then is different between resting players in the CB Series or the World Cup? I question the double standards that are being applied here.

Will some of the television pundits now calling for ICC intervention do the same when Ricky Ponting next rests a strike bowler? I doubt it. Some of the critics appear to think that the Australia game was our most important game in the tournament.

Why – just because we were playing Australia? That's nonsense. The simple fact was it was the least important game of our World Cup. Even the Bermuda game was more important.
We are here to win the World Cup. Everything we do is focused on that goal. That was our focus before the tournament, and that is our ultimate focus right now.

We don't care about morale-boosting victories. We care about making sure we are completely ready and properly prepared when a crunch game comes along. The Australia game was not a crunch game. The semi-final against New Zealand on Tuesday is.

We rested Murali, Vaasy and Malinga in the best interests of the individuals and the team. We had to make sure they were at peak fitness and completely rested when we start on Tuesday in Jamaica. All three – especially Murali and Malinga – have minor niggles that benefited from their not playing. We are now confident that all three will be in the best possible physical shape they could be on Tuesday.

Furthermore, Murali and Vaasy are the lynchpins of our bowling attack. They have been for years and they remain so in this tournament – albeit with good support from Malinga, Dilhara and Farveez. True, they may have played many games against Australia during their long careers, but Sri Lanka has not played Australia in the last 14 months – a long time in international cricket. Giving Australia's batters a free look-in was not to our advantage if we meet again.

The argument against resting key players centers on the need to keep up the so-called winning momentum. True, momentum can be important during times when self-belief is fragile. However, our confidence is high. We all know that we have the ability to beat Australia, and we have the self-belief and mental toughness to perform in crunch situations. We don't need reassurance. Australia is a good team, but far from unbeatable.

Indeed, even with our three best bowlers on the sidelines we know we could (should) have defeated Australia. Unfortunately, our batting let us down and we were punished for mistakes at the start and end of our innings. You can't afford to do that against the Aussies. Had we scored 30-40 more runs – as we should have done – Australia would have struggled. All the team understood our thinking and we went into that game looking for a win.

I am sure the debate will rumble on. We, though, are concentrating on the next challenge against New Zealand, a tough opponent for a semi-final. We have battled together many times in the recent past and there are no secrets between us anymore.

The final?