England vs Sri Lanka, 1st Test

First topic message reminder :

Venue
Headingley, Leeds

Dates
19th - 23rd May 2016

TV Coverage
Live: Sky Sports 2 from 10am Daily
Highlights: Channel 5 19:00 Daily (also Sky Sports on differing channels and at differing times)



Officials

Umpires - Aleem Dar and RJ Tucker
TV umpire - S Ravi
Match referee - AJ Pycroft
Reserve umpire - PJ Hartley



Weather




Form

England - LWDWL
Sri Lanka - LLWWL



Teams:

England - 1 Alastair Cook (capt), 2 Alex Hales, 3 Nick Compton, 4 Joe Root, 5 James Vince, 6 Ben Stokes, 7 Jonny Bairstow (wk), 8 Moeen Ali, 9 Stuart Broad, 10 Steven Finn, 11 James Anderson

Sri Lanka - 1 Dimuth Karunaratne, 2 Kaushal Silva, 3 Kusal Mendis, 4 Dinesh Chandimal (wk), 5 Angelo Mathews (capt), 6 Lahiru Thirimanne, 7 Dasun Shanaka, 8 Rangana Herath, 9 Dushmantha Chameera, 10 Shaminda Eranga 11 Nuwan Pradeep



Pending Milestones:

Alastair Cook needs 36 runs to become the 12th player - and first Englishman - to 10,000 in Tests. If he gets there in this Test, he will be the youngest to do so.
Rangana Herath needs three wickets to become the third Sri Lankan to 300 in Tests.

Can I be the first person ever to type during a Test match: Thank God for Alex Hales

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

VTR wrote:You really have to question Stokes at 6 if he is going to play like that - a headless chicken of an innings

You can't have the 250 odd innings in South Africa without a few of these out earlier innings, he plays in a counter attacking way - when it comes off its brilliant

There's always a time and a place.

The 258 in South Africa was played on a ridiculously flat deck (both teams scored 600+) in absolutely stupendous weather. Stokes came in at 160/4, and only started to open up when he had reached 25 at a moderate pace.

This was 70/4 with the ball swinging about under heavy cloud, after two batsman had got ducks.

Foolish innings.

But he started with three fours in his first four balls so says he was not troubled by conditions and so continued in that vein and holed out. It is the way of aggressive players and when like that you will get instances like this. You won't eradicate that from these type of players as it is engrained into their psyche. You either take the good with the bad or axe him for a more level-headed less risk taking batsman.

Hales and Bairstow putting a stand together for this 6th wicket partnership - England 120 for 5.

VTR wrote:You really have to question Stokes at 6 if he is going to play like that - a headless chicken of an innings

Agree completely. His batting slot is too high to come out swinging in every situation

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

VTR wrote:You really have to question Stokes at 6 if he is going to play like that - a headless chicken of an innings

You can't have the 250 odd innings in South Africa without a few of these out earlier innings, he plays in a counter attacking way - when it comes off its brilliant

There's always a time and a place.

The 258 in South Africa was played on a ridiculously flat deck (both teams scored 600+) in absolutely stupendous weather. Stokes came in at 160/4, and only started to open up when he had reached 25 at a moderate pace.

This was 70/4 with the ball swinging about under heavy cloud, after two batsman had got ducks.

Foolish innings.

But he started with three fours in his first four balls so says he was not troubled by conditions and so continued in that vein and holed out. It is the way of aggressive players and when like that you will get instances like this. You won't eradicate that from these type of players as it is engrained into their psyche. You either take the good with the bad or axe him for a more level-headed less risk taking batsman.

Just because he started with three fours doesn't indicate that he wasn't troubled by the conditions.

And Alex Hales, a player with a skill-set predominantly suited to limited-overs games, is so far doing excellently with a measured approach.

To be a good Test player, you have to be able to adapt to the conditions and match situation, which is why it is a better format to the slog-athon of limited overs. Stokes is perfectly capable of playing watchful and measured innings (Perth 2013, for instance), but on this occasion he profoundly misjudged.

GSC wrote:

VTR wrote:You really have to question Stokes at 6 if he is going to play like that - a headless chicken of an innings

Agree completely. His batting slot is too high to come out swinging in every situation

He is an attacking all-rounder. He is not the type to play himself in nudging and nurdling the ball around for 1's and 2's. Just as Cook is more a slow scorer so you couldn't expect him to score quickly. Each player has their own pace and style. Beefy was the same as was KP and Flintoff. Not the type of players to be tied down or hang around and they batted no lower down the order.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

VTR wrote:You really have to question Stokes at 6 if he is going to play like that - a headless chicken of an innings

You can't have the 250 odd innings in South Africa without a few of these out earlier innings, he plays in a counter attacking way - when it comes off its brilliant

There's always a time and a place.

The 258 in South Africa was played on a ridiculously flat deck (both teams scored 600+) in absolutely stupendous weather. Stokes came in at 160/4, and only started to open up when he had reached 25 at a moderate pace.

This was 70/4 with the ball swinging about under heavy cloud, after two batsman had got ducks.

Foolish innings.

But he started with three fours in his first four balls so says he was not troubled by conditions and so continued in that vein and holed out. It is the way of aggressive players and when like that you will get instances like this. You won't eradicate that from these type of players as it is engrained into their psyche. You either take the good with the bad or axe him for a more level-headed less risk taking batsman.

Just because he started with three fours doesn't indicate that he wasn't troubled by the conditions.

And Alex Hales, a player with a skill-set predominantly suited to limited-overs games, is so far doing excellently with a measured approach.

To be a good Test player, you have to be able to adapt to the conditions and match situation, which is why it is a better format to the slog-athon of limited overs. Stokes is perfectly capable of playing watchful and measured innings (Perth 2013, for instance), but on this occasion he profoundly misjudged.

I just think this is an over-reaction. He was caught scoring 12. Why no inquisition say for Joe Root caught for a duck playing a shot?

There's no inquisition for Joe Root, because there's no inquisition for any England player at the moment.

Both he and Stokes played poor shots.

To be fair I know it's picky but Bairstow should really be batting 6, with Stokes 7 based off ability/form

Duty281 wrote:There's no inquisition for Joe Root, because there's no inquisition for any England player at the moment.

Both he and Stokes played poor shots.

Yes but Stokes is the one being put under the microscope for his exit. Root's was no real difference.

Like I said if people don't want someone in there like Stokes for going for his shots then you drop him and bring in less of a risk-taker - say Chris Jordan.

Who has said they want Stokes dropped? Root did also play a poor shot but the amount of times he has rescued England from a massive hole that's forgivable as he usually plays the situation perfectly

And anyone who thinks Beefy, KP and Flintoff came out playing strokes in all situations has clearly not seen much of them playing

VTR wrote:Who has said they want Stokes dropped? Root did also play a poor shot but the amount of times he has rescued England from a massive hole that's forgivable as he usually plays the situation perfectly

And anyone who thinks Beefy, KP and Flintoff came out playing strokes in all situations has clearly not seen much of them playing

They were players of the same ilk who were ultra-aggressive. Ostencibly, they were all attacking players who often got out playing their shots. Stokes is no different.

I think you are missing the point entirely. Of course they often got out playing shots, the point is Stokes spent precisely zero time today playing himself in for what were clearly tricky batting conditions.

I have no issue with him counter-attacking but he can't always come out playing like a million dollars right from the off. And if he can't adapt to a match situation he is better off batting lower down

Half century up for Bairstow. England 163 for 5.

VTR wrote:I think you are missing the point entirely. Of course they often got out playing shots, the point is Stokes spent precisely zero time today playing himself in for what were clearly tricky batting conditions.

I have no issue with him counter-attacking but he can't always come out playing like a million dollars right from the off. And if he can't adapt to a match situation he is better off batting lower down

And I will guarantee you all of Botham, KP and Flintoff will have got out in the same manner at times in their career. They lived by the sword and died by the sword.

In any case you drop him down the order for? Bairstow? A player last year many here wanted out of the side? Ali? Who is even more erratic with the bat?

There's an inquest because at 70-4 or whatever, on day 1 of a test match, you need to take a measured approach instead of trying to hit every ball to the boundary from the first ball. One of the weaknesses in this England team is a lack of batsmen who take on the responsibility to build a total.

Bairstow should bat 6.

Yes Bairstow would be a good option at the moment. I am stating my opinion here not an opinion on behalf of the entire message board. Never wanted him out of the side, thanks very much

And I strongly suggest you re-visit your views on what type of player KP was in particular

And nobody is calling for him to be dropped.

But a large part of playing test cricket is adapting to situations. When you bat 6, you need more than 1 gear.

GSC wrote:There's an inquest because at 70-4 or whatever, on day 1 of a test match, you need to take a measured approach instead of trying to hit every ball to the boundary from the first ball. One of the weaknesses in this England team is a lack of batsmen who take on the responsibility to build a total.

Bairstow should bat 6.

It'll fall on death ears. He'll just lump Stokes in with any players renowned for scoring quickly then type "live by the sword die by the sword" and think he's right

England's session and they go into tea on 171 for 5.

VTR wrote:

GSC wrote:There's an inquest because at 70-4 or whatever, on day 1 of a test match, you need to take a measured approach instead of trying to hit every ball to the boundary from the first ball. One of the weaknesses in this England team is a lack of batsmen who take on the responsibility to build a total.

Bairstow should bat 6.

It'll fall on death ears. He'll just lump Stokes in with any players renowned for scoring quickly then type "live by the sword die by the sword" and think he's right

No it is just my opinion that players of that ilk cannot be changed and you have to accept the good (innings V New Zealand and V South Africa and many others) with the bad (today and others). He is a No. 6 averaging just under 34.00 per innings so it is hardly anything to get upset with. At the end of the day it is up to the selectors so lets see what happens - nothing would be my guess.

KP could grind out an hour when required, not sure why you included him.

GSC wrote:KP could grind out an hour when required, not sure why you included him.

Very rarely - it is not what his game is all about. Stokes as well can but it isn't what he is all about.

Duty281 wrote:As gentle as a train ride through the English countryside, though there was one half-hearted LBW shout against Hales.

Well, Duty, it threatened to be a train crash at one time but we just about seem back on track now.

Anyway, tea now and 37 overs still left in the day. Going to be another late one. Guess MfC is warming up for a comment on the over rate.

Btw, I didn't see Stokes' knock but I would make the point that a Test batsman should always take account of the circumstances of the game, regardless of his natural style.

Ultimately a decent session for England, but still below par given the poor first session and a bit.

With a batsman like Stokes, there is a balance between aggressiveness and foolishness, and today he stepped over the line. 200-4 and there's no real issue with him coming out swinging, but a situation like today he needed to take a bit more time and look to play a proper innings. He's done it before (first test last year), so it is within his skill set when in form, and I'm sure he's disappointed with getting out like he did.

There is a reason Stokes is getting more criticism than Root, in that Joe has plenty of credit in the bank for playing excellent innings under pressure, and (perversely) getting out for 0 is often just looked at as 'one of those things'.

You have got KP badly wrong. I think he's one of England's best ever players at playing a situation and building an innings, I'd only put Root up there with him in recent times

Flintoff is a decent comparison but he has a very patchy record and I would say far less batting talent than Stokes. If he puts his mind to it Stokes can do a lot better, which is why we get frustrated with innings like today

On Stokes. Of the three fours he hit, two were rank bad balls, one full and down the leg-side which he clipped, and one short and wide which he punched through the covers. I wouldn't want Stokes to not be putting those away, he's an attacking player and if you take his attacking instinct away he'll be a far less good player.

However, it was a somewhat frenetic innings, he seemed to come out with the plan to counter-attack (fair enough) but should have done so in a more measured fashion. The ball he got out to was good length, on off stump or thereabouts, and I'm still not entirely sure what he was trying to do to it TBH. He's played plenty of very fine innings for England where he has counter-attacked, and scored fast, (as well as some where he's been more circumspect), but those attacking innings have always been with discernment (including that 250, the knocks at Lords vs NZ, or even that wonderful 60 he hit in the third Test in SA which changed the course of the game). As I said, today felt frenetic, and I'm sure he'll learn from that.

Lovely innings from Bairstow BTW, who has counter-attacked in a more discerning manner. I see the argument for him batting above Stokes, but he's scoring so many runs right now I'd leave him where he is, concentrate on becoming a proper wicket-keeper batsman. Stokes scored plenty in SA at 6, and deserves to stay there, one poor innings not withstanding.

Also a very mature innings from Hales. Somewhat strangely we haven't really seen the attacking Hales at Test level yet, but today's knock has been measured, some lovely strokes and mostly excellent judgement about when to play and when to leave.

Vince played a couple of lovely shots, but got done by one which swung a bit more than he expected. Wouldn't criticise him too much, given it was nearly identical to the one he drove for four the previous over. Good bowling from Eranga.

SL have rather lost their way since Bairstow came in TBH: Shanaka didn't bowl as consistently in his second spell, while Chameera's short bowling hasn't been effective on this pitch. Herath doing a solid job but not looking massively threatening. England will hope to keep building this partnership in the last session.

Over-rate pretty shocking, just 53 overs in two sessions

Yes, but as stated Test Cricket is about how you adapt to situations. If KP had to grind to set a platform before putting the hammer down he would. Look at Hales in this test alone. Derided as a T20 specialist, he scored a 50 from 112 balls, taking responsibility at a time when wickets were tumbling. If Stokes wants to be a great test player, he has to be willing to engage his brain, take responsibility, and play the situation.

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:As gentle as a train ride through the English countryside, though there was one half-hearted LBW shout against Hales.

Well, Duty, it threatened to be a train crash at one time but we just about seem back on track now.

Anyway, tea now and 37 overs still left in the day. Going to be another late one. Guess MfC is warming up for a comment on the over rate.

Btw, I didn't see Stokes' knock but I would make the point that a Test batsman should always take account of the circumstances of the game, regardless of his natural style.

You know me too well (was typing my comment as yours came in)

GSC wrote:Yes, but as stated Test Cricket is about how you adapt to situations. If KP had to grind to set a platform before putting the hammer down he would. Look at Hales in this test alone. Derided as a T20 specialist, he scored a 50 from 112 balls, taking responsibility at a time when wickets were tumbling. If Stokes wants to be a great test player, he has to be willing to engage his brain, take responsibility, and play the situation.

For me it seems clear though. Hales knows he is drinking in the last chance saloon this summer as far as test cricket goes. He and probably England batting coach has been working on his mindset and trying to get him leaving more balls outside his off-stump etc. He had to re-examine his whole style. Stokes never came into this series with any such question marks over him and so has continued on in his own style. And yes he can play himself in but these type players it is a rarity rather than the norm. Besides look at the New Zealand innings last summer and England were in a similar perilous position with few runs on the board and plenty of wickets down. He played the same way as today and was lauded for it when he got a century in record time. Today he started off in the same manner but fell shortly after. It just illustrates you can't be a hero all the time.

Sorry, that he is an aggressive player does not absolve him of any responsibility. Plenty of aggressive batsman have managed to play to the situation in test cricket.

GSC wrote:Sorry, that he is an aggressive player does not absolve him of any responsibility. Plenty of aggressive batsman have managed to play to the situation in test cricket.

Yes and so has Stokes. They just don't do it with the regularity of your Cook's of this world and what makes them all-rounders.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Besides look at the New Zealand innings last summer and England were in a similar perilous position with few runs on the board and plenty of wickets down. He played the same way as today and was lauded for it when he got a century in record time. Today he started off in the same manner but fell shortly after. It just illustrates you can't be a hero all the time.

Um...England were 232/4 when he came in for that innings, a lead of 100 with not much time left.

The innings today was nothing like any previous good innings Stokes has played. Just because he hit some fours today doesn't equate it to those innings. He never looked in control today and looked like he wouldn't last long. When he plays well he fizzes the ball to the boundary with power and control

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Besides look at the New Zealand innings last summer and England were in a similar perilous position with few runs on the board and plenty of wickets down. He played the same way as today and was lauded for it when he got a century in record time. Today he started off in the same manner but fell shortly after. It just illustrates you can't be a hero all the time.

Um...England were 232/4 when he came in for that innings, a lead of 100 with not much time left.

Point stands though in that he played with that aggression and it turned the match.

At the end of the day he'll play more innings like that before his career ends and more innings like he did today of that I am sure. Of course it frustrates but at the end of the day it is up to coaches etc to sit down with him and try to turn him into something different if they feel needs must.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Besides look at the New Zealand innings last summer and England were in a similar perilous position with few runs on the board and plenty of wickets down. He played the same way as today and was lauded for it when he got a century in record time. Today he started off in the same manner but fell shortly after. It just illustrates you can't be a hero all the time.

Um...England were 232/4 when he came in for that innings, a lead of 100 with not much time left.

Point stands though in that he played with that aggression and it turned the match.

At the end of the day he'll play more innings like that before his career ends and more innings like he did today of that I am sure. Of course it frustrates but at the end of the day it is up to coaches etc to sit down with him and try to turn him into something different if they feel needs must.

And such aggression is fine in said scenario.

70-odd for four, swing, heavy cloud - not so much.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Besides look at the New Zealand innings last summer and England were in a similar perilous position with few runs on the board and plenty of wickets down. He played the same way as today and was lauded for it when he got a century in record time. Today he started off in the same manner but fell shortly after. It just illustrates you can't be a hero all the time.

Um...England were 232/4 when he came in for that innings, a lead of 100 with not much time left.

Point stands though in that he played with that aggression and it turned the match.

At the end of the day he'll play more innings like that before his career ends and more innings like he did today of that I am sure. Of course it frustrates but at the end of the day it is up to coaches etc to sit down with him and try to turn him into something different if they feel needs must.

And such aggression is fine in said scenario.

70-odd for four, swing, heavy cloud - not so much.

Like I've said he's played controlled innings before as well - not today. It happens. Start telling him to tone it down on the aggression levels and being more circumspect with shot selection and you then begin taking away his strengths and make him more inhibited. I suppose it depends on what sort of player you want in the side at No.6 and what type of player England want in there. It is up to them to talk to him if they aren't happy with what he gives to the side and tell him to change.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Besides look at the New Zealand innings last summer and England were in a similar perilous position with few runs on the board and plenty of wickets down. He played the same way as today and was lauded for it when he got a century in record time. Today he started off in the same manner but fell shortly after. It just illustrates you can't be a hero all the time.

Um...England were 232/4 when he came in for that innings, a lead of 100 with not much time left.

Point stands though in that he played with that aggression and it turned the match.

At the end of the day he'll play more innings like that before his career ends and more innings like he did today of that I am sure. Of course it frustrates but at the end of the day it is up to coaches etc to sit down with him and try to turn him into something different if they feel needs must.

And such aggression is fine in said scenario.

70-odd for four, swing, heavy cloud - not so much.

Yes, this really is most peoples frustration. For me, if hes batting 6, hes there to produce as a batsman, he needs to take responsibility as another naturally aggressive batsman in Hales did today. You have to be smarter in test cricket. If England have 200 on the board when he comes in, then he can throttle up. If we have 70, test batsman have to be able to throttle down and grind out a platform to attack from.

If nothing else, they need to sit Stokes down and ask him to look at the nature of his best innings for England:

At Cape Town he scored 37 from his first 60 balls, and it was really only when Morris took the second new ball that he exploded. At that point he was on 42 from 68 balls.



True at Lords against NZ England were 30-4 hen he entered in the first innings, and he scored quickly, but still using defensive shots where needed. Today he seemed to want to hit every ball to the boundary.

--shanka looked like a carbon copy of my friend msp's fafvorite dibbly dobbly stuart Binny.....
The hundred shanka got in the practise game allowed him to play as the 5th bowler....and there couldn't have been better  it pitch than headingley for a "medium pace swing bowler"......a dying breed in test cricket.....certainly if not a bowling allrounder.

--headingley though isn't the paradise of seamers that i saw it to be through 1980s and 90s....

lacks the  zipppp off the pitch....the prominent seam movement is gone over the years...pitch is slow....and it's swing and only if you pitch it up....when there is a cloud cover.

--Eng didn't cover for swing.....almost all their top 5 fell for pitched- up...floated swinging deliveries.....caught in slip / gully cordon....you'd expect more application from batsman born and bred in the "land of swing"

--Lanka has to clean up the strong lower order of eng for less than 300 to feel they utilized the toss well...risk is these two + Ali and Broad may get Eng to 350+...and than Eng is ahead in the game.

--as I stated earlier...Lanka's bowling is at par with Eng...

and even if they get them for sub-300ish... lanka  have to bat well enough to get a lead of 75ish....

good, old fashioned, see-sawing test cricket is back....hope we get enough overs to get a result

I think any player has to play himself in, have a look at the bowing and what the wicket is doing.

Good post from KPF, the only bit I don't agree with is that SL's bowling is on par with England. Its potentially a good attack but I would much rather have the "been there and done it" Anderson and Broad at the moment - both proven match winners over a number of years

England's first aim today has to be get through the first hour without losing too many more wickets. Fail to do that and the recovery might only be the difference between an abysmal score (120ao was looking possible) and a still poor one e.g. 200ish ao

Without Parsad they Sri Lankan seamers desperatly lack experience, and there has to be a question over how good the medium pacer "county" dibbler who got the wickets really is..although "horse for courses" in classic English conditions hes a good pick. The "quicks" arent THAT fast, and whether they are up to the demands of a full test series is also an open question.

Sri Lanka do have the best spinners without a question though. And the way the sides made up they have lots of variety and options.

Its certainly a more balanced side in that regard than the Aussies sent and a better bowling unit than the Indians did.

It also depends on how highly you rate Englands attack. KPF isnt exactly the biggest Broad fan, and it does depend which Broad turns up ...will it be his one match winning perofmrance of the summer? Anderson ..I have my doubts if hes still up to a full summer, but he should be fairly well rested. Finn..well again depends which one turns up, potentially devastating but potentially useless too. Ali, I rate him more than many do but hes still only a place filler as senior spinner.

Englands strength is there batting depth thats for sure.

You missed Stokes out, who gives another very good option and allows Cook to rotate the seamers

VTR wrote:You missed Stokes out, who gives another very good option and allows Cook to rotate the seamers

I thought we hated him now after one bad shot? Its hard to keep up

Gooseberry wrote:

VTR wrote:You missed Stokes out, who gives another very good option and allows Cook to rotate the seamers

I thought we hated him now after one bad shot? Its hard to keep up

I don't think anyone hates him, just very frustrated as we can all see the talent and what he could achieve. His bowling is pretty reliable though, you know he will run in hard and he is pretty accurate and takes key wickets

another note.....Bairstow survived the LBW via DRS....but he has a technical problem and a severe one.....of getting his left pad right in front of  the stumps and playing around the line of the straight ball......not having the flexible wrists to maneuver a stroke like that.....like a lot of sub-continent batsmen could...makes him much more vulnerable.

Full, fast on Middle and Off...leaving mid-wicket open......makes him a sitting duck for an LBW if a disciplined bowler can persist with that line and length.

I think the "which Broad turns up" line has become a bit of a myth TBH: his record over the last 5 years or so is second only to Steyn for seamers, and he averages under 25 for that period. You don't get that by having the odd hot spell. Yes he still bowls those match-winning spells (something about him having the most MOM performances for England), but in between he's consistently good and an integral part of the attack.

KPF re Bairstow. It's an interesting one. When Bairstow came into the side he was given a real working over by Roach with some short stuff and struggled, which immediately had everyone thinking he couldn't play the short ball. In fact he plays it well, but Roach (back then) could be a formidable prospect with his short bowling and had troubled the great Ponting with it (when Ponting was at his best). I always said I was more concerned with his tendency to play around his front pad, and eventually that accounted for his initial shot at Test cricket (IIRC Ashes 2013, where Aus gave him a real working over in that area). Since he's come back into the side, I've noticed a couple of technical adjustments he's made to correct the problem, in particular a slightly more open stance at the crease and a more open bat face in his backlift. While I do suspect it's an issue that will never go away completely, the shedload of runs he got in SA, and indeed his knock here, suggests that it's not as much of an issue as it used to be, so "sitting duck" may be a bit harsh...

KP_fan wrote:another note.....Bairstow survived the LBW via DRS....but he has a technical problem and a severe one.....of getting his left pad right in front of  the stumps and playing around the line of the straight ball......not having the flexible wrists to maneuver a stroke like that.....like a lot of sub-continent batsmen could...makes him much more vulnerable.

Full, fast on Middle and Off...leaving mid-wicket open......makes him a sitting duck for an LBW if a disciplined bowler can persist with that line and length.

Averaged about 70 in South Africa. Not bad for a number 7 with a severe technical issue.

He's only been out 6 time sin tests lbw and most of those were spinners, so if that really is a thing rather than a one off pickle he got himself in yesterday then bowlers havent picked up on it and exploited it yet.

why didn't they open with shanaka this morning?