England v Sri Lanka, Champions Trophy, Group A, The Oval June 13, 2013

Lack of swing exposes England attack

With the white ball offering little conventional swing and, on this surface, little reverse swing either, England lacked the weapons to stem the tide of Sri Lankan runs

Well, that makes things interesting. England's defeat at the hands of Sri Lanka leaves Group A intriguingly poised: the final round of games has become a quarter-final in all but name.

But the forecast for Sunday is far from wonderful. England are scheduled to play New Zealand in Cardiff and, if it rains throughout, net run-rate will decide their fate. It will be of little consolation to England that this Champions Trophy is proving as entertaining as it is unpredictable.

There were two main reasons for England's downfall at The Oval. The first was some high-quality batting from Sri Lanka - and Kumar Sangakkara in particular - and the second was the England bowlers' inability to find enough lateral movement. With the white ball offering little conventional swing and, on this surface, little reverse swing either, England lacked the weapons to stem the tide of runs.

It left them, like a battery of Jade Dernbach's, over-reliant on slower balls and the short ball. And, on a slow surface against such good, calm batsmen, that was no answer. Whereas against Australia, England were able to bowl length and contain the batsmen through reverse swing, here their length deliveries were punished and the varieties lacked the subtlety or bite to worry the Sri Lankan batsmen.

It was a game that exposed England's limitations. They are a good side, certainly, but confronted by flair and experience on the truest of surfaces, they lack the ability to damage opposition. Kevin Pietersen or Steven Finn might have made a difference but the former is still unavailable due to injury and the latter was not selected after some patchy form. On the basis of this performance, Finn should probably have played ahead of Tim Bresnan, but hindsight makes such decisions facile.

Besides, it may well be inappropriate to criticise England too much for this defeat. While there were some areas in which they could have done better - there was a notable lack of yorkers and the total was not much above par - the truth is that England were, on the day, beaten by the better side. While the Sri Lankan fielding did not quite match England's, their bowlers delivered few bad balls and their batsmen demonstrated greater versatility and more scoring options.

"The difference was an outstanding hundred by an outstanding cricketer," Cook admitted afterwards. "Sometimes you come up short against a guy who plays as well as that and you don't feel quite so bad. That was a very fine hundred. He didn't give a chance, so we can't sit here and say we had our opportunities.

"I'm not too disappointed. Cleary we had an opportunity to get in the semi-finals and we didn't take it, but we have another one in the next game."

The circumstances exposed England's lack of a Plan B with the ball. Without the ability to get the ball to swing or reverse swing, the England bowlers were rendered impotent.

There was actually rather a lot to celebrate in England's batting. Jonathan Trott, with 76 from 87 balls, batted with a fluency that must have satisfied even his critics; Joe Root shrugged off the events of recent days to produce another nerveless performance with the bat and Ravi Bopara continued his impressive return to the team with a cameo that provided a reminder of the high-quality batsmen he might still become at this level.

It was not a perfect batting performance. England's acceleration was halted when they lost three wickets without scoring a run in the 46th and 47th overs but, bearing in mind how the high-risk approach the middle-order batsmen are obliged to take, such things will happen. Eoin Morgan could console himself with the thought that he was the victim of another poor umpiring decision by Billy Bowden, too. It is surely the case that the best umpires go home without the crowd noticing them; Bowden is not that sort.

"Our total was about par," Cook continued. "300 wins you a lot of games, but it was a fine hundred from Sangakkara. The one guy who struggled to time it was me. If we had put another 20 runs on the board, it might have been a different story. I think we were pretty satisfied, but it is amazing how those little two or three overs can change the game."

Perhaps more pertinently, the circumstances exposed England's lack of a Plan B with the ball. Without the ability to get the ball to swing or reverse swing, the England bowlers were rendered impotent. What little turn that Graeme Swann could find was slow and while James Anderson remained threatening, the rest of the bowlers had no answer to Sri Lanka's onslaught. As a result, they bowled too short, too often.

The decision to change one of the balls in mid-innings was intriguing. England were clearly unhappy that a ball that was just showing signs of reversing was replaced, with the umpires stating that it was "mis-shapen". It is rare, though not unique, for umpires to replace a ball without the wishes of the fielding side and will encourage those who want to believe that there is something untoward about England's method of gaining reverse swing. For all the talk, though, there is no evidence of anything untoward.

"The ball was changed because it was out of shape," Cook said. "The umpires make those decisions and you have to accept them. Sometimes you don't think they're the right decisions. The wicket got better and better as the lights came on to it. We knew that would happen with the amount of drizzle there had been in the last couple of games."

The one tactic England might have tried was to deliver more yorkers. Hawkeye shows England bowled only two or three yorkers in the entire Sri Lanka innings and none at all to Sangakkara. Sri Lanka, by contrast, bowled at least 10. Whether it is a tactical decision or England's bowlers lack the skill, which seems unlikely, it is an area in which they can surely improve. The game may have changed in some ways, but a well-directed yorker remains an essential part of the bowling package in all forms of cricket.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • bhanu on June 17, 2013, 7:06 GMT

    England need assistance from moisture, grass, pitch, to compete. If any of this three fail them, even BD captain will resign after winning a series against ENG with 4-1 margin.

  • Suman on June 14, 2013, 20:21 GMT

    Well, Eng only looks good when the ball hoops around. On flat decks, they looks rubbish.

  • shashwata on June 14, 2013, 13:57 GMT

    I said before yesterday's match on the preview thread that England should go with Finn in place of Bres for the SL match. Although Bres has been England's best bowler after Jimmy for the last 4 matches (3 from the NZ series and the Aus match in CT), the usual bowling conditions at the Oval would have been more to Finny's liking than to Bres's.

    The Oval has ALWAYS been a good batting pitch and is not as swing friendly as other UK grounds like Trent Bridge or Lord's are. We saw in the Headingley test against NZ that even with the ball not doing much , Finn bowled superbly and was England's most effective seamer in the match. Also he was really good on the 2011 ODI tour to India , where we all know how much swing is on offer and was reasonable on the 2012 UAE ODI tour as well.

    What I mean is that in non swinging conditions , when Broad and Bres struggle to support Jimmy , Finny may well be the answer to England's woes with his pace and bounce and height.

  • Dummy4 on June 14, 2013, 13:52 GMT

    I think England should not be disheartened. Still their destiny is in their hands. SL faced similar circumstances in the last VB cup in australia when india chased down SL massive target crushingly. Still SL regrouped and won the next match to send india packing. I feel England will win the next match hopefully SL next match won't be a washout and SL would win, then England and SL can proceed to finals..

  • Jeff on June 14, 2013, 13:51 GMT

    The fact that our most dangerous batsmen didn't get to the middle until there were well under ten overs left shows everything up. We should have aimed for 300 runs minimum from the TOP ORDER BATSMEN, with any extra slogged by Buttler or Bopara as a bonus. We can't just expect opposition to play like us, pat back the first forty overs, keep wickets in hand, then hope the sloggers come off... Root needs to open, we need a new captain who knows where his middle stump is before wasting the teams valuable one and only review, and we have to pick a top three that can rotate the strike, pick up singles off defensive shots rather than patting them back to the bowler, and also be able to hit length balls for four. Too many dots cost us that game, we can't just blame the bowlers for failing to defend a mediocre score on a placid batting wicket.

  • Michael on June 14, 2013, 13:48 GMT

    Some people complain about swing as though it was at the very least chicanery. They probably also complain about pace and life in a wicket, spin and all else. And they have their way every time the dreadful Kookaburra ball is chosen as the weapon of play. The same people doubtless like tests to last 5 days and still produce draws and above all the corporate wicket. They also like the dosh to come in like crazy and above all prefer t20 to other forms. They are the moneymen. They actually loathe excitement and real cricket, and above all bowlers. I think particularly the Kookaburra swingless ball should be banned world wide, and above all in England. How the hell did it get into an English competition. I may conclude that ICC wanted to play the CT somewhere else,some limbo land without location just as they did not want to play WC2007 in West Indies. Otherwise they would have used the Duke Ball. If the ball is not swinging it is because the ICC are frightened of swing, and most things.

  • Satish on June 14, 2013, 12:56 GMT

    If it rains on Sunday then its curtains for sure for England as SL will be pumped up after the win and definately they will win the game against AUS. NZ tops the group and SL takes 2nd position in Group A. So it will be a India vs SL semifinal, and no prizes for guessing who will be in the finals from that game..Good luck India in Finals....

  • des on June 14, 2013, 12:53 GMT

    Let's face it, England are dreadful. A Duke ball with a massive seam in overcast conditions sometimes disguises this fact.

  • Kepili on June 14, 2013, 11:58 GMT

    Lack of reverse swing...? Don't you think it applies to the set of SL pace buddies too? Specially, Malinga & Kula can exploit the conditions to the max as they did recently proved in Australia. It would have been much more difficult for the English batters to go beyond 250.! So I don't think this is a valid excuse for the defeat.

  • Dean on June 14, 2013, 11:55 GMT

    @Venkastash018, The problem wasn't down to the 5th bowler! There are few teams here who have 5 genuine wicket taking bowlers. Between Root & Bopara they bowled 9 overs for 60 at an EC of 6.6 & there was only really 1 bad over (Root's 3rd) but combiined their effort was perfectly acceptable defending a score like 293. Also had we played the 5th bowler Bopara would not have played and we would have ended up with 20 or so runs less than what we managed to post. For me the problem was more about Bresnan & Broad not being able to back up Swan & Anderson by taking wickets or keeping things tight.