Of English cricket and a three Test series (5 October 1998)

5 October 1998

Of English cricket and a three Test series

By a Special Correspondent

It would be totally unfair to let England have a three-match Test series against Sri Lanka. The English have doggedly resisted such a notion, and for very good reason at that, as we discovered a few weeks ago. The dour resistance of the English cricketing establishment brings to my mind the month of March that came in like a Lion and went out like a Lamb. At least in that fable the Lion exited with a modicum of grace, quite unlike Messrs Stewart and Lloyd who made repeated bleatings in defence of themselves, and a once proud British Lion. Ironic, isn't it that England is handing New Zealand a four Test series? With batsmen of the calibre of Aravinda and Jayasuriya and the likes of Muralitharan turning their arm over, Sri Lanka would be a far more attractive proposition to English fans than New Zealand or, for that matter, South Africa. So much for poor gates.

The acknowledgement of fans overseas has always been more appreciated by Sri Lankans than the praise heaped on them at home. The sight of the entire stadium standing up at St. John's Wood or Kenington S.E. for the Sri Lankan players nearly choked me. You must hand it to the average English cricket lover - he appreciates what is good. What is disturbing though is the attitude of their cricketing establishment and part of their tabloid press; they are so pre-eminently unsportsmanlike that they garb their shame in grudging admiration and even condescension. On this occasion, even that was conspicuous by its absence. It started off with the preparation of the pitch, which curiously never fails to irk the English. It was not so long ago at the SSC that they said a few unkind things about the strip in the middle, with faint mumblings about how it has been prepared for the 'home team - dash it', well, why not, so long as it produces a good game of cricket. We must play to our strengths, not our weaknesses.

Stewart and Lloyd evidently wanted a strip that favoured their seamers. This is precisely why Ranatunga opted to field first, to protect his top order from early life in the wicket. And, as events unfolded, he was proved quite right with the opposition losing three early wickets for under one hundred before lunch. The pitch played quite placidly after that to the benefit of England, aided and abetted by a dash of serendipity. England, even if it says so herself, has the best umpires in the world, and who are we to question their imperious judgement? They - the umpires - were quite fairly inconsistent in their judgements in the ODI as well as the Test. I have no quarrel with that.

What I do feel sad about is the attitude of the Stewarts and Lloyds of this world. The likes of these two do not bode well for English cricket. It would appear, at least for now, that those in the mould of a Cowdrey or a May are long gone and, with them, the gentlemen's game. Lloyd, it appears, said the pitch was 'too bland', so what about it? The Englishman himself is bland, and indeed dour, and we do not complain! Lloyd, in his obiter dicta, has gone on to say that a one-off Test is something akin to an 'exhibition match', indeed, as it turned out, the match was an exhibition; an exhibition of scintillating batting and bowling.

Quite unwittingly, Lloyd has put his foot where his mouth ought to be. It was not the Oval pitch that was the villain of the piece, but the near perfect lack of imagination on the part of Stewart and himself in anchoring their batsmen to the crease. Then, it was the old story about Muralitharan's arm action, Lloyd resurrecting his Antipodean cousins shameful wail not so long ago, prompting Boycott to observe that England needs a coach who can keep his mouth shut. Stewart, not to be outdone in shoddy behaviour, used a few grammar school epithets on Thillekeratne in the ODI. What expletives he used on his opponents on that fateful Monday are yet unknown but, by the way he handled his bowlers in the closing stages, I have no doubt that he was writhing within himself.

Well, what of the Sri Lankans then? On-field language perfectly civil, albeit rather high in decibel count. Aravinda did stand about five feet beyond his crease to Butcher. What's wrong with that then? Let's face it, it takes a batsman of very high quality to stand upto a bowler, no matter that he is only medium pace. If the English did not like that, Stewart could very well have stood up to the wicket himself. A collision with the bowler overnight left Aravinda with a twisted ankle keeping him away in the morning of the last day. No matter that a much more agile Chandana stood in for him and did Sri Lanka proud - a happy happenstance, indeed!

Three Tests for Sri Lanka in England? 'No thank you lads, one will do nicely'.

Source :: Daily News (https://www.lanka.net)