Sri Lanka need slinger - Willis
Bob Willis says Sri Lanka need Lasith Malinga's pace for the 2nd Test at Edgbaston.
2nd npower Test
England v Sri Lanka
Live on Sky Sports and Live commentary on skysports.com
Watch Sky Sports in HD - click here for further details
It was very evident in the first Test that the Sri Lankan seam bowling was a long way below par.
It was also obvious from England's selection, leaving out Jon Lewis in favour of Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood, that Duncan Fletcher and David Graveney favour extra pace.
Matthew Hoggard could possibly be the last man bowling at around 80mph who's going to get wickets on a regular basis at Test level as sides need bowlers with extra pace. And that's why Lasith Malinga is likely to come into the Sri Lanka side for the second Test.
Sri Lanka need something from their pace attack, particularly with Chaminda Vaas not getting the results in England on the last two tours that people would have expected. To be honest, Vaas and their other seam bowlers Farveez Maharoof and Nuwan Kulasekara have been totally innocuous, so the addition of Malinga's pace is necessary at Edgbaston where their main wicket-taker Muttiah Muralitharan might not get the help he would have got in hotter, drier conditions.
Pace will always get wickets. It may concede runs, but we've seen Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee and Steve Harmison concede lots of runs, but these guys do get wickets on a regular basis, and that's also what Sri Lanka need.
His sort of 'slinging' action can be unnerving when you first experience it as a batsman, but often it brings more drawbacks than positives for a bowler. In recent times there haven't been many experienced bowlers with a slinging action because, if you think about it, control is obviously far more difficult if your arm is low, rather than high.
Two of the West Indians recent bunch of fast bowlers, Fidel Edwards and, to a certain extent Tino Best, are a little bit slingy but have never really achieved any sort of consistency and we haven't really seen any bowler over time be successful at this level with a slinging action.
I'm sure that Edgbaston groundsman Steve Rouse has managed to keep the pitch dry for the second Test, but there may be moisture underneath the surface and that won't help Murali much, even though pitches at Edgbaston have turned in recent seasons.
I would have thought that England would enjoy the cool, damp, cloudy conditions more than Sri Lanka, and certainly I'd expect Murali to be more of a threat as the series goes on. But with three left-handers at the top of England's order, if they are still in when he first comes on, I don't think he enjoys bowling at them first up.
Murali's far more dangerous against right-handed batsman, often because Chaminda Vaas has made some rough for him outside their off stump. But he is more accurate against right-handed players than left-handed players, although he did dismiss both Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick in a similar manner eventually, at Lord's.
As for England I think they will go with the same side unless the conditions are absolutely prime for swing bowling, in which case we might see Lewis. At Lord's Mahmood out-bowled Plunkett in the first innings and Plunkett probably out-bowled Mahmood in the second innings.
Had England taken their catches there would have been no thought of changing the team, so I am expecting a fairly conservative, consistent approach from the selectors.
On to your email...
Fair play to Sri Lanka for drawing the 1st Test. However, this malarkey of 'the light' defies belief. I used to race karts prior to ill health, but what about the Formula 1 boys? Even in torrential rain, unless you are in front, it's impossible too see. However they still go at 185 mph plus. There's boys and then there's men. Shaun Blantern, Oakham, Rutland.
BOB SAYS: I think the decision should be taken out of the players' hands. I am very angry about the lack of movement on bad light in Test match cricket. We need proper sightscreens at the grounds. The one at the Pavilion End at Lord's for instance, is totally unsatisfactory. We need proper, tall, large sightscreens. Unless there is about to be a torrential thunderstorm and it is as black as night, cricket should proceed because, as I have often said, I don't remember players being carried off having been hit by the ball in bad light. I think that the public, both in the ground and watching on television, are being cheated and the ICC need to get much tougher laws about this, because umpires wandering in together as soon as a cloud obscures the sun is completely unsatisfactory.
Hey Bob, the other day I was watching "The Chappell Era" DVD. There were a few highlights from the infamous 1974-75 series that Australia won 4-1. You guys faced Jeff Thomson at his fastest, before he broke his shoulder. You have also faced Michael Holding at his fastest in 1980-81. Who do you think was faster throughout those series and more dangerous? Also how would you compare them to Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar in speed? Thanks, Nik, New York, USA.
BOB SAYS: Well Jeff Thomson is the quickest bowler that I have ever seen. His action was particularly difficult to pick up and it's a surprise to me that, unlike the Fosbury Flop in high jumping, Thommo's action hasn't been replicated because he didn't seem to put a lot of strain on his body and before he damaged that shoulder, he was lethal. He, to me, was quicker than anybody. With Mikey Holding you always had a view of the ball as he was running up. You didn't get that with Thommo because the ball used to disappear right being his back and almost touch the ground behind him before this amazing catapult of an action hurled the ball down at you. So no one will convince me than Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee, or anybody else is quicker than anybody else are quicker than Thommo because that was the quickest bowling I have ever seen. But I think we are all guilty of thinking that the players that played in our particular era were the best players.
Hi Guys, Enjoying your commentary on the Test match. Help me please! Why do so many sides have difficulty in finishing the "tail" off? My thoughts based on watching are as follows:
1. Too many short pitched balls without a short leg or silly mid-on.
2. No, or very few, yorkers.
Am I being stupid in what I am suggesting? South Africa suffer from the same problem. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Jim Kelly, Pom in South Africa.
BOB SAYS: I think the main reason is that the likes of Steve Harmison and Matthew Hoggard and Simon Jones and all the other tail enders around the world are now dragged off to the nets because they have time to practice, to improve their batting skills, so they are better players. There aren't very many absolute rabbits around now. People at eight, nine and 10 are scoring fifties. The old-fashioned approach was to bowl a couple around the tail ender's ears. So I think there is some credence in what you say. That was a pretty sluggish pitch at Lord's. We didn't see short legs and the short pitched bowling that there was, wasn't particularly well directed until Flintoff bowled at Murali and they were trooped off for bad light. It is frustrating, but that is the old remedy of a couple of bouncers and the batsmen stranded on the back foot, and then a well pitched up ball for the batsman to be caught behind. Nowadays tail enders concentrate very hard. They don't want to give their wicket away, particularly if there is a recognised batsmen at the other end. So I think the main answer is that these guys are better players than myself and other tail-enders were 25 years ago.
