I agree we were right to bat on and make sure they had nothing to play for after all we're 1 - 0 up and this pitch has absolutely nothing in it for anybody. Having said that the hour before luch was poor and very boring cricket not enough intent or effort to rotate the strike.

careful yorkshire - youll get me on a KP rant - that hour was awful - if we could of done in that hour what we did in the first 45 minutes we could of declared at lunch - in hindsight though - unlikely anything would of happened

it's all very well michael holding saying that you should declare giving the opposition a sniff of victory - you could declare when you liked if you were captain of the teams he played in.

for normal sides, it is not best practise to declare (1-0 up in the series or otherwise), giving the opposition a chance to win the game. as everyone who has ever watched the game knows, you bat until the other side cant possibly win so that you can stick everyone in around the bat and so that the batsmen cant play their normal game.

Considering SL have often surpassed 300 in ODI games Strauss had little choice but to make an immposible target. Add to that the poor bowling from our three pacemen and the fact that the story that Dilshan couldn't bat might be untrue, he did the right thing.
One thing is certain, going with 3 tall bowlers was a flop. Not only did they bowl continually too short, they offered no variety.

Very true hopefor - the bowling on days 2 and 3 was total dross - the point about SLs ODI totals is correct - a target of 6 per over was a must!

Michael Holding (as much as I love the bloke) always says the same about declarations by the way!

was that pitch a flat pitch? Scores of 486, 479, 335/7 and 127/3 suggest so.

Micheal Holding was on about the time the west indies declared early when 3 - 0 up un a 5 match series, surely he can see the difference in the 2 situations!

By the way Holding is a legend. I feel he shouldnt have to share a commentary box with the likes of Nick Knight and Ian Ward. Although it appears Knight is skys slip catching expert.

Yes Holding is a legend

Knight is only Skys Slips expert when Sir Beef isnt around - I dont think Beefy was too impressed with Nick Knights opinion and said he would do it different on a piece I saw the other day!

I saw botham just dismissed his opinions maybe reserve slipping expert then - maybe he could become the official sky team kit man cleaning shoes and ironing suits for the other commentators

House experts on Mullets??

I miss Bob Willis, great dry wit and spot on analysis.

I agree with the declaration but not Cook's batting in ths first session. I know he would have been told to play anchor but we only lost one wicket and he only scored 26 runs.

i find it very difficult and probably unfiar to criticise cook in any way at the moment. however, his batting in the last few overs was of quite a bit of concern to me considering he is the new 50 over skipper. he couldnt get it off the square once he tried to force the run rate. to be honest, im pretty sure he was relieved when he given out as he clearly was becoming totally exposed as a player in conditions similar to limited overs cricket.

test matches though. he's the man.