Boxing Day Massacre

For those who attended day one of the second test they can proudly claim they saw nearly half of the entire test. What a shame. Sri Lanka's bowling was always going to be challenged; however, more was expected from a batting lineup with experience and determination. With Mahela looking out of sorts and Dilshan unable to curb attacking instincts, only 7 wickets to protect in the second innings were never going to be enough to prevent a win inside three days. With Sangakkara out for the rest of the summer Mahela will be looking forward to giving up the captaincy to Angelo Mathews or Samaraweera. With other injuries to key players Sri Lanka are so up against it heading to Sydney Aus could hand out 3 or 4 baggy greens and still be confident of winning. This is not meant to sound arrogant but Sri Lanka's indifference to test cricket has been exposed; as has the lack of depth. So much depends on Sangakkara and with Mahela looking distracted at the crease; uncharacteristically feeling for the ball outside off stump, it's hard to see how Sri Lanka can rebound. What have we learnt about Aus cricket this summer? If the series against South Africa had been 5 tests South Africa may have well have picked up two more wins; such was their improvement as the series wore on. A soft landing was provided by Sri Lanka's arrival. After an impressive introduction to 'Invers' this author has made a u-turn of opinion and is now scratching his head at two very different decisions. The first is the selection then non-selection of Quiney. 'Protecting' Hughes suggests one is afraid he is unable to handle the best attack in world cricket. How on earth can you then argue he is good enough for test cricket if you hide him against certain teams? So, Quiney was good enough to bat in the top order for his country BUT he was keeping a seat warm?!? Sorry, Invers, irrespective of one's view on Hughes's ability (and Lango is right about his back leg moving to leg-side; that's a terrible flaw to have against the moving ball) you have done a huge disservice to Quiney and sent a message that selection does not come with continuity. The second issue is bowlers being picked by conditioning experts rather than a panel paid to serve this role. To keep things simple; if a guy has a great game, improving as the game goes on and pulls up ready for the next challenge - why would you ever, ever not pick him for the next game? Do you want to bowl him out of form? What message are you sending this guy and all pace bowlers? 'Regardless of how you perform you're missing the next one, son'. Siddle missing the test following Adelaide was perhaps justified if he was doubtful he could perform his role. However; what is happening to Starc and Johnson is far from a horses for courses approach. What's next? Telling Clarke how many overs the bowlers should bowl? I wonder what Trent Copeland is making from all this. Did everything asked but it seems he was the bowling equivalent of Quiney. It appears picking the best 11 is secondary to warming seats so I hope players' bums don't burn. Leftriteout DTW