Sri Lanka will head to Zimbabwe in October as a Test team rejuvenated and surging with confidence after flattening Australia in Colombo yesterday, to complete a 3-0 whitewash.
Even in their home country, few pundits tipped Sri Lanka to win this series, let alone humiliate the world’s number one ranked Test team.
Many predicted a series win for Australia, who had lost only one Test in history to the Lions – and that result coming after they were reduced to nine men early in the match.
Some pundits, like myself, were more bullish than others about Australia’s chances, and have had our faces pelted with eggs.
In this gig you’re a bit like an umpire – when you get things right, people rarely notice, but when you make the wrong call it’s highlighted and scrutinised. Just like umpires, you cop the whacks and move on.
There’s always another match around the bend, another series promising intrigue and surprises.
In Sri Lanka’s case, that contest should be a two-Test series in Zimbabwe. I say “should” because there have been reports those Tests could be cancelled and replaced by a meaningless ODI tri-series between those two sides and the West Indies.
Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe both would suffer from such a money-motivated decision. Zimbabwe have been starved of long-form cricket for years now, for a variety of reasons, and this has stunted their progress as a Test nation.
Sri Lanka, meanwhile, have a three-Test series in South Africa in December. Playing two Tests in Zimbabwe just before that tour would benefit their preparation and give them the opportunity to build on the wave of momentum they’ve generated in sweeping Australia.
They have a trove of positives to haul away from this series. In the first Test, two youngsters announced themselves as potential ten-year players. Sri Lanka were staring at defeat at Kandy, three wickets down in their second dig and still trailing by 45 runs, when 21-year-old batsman Kusal Mendis produced a miraculous 176.
Chinaman Lakshan Sandakan ensured Mendis’ labour was not wasted, snaring seven wickets on debut as his side recorded a rousing come-from-behind win. Mendis is phenomenally composed for a batsman so young, while Sandakan’s bulging back of tricks will befuddle many opponents in the years to come.
Then, at Galle, off-spinner Dilruwan Perera surprised the Australians when he sprung out of the shadow of champion tweaker Rangana Herath. Perera proved to himself and his teammates that he, too, can be the destroyer, the leading man.
As the series wound to a close in Colombo, batsmen Dhananjaya de Silva and Kausal Silva cemented their places, while wicketkeeper Dinesh Chandimal confirmed his standing as an elite Test player.
In his debut Test series, 24-year-old all-rounder de Silva batted with equal measures of circumspection and daring, while also sending down some handy overs of finger spin. Silva had a nightmare start to the series, with five single-figure scores, before grinding a second innings 115 at Colombo which gave his team an impregnable lead.
Chandimal, meanwhile, underscored his growing reputation as the best young keeper-batsman in Test cricket. The 26-year-old was unobtrusive behind the stumps and elegant in front of them. His 250 runs at 42 for the series took his Test record to 2257 runs at 44, including seven centuries from 31 matches.
Along with skipper Angelo Mathews, Chandimal has formed the backbone of the Sri Lankan batting line-up since the retirements of legendary pair Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene. In this series however, youngsters Mendis and de Silva were the leading runscorers, with 296 at 49, and 325 at 65 respectively.
With Sandakan and Dilruwan Perera offering fine support to Herath, Sri Lanka received a nice spread of contributions. This was in distinct contrast to the Australians, who relied almost entirely on one man – herculean fast bowler Mitchell Starc.
This series should haunt the tourists. It also will live long in the memories of the Sri Lankans, who in years to come may remember it as the turning point for their young, rebuilding side.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
So Handcomb excelled in India, did he? He got a 91 in the unofficial tests and 2 single figure scores. It was Bancroft who got a hundred and a fifty in that series.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I agree, but even mediocre players can show some ability to learn. Didn't see any ability to learn with the bat in hand from any of them.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I know people keep talking about how talented Usman Khawaja is but he looked just gormless on the Sri Lankan tracks in the first two tests, He was just playing guessing games and they were hardly minefields no matter what David Warner was trying to make them out to be. Is he really going to be in the first 11 for India?
Bellamorey
Guest
Great comment. Nailed it exactly.
Simoc
Guest
The result will be good for test cricket in Sri Lanka.Test cricket is in terminal decline world wide. It was a great series for 38 year old Herath who had many Oz batsman "done for" before they even walk out to face him. To easy. Even better for Chandimal who promised so much early and is now delivering. And the difference in this series were the standout performances of Mendis and De Silva. Australia believed the gist of what Ronan had previewed and couldn't handle Mendis who changed the mindset of the entire series. Then some of the other Sri Lankans players joined in with top efforts proving way to strong for the previously ranked number 1 nation in test cricket. But back in Australia the situation would be dramatically reversed so it really is better for cricket overall. The selection of Henriques, replacing Khawaja was an error.
Bakkies
Guest
Marsh bowled plenty of overs in England and he was more than useful.
jossoc
Guest
Agree Freddy. Marsh is foremost a batsman who offers with the ball. He is currently a sub-standard international batsman and has had two years to cement his position as one of Australia's top six. He needs to go back to Shield cricket and improve his batting, or be one of the top four bowlers in Australia to play at eight. I think the selectors and hierarchy have a case to answer. Australia's results in Asia have been consistently dreadful for at least 6 years. Why do we keep making the same mistakes? Why do our batsmen not have the correct technique? Why do we not spend enough time preparing? Why are we drafting bowlers who are in their states top XI because of a gut feel - when has that consistently worked? Why have we thrown away a stable, long term top order off the back of two tests?
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Well said
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
Fair play to you Ronan. You took a lot of stick for your wildly inaccurate prediction, but at least you took it with good grace...
Don Freo
Guest
NCN slow? When did you last watch him?
spruce moose
Guest
Odd. They dropped two players to 'experiment' in the final test. The other two pace bowlers wouldn't have fared well. They both bowl pretty slow and it would have been exposed in Sri Lanka. Hazlewood was ineffective. NCN and Bird would have been too.
Freddy from Bondi
Guest
Don't agree sorry mate. It's no badge of honour for his "average not to drop" when he's got the lowest average of all our top 6 to start with! If his average is low before the series, and he continues to perform at that same sub-par level, that doesn't make for a successful series in my eyes. Do you honestly think any test team in the world would be happy for their no. to average 24 in test cricket? Smith obviously doesn't rate him enough as a bowler, otherwise he would have bowled him more... So then we're left with an "all-rounder" who the captain doesn't trust with the ball and can't be relied upon as a batsmen. When does the 'but he's got potential' argument end, and the need for results kick-in??
spruce moose
Guest
Yeah, respect. A hell of a lot better than some of the other backtracking experts on this site.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Lancey, I'm always a bit torn with respect to "building for the future". I am usually of the opinion that we should be aiming to win every test no matter what the series situation and should select accordingly. However I should stress that that doesn't mean you should "chop and change" at will, I actually think that backing players and consistency gives us the best opportunity to win as many tests as possible. On the basis of the above, picking S Marsh wasn't a bad selection. It was only one change and all things considered, specifically his most recent test form and his previous performances in Sri Lanka, it had a high chance of paying off. But other than him, who is in the unique position of having both recently played for Australia successfully and having also previously toured Sri Lanka successfully, what the hell was the point of playing Henriques instead of Khawaja? It honestly didn't tick any boxes, at all. Henriques is never, ever going to be an actual batting replacement for Khawaja. It also denies Khawaja much needed experience playing in the sub-continent. Every failure is an important learning curve. The biggest joke is Henriques has neither career statistics or recent form to suggest he would be even adequate as an all rounder a la M Marsh. People talk about his performance in India. What performance? He scored runs in one test and then failed to get to double figures in his next four innings. At 29, with a FC batting average of 31, he is not the answer to Australia's all rounder search. People are up in arms about M Marsh's continued selection, but at just 24 he has scored as many FC centuries as Henriques has and has a similar FC average. At least at his age there is the possibility he can turn into a decent bat.
Cav
Guest
Mitchell Stark was the only bowler to get among the Sri Lanka Batsmen but yet Bof and the selectors stuck with spinners instead of a full on Pace attack for the last Test. You do not have to be a Wall Street Lawyer to experiment. Any Coach worth his salt would have tried something after being down two nil but no, the same old tired line of thinking without trying something different. I'll bet those small number of supporters of Sri Lanka at the ground have a different view on Cricket Ratings after this humiliation. Cav
Lancey5times
Guest
The whole third test selection seemed like a desperate attempt to not lose 3-nil. Like you very rightly state, this test should have been seen as an opportunity to develop the players that have been identified as the future of the side (Khawaja/Burns). Personally, I would be ok with us losing test matches if there was a method to it and a clear decision made to build the team to be worthy of the best in the world. The test side should be approached like an AFL club list.
Lancey5times
Guest
Nicely done
Don Freo
Guest
Marsh, by the way, has batted very well in this series. Twice he threw his wicket away at the end of the innings trying to hit quick boundaries with the tail before we lost our tenth wicket. The consummate team player. He could have just gone for the red ink and averaged over 50 with not outs.
Don Freo
Guest
Faulkner has been terribly out of form. Has not performed once since his drink driving in England. (I wonder if there is a story in that). Something has quenched his performance. Let's hope it is not the same thing that quenches his thirst.
Lancey5times
Guest
So is your problem with Marsh that he doesn't bowl enough overs? This is a Smith problem not a Marsh problem. And for his average not to drop in a series where the team managed more than 200 just twice in 8 digs is a reflection that he did not go to water like his batting colleagues. He added very valuable runs and almost always after a major collapse/failure by his more experienced teammates. And you and many others need to stop looking at the number six spot as a pure batting position. This was only ever the case when you had GOAT bowlers like Warne and McGrath or the luxury of a rest day. An allrounder is vital in order to get 20 wickets and win test matches. The player in this position needs to be given the opportunity by there captain to show their wares and also should not be measured in precisely the same way as batsman 1 thru 5.