da casino： Oh dear
da poker： Charlie Austin11-Mar-2003Oh dear. A cricket-loving nation hangs it’s head in shame. On Monday, after a disgraceful and unacceptable performance, Sri Lankan cricket fanssurrendered whatever slender hopes they had of winning the 2003 World Cup.Sanath Jayasuriya’s side can still qualify for the semi-finals. Indeed, theymost probably will, assuming they beat Zimbabwe next Saturday.© ReutersThey will have to pray that the Kenyans don’t pull off another shock win andthat the Black Caps don’t win their remaining games against India andAustralia.But even if they do qualify, they hardly deserve a place in the last four.Moreover, they can only dream of progressing further – Australia and Indiaare streets ahead.”It was the right decision but they failed to put the ball in the rightareas. If they had done so we would have got some wickets earlier on. Wehave been spending hours with them doing spot bowling at practice, but it isvery disappointing they are showing results in the middle.”
Sanath JayasuriyaBoth Super Six matches have identified glaring shortcomings in the side,problems that the management and selectors have spent four long years tryingto solve. They will not be easily overcome – the future looks bleak.Currently, a quintet of senior players – Marvan Atapattu, Sanath Jayasuriya,Aravinda de Silva, Muttiah Muralitharan and Chaminda Vaas – are doing allthe work. The rest can muster only sporadic performances of note. It’s fiveagainst eleven and only individual brilliance is winning them matches.Sri Lanka’s mantra under Dav Whatmore has been teamwork but when yoursupport bowlers cant bowl straight and the rump of middle order struggle toreach double figures then you are in serious trouble.© ReutersAmidst all the carnage, Vaas and Murali took five for 80 in 20 overs – asuperb effort in the circumstances. The rest hemorrhaged seven runs per overand the fast bowlers – Prabath Nissanka and Dilhara Fernando – squanderedany potential advantage of bowling first.Jayasuriya defended his decision to bowl first, claiming it was the “rightdecision but the bowlers didn’t put the ball in the right areas” and therewas some truth in that assertion: India’s fast bowlers may have createdmayhem during the first hour when the ball showed a willingness tomisbehave.”We can give all the assistance to the players we can. We all takeresponsibility, including the manager, advisor, physio, myself and even thecomputer analyst, but at the end of the day the one’s that get the pat onthe back or kick up the bum are the ones out in the middle. And they aregonna have to really dig deep and get stuck into our next opponents.”
Dav WhatmoreAmongst some of the dross served up by the young Nissanka and frustratingFernando, there were a handful of deliveries that darted off the seam,providing some justification to Jayasuriya’s controversial punt.Nevertheless, Sri Lanka have shown themselves to be a better side battingfirst, primarily because the bowlers, particularly the spinners, are betterable to absorb the second innings pressure than an alarmingly fragile middleorder.The key to Sri Lanka’s 1996 World Cup triumph was the capacity of a powerfulbatting line-up to hunt down any target. Opponents were so fearful of theirbatting firepower that they bowled first even when not justified by theconditions. India paid a heavy penalty for that in the Eden Gardenssemi-final.But the current batting line-up is not in the same league. There is talentbut the form of Mahela Jayawardene (16 runs in eight games), Russel Arnoldand even Kumar Sangakkara, who may well be batting in the wrong position,has been dreadful.These were the players groomed after the 1999 World Cup debacle but on theevidence thus far Sri Lanka would have been better served to persuade RoshanMahanama to delay his autobiography “Retired Hurt” and Arjuna Ranatunga toswap his parliamentary robes for whites.© ReutersIndeed, had Ranatunga had been present then, at least, some of the tacticalblunders would have been avoided. Jayasuriya’s on field captaincy has beenthe source of ridicule throughout the tournament and the time has surelycome for him to concentrate on playing rather than leadership.Off the field, in the comfort of the dressing room, the decision-makingcannot escape criticism either. Why was Jehan Mubarak picked ahead of themore experienced, more destructive and stronger minded Avishka Gunawardene?Perhaps his fielding is appalling but the suspicion remains that he was kepton the sidelines because of a personality clash with Jayasuriya.And why was Mubarak then literally thrown to the wolves by being asked tobat at the pivotal number three slot in his first game of the tournament?Could not Sangakkara, who bats there effectively in Test cricket, be a saferbet?And why was the run-less Jayawardene shunted out to bat at number four inthe second over with the innings already in crisis? There could not havebeen a worse time for the 25-year-old to reclaim his form.”We thought Sri Lanka would put up a better fight. But all said and done webowled superbly. It was a good batting surface. The finish was a bit tooearly than we expected. I don’t think we can get sides out in 20 overseveryday.”
Sourav Ganguly.The decision to bowl first, at least, had a sound rationale; even it was amassive gamble that backfired spectacularly. The other blunders aredeserving of very serious review. Who is making these decisions and why?Whether Sri Lanka can pull themselves together in time for Saturday remainsto be seen. By then they will at least know what they have to do.Traditionally they revel under the underdog tag but the suspicion remainsthat irreparable damage has been done.
