Sangakkara - Even Bermuda game more important than Aus game

[shehanwije]

By Kumar Sangakkara
Thursday, April 19, 2007


During the last few days there has been a lot written and spoken in the media regarding our selection for the Australia game. Much of the analysis has been ill-informed, offered without great thought or indeed understanding of the Sri Lanka team.

Consequently, many of the critics have been wide off the mark. Personally, I'm amazed that it stirred up so much controversy, though we respect the fact that everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

Nearly all the top cricket-playing nations have rotation policies that they put into action during heavily congested schedules. Australia, for example, regularly rests its senior players for group matches once (and sometimes before) its qualification has been confirmed.

What then is different between resting players in the CB Series or the World Cup? I question the double standards that are being applied here.

Will some of the television pundits now calling for ICC intervention do the same when Ricky Ponting next rests a strike bowler? I doubt it. Some of the critics appear to think that the Australia game was our most important game in the tournament.

Why – just because we were playing Australia? That's nonsense. The simple fact was it was the least important game of our World Cup. Even the Bermuda game was more important. We are here to win the World Cup. Everything we do is focused on that goal. That was our focus before the tournament, and that is our ultimate focus right now.

We don't care about morale-boosting victories. We care about making sure we are completely ready and properly prepared when a crunch game comes along. The Australia game was not a crunch game. The semi-final against New Zealand on Tuesday is.

We rested Murali, Vaasy and Malinga in the best interests of the individuals and the team. We had to make sure they were at peak fitness and completely rested when we start on Tuesday in Jamaica. All three – especially Murali and Malinga – have minor niggles that benefited from their not playing. We are now confident that all three will be in the best possible physical shape they could be on Tuesday.

Furthermore, Murali and Vaasy are the lynchpins of our bowling attack. They have been for years and they remain so in this tournament – albeit with good support from Malinga, Dilhara and Farveez. True, they may have played many games against Australia during their long careers, but Sri Lanka has not played Australia in the last 14 months – a long time in international cricket. Giving Australia's batters a free look-in was not to our advantage if we meet again.

The argument against resting key players centers on the need to keep up the so-called winning momentum. True, momentum can be important during times when self-belief is fragile. However, our confidence is high. We all know that we have the ability to beat Australia, and we have the self-belief and mental toughness to perform in crunch situations. We don't need reassurance. Australia is a good team, but far from unbeatable.

Indeed, even with our three best bowlers on the sidelines we know we could (should) have defeated Australia. Unfortunately, our batting let us down and we were punished for mistakes at the start and end of our innings. You can't afford to do that against the Aussies. Had we scored 30-40 more runs – as we should have done – Australia would have struggled. All the team understood our thinking and we went into that game looking for a win.

I am sure the debate will rumble on. We, though, are concentrating on the next challenge against New Zealand, a tough opponent for a semi-final. We have battled together many times in the recent past and there are no secrets between us anymore.

[hasbeen]

well said sanga.

[Asim2Good]

let's see if Aussies call for inquiry of NZ selection for dropping Bond & Oram for their match against Aus

[Asim2Good]

have NZ been charged for slow over rates ?

[shehanwije]

NZ wanted to win to gain the priority for practice facilities at Sabina Park (SL now get the priority as we finished 2nd in S8 Group) etc as stated by Bracewell yesterday...and also Fleming stated he wanted to play the full strength team a few days back.

But did NZ want to win, at the expense of more injuries to key players such as Oram and Bond? I think not. NZ just did not want any heat leading upto this game against Aus...if they had publicly revealed that they were resting these 2 players.

So a bit of game playing by NZ, but it’s the same strategy as the Lankans....think about it?

[iZeeshan]

This is smart. Very smart. Love him.

[Easa]

Sangakarra as usual making plenty of sense. Good on him; that should shut some people up.

[OZGOD]

Originally Posted by Asim2Good let's see if Aussies call for inquiry of NZ selection for dropping Bond & Oram for their match against Aus

Hold your horses, cowboy - Bond and Oram were genuinely injured. They weren't rested for "strategic" reasons.

That said, I don't understand all the moaning about SL throwing the match. If they chose to lose the match that's their problem. I'll take the win.

[shehanwije]

Originally Posted by OZGOD Hold your horses, cowboy - Bond and Oram were genuinely injured. They weren't rested for "strategic" reasons. That said, I don't understand all the moaning about SL throwing the match. If they chose to lose the match that's their problem. I'll take the win.

Dont think SL threw the match...they just tried to win it with a reduced team for strategic reasons outlined here in the article by Sanga.

Do you really believe that Bond and Oram would not have played if it was a must win game against Aus?

At least the Lankans turned up and played Aus on Mon...unlike Aus in '96, when they did throw the points away by forfeit in the World Cup (only to play in Colombo a few months later in the Singer Cup).

Or deliberately went slow like Aus did in '02/03 VB series (see Week of disgrace for Australian cricket in http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/c...ry/128011.html)

[Asim2Good]

Originally Posted by OZGOD Hold your horses, cowboy - Bond and Oram were genuinely injured. They weren't rested for "strategic" reasons. That said, I don't understand all the moaning about SL throwing the match. If they chose to lose the match that's their problem. I'll take the win.

so had Murali some problems in SL previous game, Malinga was injured before Aus game so they rested only ONE player.

BTW what are injuries to Bond & Oram ?

[salman24]

Nice one Sangakkara

[shehanwije]

Originally Posted by Asim2Good so had Murali some problems in SL previous game, Malinga was injured before Aus game so they rested only ONE player. BTW what are injuries to Bond & Oram ?

Yes, Murali was struggling badly in the Eng game with a groin strain...he even was off the field a couple of times and went off as soon as he finished his 10 overs.

Apparently, Oram has a heel injury (and I am sure he must have a niggle) and Bond woke up this morning with gastro issues.....Not quite the fractured bone or pulled muscle variety is it now?

[aabbasi]

I think that was an excellent article by sanga... I think that is the way to tackle aussies... Don't give too much respect to them... I said this when people where slagging off SL, based on Chappel's interview, but i believe they did the right thing... as did new zealand.

[OZGOD]

Originally Posted by Asim2Good so had Murali some problems in SL previous game, Malinga was injured before Aus game so they rested only ONE player. BTW what are injuries to Bond & Oram ?

Oram has an achilles heel injury and will probably miss the next match, while Bond has the flu.

[OZGOD]

Originally Posted by shehanwije Dont think SL threw the match...they just tried to win it with a reduced team for strategic reasons outlined here in the article by Sanga. Do you really believe that Bond and Oram would not have played if it was a must win game against Aus? At least the Lankans turned up and played Aus on Mon...unlike Aus in '96, when they did throw the points away by forfeit in the World Cup (only to play in Colombo a few months later in the Singer Cup). Or deliberately went slow like Aus did in '02/03 VB series (see Week of disgrace for Australian cricket in http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/c...ry/128011.html)

I honestly don't see what the problem is - if SL wanted to lose the match that is their right. What's the big deal?

[Fish]

I dont know what the issue is, Australia often get bagged in the media for resting players and called arrogant by everyone. Sangakarra is responding to the media and it has nothing to do with the Australians who cop this type of journalism every tour. Sri Lanka would be better off not letting the media get to them and ignore what is said, why waste energy worring about what is said in the papers.

[sameer]

i have only one question for mr.sanga

ok that there players needs rest.thats fine..but why vaas ,murli played against irish side???
that match also didnt have any importance as well...

[shehanwije]

Originally Posted by sameer i have only one question for mr.sanga ok that there players needs rest.thats fine..but why vaas ,murli played against irish side??? that match also didnt have any importance as well...

The answer is in Sanga's article - they did not want Aus to have a look at the Lankan bowling attack. And he is correct. Aus won the game, but learnt nothing on how to handle this pretty lethal & unorthodox attack.

On the other hand, whilst the SL batting did not fare too well...they all got a good look at the Aus attack. Mahela, Chamara and Maharoof took some +ves from the sighting.

On a balance, the Lankan strategy looks good....The Kiwis obviously went down the same path.

But the real test for the Lankans is to win the semi, and the see what challenge presents itself in the final.

[Hash]

Well said Sanga.....exposing some more hypocrisy is always good.

[siddharth]

Originally Posted by Asim2Good let's see if Aussies call for inquiry of NZ selection for dropping Bond & Oram for their match against Aus

I was abt to tell that .Now they won't have any cmplaint .

Btw ,Sangakkara ,we Asians are proud of you. Giving the definite and fitting reply for all those hypocrites.Chappel sure is angry with his "Indian '' stint ,probably taken out his frustration.

[Shaan]

First of all who the hell to question about how we want to master our game plan and how we do want to proceed the game plan on target of certain goal, It is a team individual game plan and that is right on its own way...

great one Sanga..

[sajad mohammed]

well one thing sri lanka have to watch out for is the wicket in the final, if they beat n.z. as expected in the semis, and both s. africa and aus like wickets with pace and bounce, u can expect the final pitch with mr atkinson overseeing the world cup wickets with extra pace and bounce and that will suit both aus and s. africa to the ground

[DOOSRA95]

Originally Posted by OZGOD I honestly don't see what the problem is - if SL wanted to lose the match that is their right. What's the big deal?

The big deal is Ian Chappel is shooting his mouth and calling his daddy's at ICC to investigate the selection at SL match

[kablooee87]

This article was exactly the way SL needed to answer the critics. Sanga is spot on when he says that winning the World Cup is far more important than winning a Super 8 match against the Aussies.