Was the Angelo Matthews criticism warranted ?

Angelo Matthews today got his maiden test century in the third test against Australia at the SSC, Colombo. It was an interesting innings and one which brought about a curious opinion piece on Cricinfo at the end of the days play.

He came to the wicket when Sri Lanka were 210/4 at the end of the 82 over, scoring at a run rate of 2.6 rpo. He then had a partnership of 121 with Dilshan at 3.4 rpo. When Dilshan got out, Matthews was on 42 made of 96 balls (SR of 44). He then had another partnership with wicket keeper Prasanna Jayawardene, scoring at 3 rpo. When Prasana Jayawardene got out, Sri Lanka were 412/5 off 145 overs, scoring at 2.8 rpo. So Sri Lanka improved their run rate after Matthews had come to the crease, albeit it wasn't entirely due to him. At that time Matthews had scored 74 runs of 177 balls (SR of 42). Sri Lanka at that stage had a lead of 96 which was no means close to being a match winning lead. 

Along with the bowlers, Matthews then took another 29 overs to score 61 runs at just over 2 rpo. In fact as the Cricinfo ball by ball commentary showed, Sri Lanka scored 45 runs of 19 overs in the morning session while losing the remaining four wickets, resulting in an overall lead of 157. Matthews went to his 100 of 256 deliveries at a SR of 40. He ended up not out on 105, made of 269 deliveries, a SR of 39. So as I see it, his strike rate through out the entire innings didn't vary to a great extent. When he was playing alongside Dilshan and Jayawardene his strike rate was only marginally better. 

However, today's morning session which saw Matthews get to his 100 prompted this piece by Daniel Brettig, where in he makes the claim that Angelo Matthews in his pursuit of his maiden test century put himself ahead of the team. Did he actually do it ? Brettig's opinion is that by the go slow this morning, he had wasted valuable time in his pursuit of the land mark. He acknowledges that getting a maiden hundred isn't meant to be taken lightly, but he also has a dig at the sub continent's cricketers obsession with personal land mark. Brettig's contention is that Sri Lanka needed to do all the chasing, being 0 - 1 down in the series, and thus today's morning session was just not on. 

Curiously though, Michael Clarke had a different take on things, in his post days play press conference. Clarke said " Last night and today I thought they'd be a bit more proactive. In saying that, I had a lot of guys on the fence "  In effect Australia were being defensive, which is perfectly understandable considering they had a lead to protect. Considering the state of play, Matthews played the percentages fine. 

When Jayawardene got out, Sri Lanka had a lead of only 96, which he managed to stretch to 157. In trying to go for quick runs this morning Sri Lanka could very well have been bundled out lot quicker, and for a much lower lead. This would have played into Australia's hands as they would have had the best part of the fourth day to bat to try and get a sizeable lead, which they could have stretched further in the fifth day morning session. They then would have had the chance to try and go for a win. 


Which is where I found the Brettig opinion piece interesting. Would have agreed with his line of thinking if this had transpired on day 5, when Sri Lanka would have needed as much time as possible to try and bowl out Australia. Considering it happened on day 4, I found the opinion piece odd. When the Sri Lankan innings ended close to lunch, they had a lead of 157 and there were 5 sessions of play left. It was a pretty decent position to be in. No one could then have foreseen the Phil Hughes knock or the fact that for much of the day's play Australia were scoring close to 3.5 runs per over. 

That said, Australia, inspite of Phil Hughes century aren't safe yet in the test. At the end of the fourth day's play, they are only 52 runs ahead. Their advantage is the seven wickets in hand. What should give Sri Lanka hope and belief is that besides Hussey who is next in, none of the remaining Australian batsman are in great knick. All it needs is for them to grab two wickets within the first hours play and they could very well go on and win the test. Which is why I found the Australian go slow towards the back end of the day's play very odd. They could possibly have been a 100 or close to it ahead which would have made Sri Lanka's job of chasing down the target that much harder. They didn't,and therein lies the chance for Sri Lanka. Should make for a fascinating morning session.

Should Sri Lanka go on and achieve the win and draw the series they will have Angelo Matthews innings to thank. For that he deserves credit and not the criticism.