I watched the last couple of hours. Pujara got out when I first turned in. Absolutely riveting cricket. Other than Pant, the Indian batsmen were really tested by the Aussie bowlers especially Cummins. Lots of false shots fell short and several byes to the boundary certainly helped them.
From 36 all out to chasing down 328 on a challenging pitch. That’s quite a turnaround!
Right to the end the Aussies were trying to take wickets.
They could have set the field deep, and bowled defensively 2 down the legside and 2 high bouncers each over. They didn’t which was commendable. It was also sound because even if they couldn’t win the best chance of getting the draw was to take wickets and cause India to park the bus.
About 4 overs to go Lyon sent down a wider one loaded with offspin and topspin. It landed in the footmarks. In theory if it held it’s line it would would got through to Paine and only represent a risk if Pant had thrown the bat at it. Most likely it would have spun alarmingly away from the bat and been taken by Smith at slip, but not troubling the batsman. Instead it hit the outside of the depression and came back like a doosra that Murali would have appreciated. It could have taken bat, pad or glove and taken the key wicket. It beat everything and went for 4 byes. [shrug].
Another factor in India surviving and then winning was that Starc was not bowling well and hence Paine persisted with Cummins and Hazelwood. But a significant factor in the benefit of Starc’s bowling is the footmarks he creates for Lyon to exploit, and they weren’t so much of a factor.
Not having studied their bowling - why is this? Does Starc approach the crease at an unusual angle? Is he on the heavy side for a modern cricketer? Does he wear cleats instead of spikes? 
Starc is left arm, so his footmarks are outside off stump to the right hand batsmen.
For the right armers, yes they also create footmarks (you may have seen the groundsmen using mallets to flatten the divot out) but a ball landing in them is outside leg stump of a right arm batsmen and so they can use their pads with impunity regarding the LBW rule.
This logic is reversed for left handed batsmen but it also needs a leg spinner to exploit it. Lyon, of course bowls topspin/off spin.
Also Starc’s action is “heavier” than the other two especially Cummins.
I was taken aback when I noticed over a thousand posts in this thread! Cricket?! How popular can it be? I googled to find out:
" With an audience of over 2.5 billion fans spread across 180 countries, cricket is the second-most popular sport in the world after football, and the world cup its biggest stage."
Wow! I know nothing about this sport. Why? I’ve never seen it televised. I have the U verse everything package with a plethora of sports channels. I see things like “cornholing”, “world’s strongest man”, etc, but not a sport that has a quarter of the world’s population as fans? I don’t get it.
Besides all kinds of online options, Willow is the primary channel for cricket in the US. With Willow, you get pretty much every important international match, as well as all the major T20 leagues. The one notable exception is India international home matches, which require subscription to another channel (Star, I believe). A big chunk of that worldwide fan base that you cited is the Indian population (which is larger than every other major cricket playing nation, combined), so they attempt to monetize that popularity separately.
ETA: Willow also shows a variety of other cricket; e.g. Under-19 World Cup, women’s international and league matches, cricket-related documentaries, etc.
Thanks for the info! Willow TV is carried by a number of providers but, naturally, Direct TV/Uverse are not among them. I could stream it for $60 a year. Heck, for $5 a month I might very well get it. i can still run it through my 65" Roku at home via my computer input.
Forgive my ignorance, but is it usual for left-arm seamers to bowl mostly over the wicket then? Or is that something Starc does in particular?
Being only a casual fan, I was under the impression that most bowlers will switch sides fairly often during an innings (potentially, even during an over if they wish, provided they get permission first), most commonly due to facing a different batsman. Obviously it changes the angle of attack, I thought most bowlers (certainly at international level) will have deliveries that might be more effective from one angle or the other. But I don’t really know much about it, never having bowled myself, or paid great attention to the subject when watching.
Welcome! Dive on in, we’ll be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Would have thought bowling “over the wicket” (the bowling arm is next to the stumps) would be SOP for the all bowlers of all types. Though bowling “around the wicket) (bowling arm away from stumps) seems less unusual now.
As over the wicket gives the best stump to stump line then conventional thinking is that it maximises the chances of getting an LBW or bowled dismissal. Going around the wicket was seen as being defensive or an act of desperation. Umpires tended not to give LBW decisions to bowlers when operating around almost on principle. Now more an option to vary angles and cramp batsman when there is little lateral movement off the pitch.
With DRS it has been demonstrated eg Broad bowling to Warner over the wicket and from wide on the crease that LBW can be given.
First day of the second Sri Lanka test today, and SL won the toss and batted. England didn’t let them get away, but SL finished the day on 229/4 with Matthews getting to an impressive ton.
Anderson’s bowled as well as he ever has in Asia today, as far as I can tell, with very little assistance. I can’t help thinking that India are looking at England’s spinners and rubbing their hands with glee, though!
I plan on watching a good chunk of this one this weekend. I checked the betting line before it started and saw that SL was slightly favored, which was surprising. Now I see no Archer, Stokes or Broad playing in this one, and also saw that Root carried them last test.
A bit short of international standard, but here is where I was scoring Sydney grade cricket today @ Birchgrove Oval, Balmain.
Second day - Sri Lanka get to 381 despite Anderson 6/40 - which may just be the best figures ever by an England seamer in Asia.
The England spinners didn’t take a wicket - I can see the Indian smiles from here.
Then both openers go cheaply - again - before Root and Bairstow mount a recovery. Not a great step forward.
Looks like a lovely place for cricket, do balls go in the river often?
I’m sure some have in the past century but it’s 125+m carry from the pitch to the harbour so I’m guessing not many.
More weirdness happening in Galle. Embuldeniya top scorer in Sri Lanka’s second innings after taking 7 wickets yesterday.
Not ragging on you, but having just checked the score this morning, that’s quite some turnaround. A good example of learning on the job, or more poor shots by SL?
If we get anything out of the India tour (and it’s a very big if), I suppose some credit must go to the ECB for the scheduling - something that has often been a factor in poor overseas performances in the past, I believe. I suppose we are also lucky to have found a weakened SL team to play our ‘warm-up’ games against.
I should add (though it may already be too late) that there is no fowl enumeration happening here - still plenty of runs to be got…
Well Sri Lanka gave it a bit of a go with plenty of enthusiasm but England knocked them off fairly comfortably in the end, and with a day to spare which is nice for them - would have been silly to have to come back for half an hour tomorrow. TMS were giving the SL captain some mild stick - feels like much more aggressive fields were called for from ball 1, perhaps? But obviously it wasn’t many to defend, the problems were with the bat largely.
Presumably Crawley will make way for Burns in the next Test, and Lawrence for Stokes? Lawrence looked OK but it would have taken something special to keep Stokes out, and Crawley will presumably feel like it was a big missed opportunity for him - just one decent score could have kept him his place in the starting XI. Not sure what seamers we are going to go with either. Can’t think Anderson will be left out unless he’s too sore, Broad will presumably be raring to go, but can you justify Anderson and Broad in the same team on an Indian pitch? Especially if other options such as Woakes and Archer might offer slightly more with the bat. Then of course there is the still-problematic no. 3 slot - filled well by Bairstow today, but he’s rested for the first couple of India Tests. Maybe Crawley will get to stick around on that basis.
My attempt at a first XI: Sibley, Crawley, Burns, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Bess, Archer, Leach, Anderson. I guess Ali also has a good shot at replacing Bess or Leach, for me it depends on how well he’s been doing in both bowling and batting nets. But as I implied in my previous post, if Bess and Leach’s confidence is now up, and they have learned a bit about how to bowl out there, why not continue with them?
ETA: I suppose conceivably you could have conditions such that you think about dropping Crawley and trying the “Ali at 2 or 3” experiment again. When was the last time England started a Test match with 3 genuine spinners in the team?
That was the first game ever when a team took all 10 first innings wickets with pace, and then all 10 second innings wickets with spin.