da bet7k： Sri Lanka’s third successive failure in Kandy leaves supporters and punditssearching for rational explanations
Charlie Austin26-Aug-2001Sri Lanka’s third successive failure in Kandy leaves supporters and punditssearching for rational explanations. Forget talk of ground hoodoos and jinx,though, because there is a trend that suggests a more disturbing conclusion:This Sri Lankan Test side has forgotten how to win closely fought matchesand has become scared of success.To lose three Tests on the trot in one venue overseas could be explained byunfamiliar conditions, but against South Africa and England the crumblingpitch was perfectly suited to Sri Lanka’s medley of spinners while the pitch in the match against India was neutral, offering both sides an equal chance.Ground conditions then do not provide an adequate answer. Instead, one needsto look at the nature of the games themselves and there are clearsimilarities that can be drawn between all three matches. Sanath Jayasuriyaalluded to it when he said after the game: “We did not lose because we played inKandy, but because of the cricket we played.”Firstly, Sri Lanka lost in Kandy having won the first Test of a three-Testseries in Galle. Secondly, all three games were closely fought affairs inwhich Sri Lanka had established, but then squandered positions of dominance.Finally, Sri Lanka’s batsmen floundered in their second innings.All the above point to a sudden bout of timidity just when the final nailsin the coffin were to be banged in with gusto. When the time comes tofinish off the series, Sri Lanka’s players offer the opposition a kindlyhand of assistance back onto their feet.This week we saw it when India were 154 for six in their first innings,still 120 runs adrift of Sri Lanka. One hour later India had reduced thedeficit to 42 after a blistering 44 from 32 balls by Harbhajan Singh. SriLanka had undone all the good work earlier in the day with a profligatespell of bowling after tea.Then, in their second innings, Marvan Atapattu and Kumar Sangakkara hadextended their slender lead to 94 at the end of the day with nine wicketsremaining. Even if they had played reasonably for two hours they would havebatted India out of the game. They responded woefully, losing eight wicketsfor 105 runs.India deserve some credit of course. Harbhajan Singh still had to capitaliseon the wayward bowling and Zaheer Khan and Venkatesh Prasad put the ball inthe right areas. Nevertheless, Sri Lanka were in charge of their destiny andthey opted for self-destruction.Sri Lanka’s problems, it seems, may be twofold and fundamental. Firstly,could it be that their great strength as humans, is their greatest weaknessin cricket: they are simply too unselfish and charming? Do their societalvalues that underpin each individual actually undermine the development of akiller instinct in cricket?They can surely be no better hosts in international cricket. During England’s last tour the cricket board actually forced the national captain and coachto miss a day of training in Colombo so that they could attend a pre-tourpress conference in Galle. Then, when England requested a last minute changein itinerary, they acquiesced without a murmur.To the hard-nosed Australia or South Africa such pliant behaviour by theiradministrators would cause outrage. They make life as hard as possible fortouring sides and reap the consequent rewards. Sri Lankan administrators,however, go out of their way to be amenable and co-operative, sometimes tothe detriment of their own side.The Test team follows cue, by letting the opposition back into games whenthey should be ruthless, ramming home their advantage and rubbing the nosesof the opposition into the dust.Ingrained benevolence can only be part of the explanation. The rest isexplained by a regression, not in talent or technique, but in attitude. DavWhatmore summed it up well before the Kandy Test when he said: “The playersdon’t know how good they are.”In one-day cricket Sri Lanka have mastered the art of winning, but in Testcricket success remains elusive because the team lacks the self beliefnecessary to finish the job, especially in tight situations. Too muchrespect is given to the opposition and too little to themselves, whichprompts bouts of negativity at pivotal moments.When one sees the old warhorse Arjuna Ranatunga pop up in the commentarybox, one is reminded just how much he gave to Sri Lankan cricket. He was notperfect by any means, but he was fearless and arrogant and that mentalitybrushed off on the team, who finally realised that they need not beinternational minnows.Ranatunga took the game to the opposition. Off the field he may have beensoft-spoken, but on it he was confrontational and aggressive. In shortRanatunga was a winner, who looked at an opponent in the eye and believed hewas better, even if he wasn’t.Sanath Jayasuriya has many qualities as a captain and his consensual stylehelped heal rifts in the early days, but he is lacking in the qualities thatSri Lanka now need most: a true leader of men who can make the team believein itself.So, what can be done? Nothing overnight is the unfortunate truth becausethere is no natural leader and Sri Lanka are faced with a catch 22 cul-de-sac.To overcome what is effectively an inferiority complex they need to startwinning Test series, but to do that they need to prevent their bouts ofintrospection.There is, however, some paradoxical hope. Sri Lanka invariably lose matchesthat are tightly contested, but can win emphatically, where the pressure isless and winning involves a slow kill. Sri Lanka’s best chance of winningthe series it seems is for them to establish an unassailable advantage inthe final Test, before slowly eking out the opposition.