By
T.M.K.Samat

SRI LANKA cricket is entitled to feel a sense of well being following its 4/1 success over South Africa in the just concluded five-match ODI series. It should be noted however that the South Africanshave never won a series on the island’s shores, last week’s loss being the third since the Proteas first visit here back in 1993. In their previous visit, in 2004, fate had,in fact,dealt the visitors a harsher blow than it did in this time – a 5-nothing thrashing at the hands of Marvan Atapattu’s team.

So, why this feel-good factor over what is an achievement of routine, really? As well, on this tour the South Africans were without three of their leading lights: no.3 Kallis, opener Smith and paceman Steyn – pretty much the equivalent of a Sri Lanka ODI eleven sans, Sangakkara, Dilshan and Malinga.

This tour’s point of interest, however, was not if Mathews’ men could preserve our outstanding home record against the visitors, but it was also to be a reality check of a team in transition, with the playing careers of at least three seniors approaching closure. The new selectors had declared, in January, that their aim was to reinforce the team with young players that would serve our 2015 World Cup cause – and beyond.

The contributions of the youngsters in the recent Champions Trophy in England and the tri- series in the Caribbean had, overall, been anything but inspiring. So the hope was,given home conditions, the youngsters would prosper against the South Africans in measures that their talents promise – if not exactly for the good of the team, then certainly to make apparent a successful transition was in the making. Much has been invested in the youngsters, including the roles of captain and deputy. So concerns over their continuing below-par performances were worrying, naturally.And fears that Mathews’ men might surrender our dominance over the visitors at home were not unfounded.

So the ease with which they overcame the South Africans is praiseworthy, but disappointingly, doubts about the mettle, or the lack of it,among the youngyet remain. Only Lahiru Thirimanne of the young managed a half century in the series: 68 runs in the inconsequential fifth ODI – one ray of light in the thickening gloom.

It is worthwhile to look back on the series and consider the sort of influence, if any, the youngsters had on our 4/1 success. The first of the five ODIs was won on the back of Kumar Sangakkara’s brilliant undefeated 169; in the second, defending a modest 223, it was chiefly favours received from Messers Duckworth and Lewis that brought victory and the fourthencounter was won largely on the colossal 184-run second-wicket stand between Dilshan and Sangakkara. You don’t need exceptional intellect to deducewhat the outcome might’ve been but for the seniors’ contributions.

With the elders performing so dominantly at the top more often than not, admittedly, there was limited scope for Chandimal, Mathews and Thirimanne/Angelo Perera, in nos. 5-7 slots, to display their wares. The job had all but been completed by the seniors, relegating the juniors’ task to one of adding runs in haste, no matter how, before the clock ran out.

The seniors’ failure in the third ODI was thus something of a blessing in disguise: at long last, it presented the youngsters a chance to prove they too can win games on their own. Consider the situation: Tharanga, Dilshan, Sangakkara and Jayewardene collectively managed just 35, and pursuing a target of 234, the youngsters were challenged to score 199 in a shade over 25 overs, a task not beyond a young middle order of some solidity, like the middle order of, say, the youthful Indian team currently in Zimbabwe.

But our middle order on the day, Mathews, Chandimal and debutant Angelo Perera, could gather together only 44; and at 93/7 in the 31st over, defeat by over 100 runs was no distant precipice to tumble down. It took world cricket’s second most profitable run-making over (Thisara Perera’s 35 from a Peterson over) and the resultant panic triggered in the opponent’s ranks,to whittle down defeat’s margin to 56, a large discrepancy yet, but made tolerable by the earlier prospect of greater shame.

With the third ODI conceded and Sri Lanka’s lead reduced to 2/1, the chance of the now buoyant South Africans claiming the series wasn’t far-fetched. But, that Sri Lanka instead was able to subdue the visitors challenge in the fourth ODI and secure the series spoke of the defiant character of the team… sorry, of the seniors.

Skipper Mathews in the post-match interview dismissed any notions of taking lightly the inconsequential final ODI. He said he’s aiming for a 4/1 finish, which suggested the deployment of the seniors. Again. But obviously, the management was of a different view: opener Tharanga was shown the door and Kusal Janith Perera recalled; Jayawardene, Malinga and Herath were sent on R’n R leave to make possible inclusions of Angelo Perera, Lakmal and Senanayake respectively. The four new inclusions, however, mattered little – Sangakkara and Dilshan together with Thirimanne had done enough to ensure victory, as far as the batting went. Of the bowlers, though, the absence of Herath and Malinga caused little hindrance to victory’s cause, thanks to Senanyake and Lakmal, who jointly claimed half of the South Africans batting

The exposure given to the emerging cricketers is logical and necessary, but the exclusion of out-of-form Upul Tharanga, one hopes, is not expulsion. He debuted in 2005, and has quite an impressive string of performance for a 28-year old. His 174 against India in the recent Caribbean series was his 13th. ODI century and his 5177 runs in 167 ODI appearances present the sort of experience you don’t pass up in a hurry. Of course he has a weakness: flirting with deliveries veering away from the off stump and nicking catches to the slips.

To banish Tharanga to the wilderness might’ve been justified were there a dependable youngster to replace him. Kusal Perera was thought to be that young player, butobviously he hasn’t got to terms with the exactitudes international cricket demand. All of his past five contributions were in single digits. The inclusion of opener Dinuk Karunaratne into the ODI squad no doubt is intended to put him in competition with Silva – which is a good thing. But eliminating Tharanga from the race, if that be selectors’ intention, would be unwise because his experience is something the young duo hasn’t. And for some situations, experience is a better virtue than youth.

Clearly, barring Sangakkara, Jayewardene and Dilshan, the rest of the batting specialists’ lack of consistency has all to do, no doubt, with their technical deficiencies.

The team management includes batting coach, Marvan Atapattu, who, being a technically-perfect batsman during his playing days, must know more than most about the technical aspects of batting. So, he should know reasons why the youngsters aren’t delivering in measures their talents promise – and mend them. It’s unfair to blame it on the young cricketers alone; the batting coach too is answerable to the woes plaguing the young middle order.
COURTESY:THE SUNDAY LEADER