By Channa Gunasekara
The term Oval, has of late been the focal point of much attention in more ways than one, what with Clinton and Monica and more significantly for us, at Kennington, London. Not being an astrologist nor a man of the stars, it seemed to me a very propitious omen that an epoch making game happened to have commenced on August 27, which coincidentally was the 90th birth anniversary of the finest cricketer and greatest ever artisan in the realm of infallible batsmanship that ever lived.

Even now, in my view, though events have proved me wrong, I believe we made a mistake in opting to field on a batting paradise on winning the toss and inviting the opposition to take first lease on a blameless pitch. But good on the captain and the collective thinking of the team to have taken such a daring off-chance gamble and make it come good, despite the distinct possibility of having to bat last on a turning wicket, that Surrey must surely be used to preparing for Saqlain. The fact that England did not maximise on this heaven sent opportunity, was not our problem. Fortunate favours the brave they say and sometimes the reckless too and we arrived at the right destination via an unorthodox route. Immediate subsequent events with the score reading 80 odd for 3 seemed to have justified the decision but at 228 for 4 at the end of the first day it did not appear to have done so. Anyway, the luck of the toss continued to follow us, and we were let off the hook, ably assisted by a totally inept batting display by the Englishmen, with their inability to grasp this opportunity. Even so at the end of the first day the initial ploy appeared to have backfired.

How poor the English batting was, without Atherton and Hussein was clearly brought out when with the dismissal of Hick, the overnight not out early on the second day the rest buckled to the wiles of spinner Muralitharan for the addition of a further 222 runs, 87 of which were put together in a record last wicket stand to highlight how benign the wicket really was. Muralitharan bowled magnificently to have had 6 for around 130 odd at one stage till he was manhandled somewhat in that last wicket stand to end on 7 for 155.

Crawley, ably supported by last man Fraser, alone played a face saving innings of a century more, but not without a great deal of luck. He was completely and irretrievably beaten to be caught and bowled by a Muralitharan 'no ball' before he had scored a run. Had that been out, the 'pommies' would have faced no end of embarrassment. Even so, taking into account the flat nature of the pitch and the cracking outfield the English score of 445 collected so unimaginatively though appearing formidable at the time was not substantially enough by half, against a powerful batting line up. This was proved to the hilt when Sri Lanka batted.

Undeterred by the early loss of the inform Atapattu to a fearful l.b.w. decision by David Shepphered late on the second day Jayasuriya, by launching into this so called dreaded English pace attack with the nonchalance and gay abandon of a One-Day spectacle, took the wind off the English sail. London Bridge nearby was set on fire. It showed the world how cricket, even Test cricket should be played, with a display of pure unadulterated and uninhibited stroke play to reach a century in a little over 100 balls, and thenceforth to his second hundred in a fractionally more subdued tone. Aravinda de Silva followed suit, but this time in the uncharacteristic role of anchor man to score a century and a half while Ranatunge chipped in with another of his familiar 50s. By the end of the third day Sri Lanka was a run ahead of England with 7 wickets in hand scored in 48.5 overs less!

On the penultimate day Sri Lanka forged on to a score a shade under 600 runs scored in 10 balls less than England took to score 445 and there lay the telling difference between the 2 teams.

Here again Muralitharan played a great part, though not without some hilarity, in helping Suresh Perera to a near record last wicket stand against England. I was greatly impressed by Perera's batting in an earlier One-Day game and put him down as a batsman of high potential. Here is the ideal all-rounder who should be well looked after and groomed for the No. 7 berth.

The die was cast and England was on the back foot from that moment on. Given their weakness against spin there was very little prospect of them holding out on the final day on a turning wicket against the magic of Muralitharan. But there was yet a flicker of hope with James and Stewart plodding stubbornly and using vital minutes after the exit of Hicrs, the first innings century maker for no score. The turning point of the game came when Stewart was thrown out by a Hunte-like throw direct onto a single stump from short square leg by substitute Chandana, who fortunately happened to be fielding there at the time.

Thereafter, except for some resistance from Ramprakash and Gough, Muralitharan spun as he pleased to run through the rest of the batting all by himself for the magnificent figures of 9 for 65 in 54.2 overs. A truly wonderful feat which placed him in sixth position in the 9 wicket Club behind George Lohman (9 for 26), Jim Laker (9 for 37), Sir Richard Hadlee (9 for 52) Abdul Qadir (9 for 56) and Devon Malcolm (9 for 57) as well as fifth best in the all time list of match figures behind Jim Laker (19 for 90), Sid Barnes (17 for 159), Narendra Hirwani (16 for 136) and Bob Massie (16 for 137) with figures of 16 for 220.

Much has been spoken and written about the last session of play, but without trying to hold a brief for the Englishmen, I must say I saw nothing unusual about this. We are a highly emotional people, easily inflated, easily deflated and we seem to have taken exception to the antics adopted in this session. Any Test team worthy of the name will not hand over a game on a platter saying, "here chum, take it all" and throw it away, more so when a mere 19,000 sterling is on offer. If you cannot win you do the next best and that is not to lose. They probably saw an outside chance of 8 to 1 of salvaging the match and in the current hot bed of intense professionalism, I suppose anything and everything goes. The spirit does not matter any more so long as it is within the framework of the laws. Bowling to a restrictive field or bowling 2 bouncers per over or a wide does not infringe on the rules. And let us not kid ourselves, cricket no longer can be considered a gentleman's game. I ceased to be so after money found it's way into the kitty, the age of chivalry has flown from the window. There is much more to winning and losing now in this nuclear age and how it is achieved is different matter. This certainly is not to be condoned but unfortunately it is the norm and we seem to be stuck with it.

However, Jayasuriya made mince of whatever was hurled at him in his own punitive way and saw to it that we romped home to a thumping victory. The significant difference between the two teams lay in the contrasting tempo of the batting, with England limping far behind, the ratio being 3.88 runs per over by Sri Lanka to 2.17 by England.

David Lloyd's comments on the match-winner after the game, for which he has now apologised caused a furore and came in for a lot of flak and we understand he was saved from the guillotine by the English team by saying that they wanted him as coach on the Southern tour this winter. I suppose he is entitled to his opinion but he certainly did sour the atmosphere.