Not only did Sri Lanka bat a long time, but they fared better against spin (5/340) than against pace (5/214). And this was after Australia had batted 110 overs, scoring 364 (which should have been a lot more but they squandered good positions from 2/204 and 5/329).

The whole argument makes no sense and reeks of trying to cherry pick bits and pieces of the facts to suit a pre-determined narrative.

The crowd is not a big factor. Test matches are not getting big crowds anywhere outside of Australia and England, and occasionally India.

So it doesn’t matter whether you play in Galle or Colombo from a local fan attendance perspective – it might be a couple of thousand spectators at very low ticket prices.

As you say playing in the same venue twice cuts costs. It’s also an attractive venue for visiting fans given the proximity to the beach, the fort etc, and offers nice scenery for the TV coverage, and a nice location for players, officials, TV crew etc to stay in.

On top of this, the pitch at Galle provides a lot of assistance to spinners and therefore plays to Sri Lanka’s strengths more than pitches elsewhere in the country, some of which can offer more seam movement and mostly are quite flat.

Australia’s victory in Pakistan in 2022 was built on reverse swing. Both Starc and Cummins got significant reverse swing during the second and third tests, especially the spells from both which set up the third test victory by causing Pakistan to collapse.

Reverse still happens on abrasive surfaces. Sri Lanka typically water the square at Galle heavily to try and prevent reverse swing – they did this in 2022 to avoid Starc wreaking as much havoc as he had in 2016 when the square was left bare and the ball reversed a lot more.

Yes, and Starc took 4/89 in that second test – he would have been the one to get dropped if Australia went with three spinners. He also got Chandimal out on 30 but was denied the wicket due to poor umpiring and Australia wasting its reviews. That wicket could have kept Australia in the game despite their wasteful first innings batting, instead Chandimal added another 176 unbeaten runs.

I disagree – it depends on the pitch and who is available. If we get a pitch like the first test in Galle last tour then absolutely 3 spinners is the way to go. If it is like the second test – our pace bowlers were more threatening than the spinners in the first innings (5/214 to pace plus a wicket denied due to DRS being exhausted vs 5/340 to spin), so its not a no brainer to pick 3 spinners – especially if Matt Kuhnemann is unavailable.

Agree that if you have one pacer then Starc makes the most sense in those conditions. He also adds some batting depth so is more likely to make a contribution even if the pitch offers nothing to pacers.

I don’t agree that Australia failed to win the series last time due to misreading the conditions.

They won the spin-dominated first test on a rank turner despite selecting only two front-line spinners. So picking two spinners instead of three cost them exactly nothing in this test.

At the time, Australia discussed dropping Mitch Starc for the second test and picking Glenn Maxwell instead if the pitch was the same as the first test, so a clear indication that they were adaptable to the conditions. In the end, the second test pitch was not a rank turner, as evidenced by the first innings scores in that match – 364 and 554, so Australia opted to retain Starc and play two pacers and two spinners.

This selection was proved correct and wasn’t the reason for Australia’s second test loss. Mitch Starc had the best figures for Australia – 4/89, and the two frontline pacers had combined figures of 5/194, compared to the frontline spinners with 5/297. How is this evidence that Australia lost due to not picking enough spinners?

Australia lost that test because they collapsed from 2/204 and 5/329 to 364 all out. It was the type of pitch where you needed big first innings runs (450+) and Australia squandered a good platform.

Then they blew all their reviews which meant that when Dinesh Chandimal was wrongly given not out on 30 (off Mitch Starc – not a spinner) they had no recourse to reverse the decision. Chandimal went on to make 206* which meant that instead of going into the third innings with scores roughly even, Sri Lanka built a big lead and batted until the wicket started to deteriorate.

These are the things which Australia need to learn from – score your runs in the first innings and be ruthless, and use your reviews wisely because wickets are like gold in the first innings. They got the team balance spot on in the test they lost.

It’s a completely wrong analysis to claim that because Australia didn’t use their seamers much in the test they won, that they lost the next test because they picked two seamers again, even though those seamers did better than the spinners in that test, and would have done even better if mismanagement of DRS (and poor umpiring) hadn’t cost them the wicket of Chandimal to pace (and 176 runs).

The analysis in the article is ridiculously simplistic. Cummins took 25 wickets at 21 in the BGT series just gone, he was one of the best players in the series.

But according to this article he’s on the wane because his average in this “third” of his career was impacted by two below par series in India and England nearly two years ago?

Agree 100% – it is silly to compare batting averages in the last 3 years to the sort of pitches we saw served up in Australia from 2014 to 2018.

Averaging 35+ on these current pitches is very good, averaging 40 on those roads was mediocre.

Clearly someone like Steve Smith is not the batter he once was, but his performance during the BGT was excellent and the equivalent of averaging 55+ on the pitches we saw during the 2014/15 BGT.

This selection panel wants to be judged on results, which have been impressive so far, but that is only a portion of their job – current success cannot sabotage the future.

So in other words, there’s no ammunition to criticise selectors based on actual results, so lets criticise them based on imagined results in the future.

Describing the results of the selection panel as being “impressive so far” is laughable. They’ve selected teams which have won the WTC, World Cup, Ashes, BGT and every bilateral test trophy and are either 1st or 2nd in the ICC rankings in every format.

They didn’t let this opportunity slip, did they?

Declaring today would have been incredibly silly.

In fact I would be perfectly happy for Australia to bat on tomorrow for a few overs.

Making a sensible tactical decision doesn’t mean you are spooked. No captain in the history of test cricket would have declared this evening with 300 or less to defend and a required run rate of less than 3.

We lost the last test? That’s news to me.

Apparently there’s an obscure 2000s movie called “Most Valuable Primate”. Never heard of it before but maybe Isa is a fan and so just blurted it out without thinking?

It was appropriate to apologise because, whilst there clearly wasn’t any ill-intent in this instance, primate, monkey, ape etc are used as racial slurs against dark skinned people (eg Andrew Symonds).

Yes, the media beat it up a bit, but she’s done the right thing and owned her mistake, think everyone will just move on now.

It certainly looked like whiplash. He would have been incredibly unlucky to break his neck in that dive as the impact of his body was in his chest/shoulder. All the best with him for a swift recovery.

I agree that most likely Patterson won’t play test cricket again, but if he keeps scoring runs then it is a possibility. We’ve seen guys like Chris Rogers and Adam Voges fill in a gap later in their careers, but from an Australian cricket perspective it would be better if some younger bats can step up and fill the gap instead.

I wouldn’t quite write off the current test as a draw yet. The forecast looks poor but so far today looks more like fast-moving showers which means interruptions rather than entirely lost days. If India bat like they have in the first two tests then a result could still be possible if they can get 150-200 overs in (particularly if the follow-on comes into play). Draw would have to be the favourite though looking at the weather.

I’m not suggesting he should come into the team imminently, just that he’s putting himself up as a candidate should a vacancy arise.

I almost think this series needs to be looked at differently due to the Bumrah factor. Our batters have overall handled the non-Bumrah bowlers pretty well given the pitches have been quite bowler friendly (we’re averaging 40+ against the other Indian bowlers). Bumrah has just been so dominant to the point where you question how much falling to Bumrah repeatedly tells you about how the batters will go against other test attacks.

McSweeney for instance has fallen to Bumrah every time he’s been dismissed this series. So it doesn’t tell us much about whether he can actually crack it as a test opener or if he just struggles to line up Bumrah.

There’s still two more tests in this series and I don’t see major changes being made for the remainder of the series. And of course we have Cameron Green coming back some time before next summer. So I don’t think there is likely to be a vacancy for someone like KP at this stage but you never know what might happen with injuries, retirements or form – but if he keeps scoring like he has since his NSW comeback then he’ll be right up there as a contender should a vacancy arise.

Everything he says is completely true. There is far more seam movement in Australia since they changed the Kookaburra ball and started leaving more grass on the pitches.

It’s easy for fans sitting behind their keyboards to claim that batting averages have come down because our batters are no good – but when it’s happening across the boards to both Australian and opposition players, and in the Sheffield Shield too, how likely is it that every top order batter has suddenly forgotten how to bat?

Despite scoring fewer runs, Australia have still been dominant at home during this period, with a combined scoreline of 13-2 from 17 tests at home since the Kookaburra ball was altered. I’m not sure what more evidence people need that batting has become harder in Australia these days.

He looked in good form for his second 50. Is it just an aberration or can he build on it for the rest of the series?

Time will tell, but we can enjoy one of the greats of Australian cricket playing a crucial hand in a crucial test whether it is for one last time or the start of a late career renaissance.

I know you’re probably joking but Kurtis has been out of the NSW side for most of the last couple of seasons, he was in dreadful form at state level – so it’s hardly surprising he never got a recall.

He’s in serious form this summer so you never know – he’s certainly putting himself in a position where if they need an older hand who knows his game to slot in then he’s back in contention.

Scott Boland has played 1 test at the Gabba, which was on an absolutely diabolical pitch where the test ended halfway through Day 2 (Starc took 5 wickets for 67 in the same test). You can’t say he’s a better bowler at the Gabba than Starc on the evidence of one test match on an unusually spicy pitch, a test match in which Starc took more wickets than him.

Boland has averaged 39.5 over his last 5 test matches (4 overseas). He’s a different proposition in Australia but looking at raw career averages is a very shallow way to analyse a player.

Less than 20 I hope, because that would probably mean an Australian victory!

Is it brutal?

Josh Hazlewood took 5/57 in the first test, Scott Boland 5/105 in the second. Starc (8/108) and Cummins (7/98) both had better match figures than Boland in the second test. So which of them deserved to be left out for Boland?

Bringing Hazlewood back in was a no-brainer if he’s fit. It’s fantastic that we have a bowler like Boland ready to step in when required though.

Scott Boland is a fine bowler and we are very fortunate to have him in reserve, but he is a class below Josh Hazlewood, who is a far more versatile bowler.

For instance, Boland averages 52.9 outside of Australia in test cricket, with 7 wickets in 4 tests. He struggled a lot when England attacked him during the last Ashes (we saw glimpses of this when Nitesh Kumar Reddy hit him for 20 in an over at Adelaide and Rishabh Pant went after him too). Josh Hazlewood averages 27.4 away from home and has the white ball skills to combat attacking play.

It is a no brainer that Hazlewood should play over Boland when Hazlewood is fully fit. But Boland is a more than capable replacement particularly in seam-friendly conditions, and should be picked over a 90% fit Hazlewood.

Boland might average 20.42 for his 40 wickets over 11 tests, but Josh Hazlewood’s last 40 wickets have come from 8 tests at a cost of 14.83.

Boland over Starc is an option, but that would come at the cost of variety and mean dropping Australia’s best bowler from the previous test match. Jaiswal has a very poor record against left arm pace and Starc’s match-up against him could be crucial, along with Starc’s ability to mop up the tail quickly.