The T20 Championship in England was preceded by the IPL Twenty/20 Series in South Africa and one can profit from a brief survey of its implications for Sri Lanka’s squad, not all of whom featured significantly in that event. Those who stood out in South Africa were Lasith Malinga, Dilshan and Mahela Jayawardene (whose hamstring injury at a critical stage was one factor in the decline of King’s XI Punjab).

Sangakkara had an erratic series. Angelo Mathews only had one or two opportunities in that tournament, but I thought it extremely significant that he was chosen for the Calcutta Knight Riders without having much international exposure. The T20 Championship revealed to us why the Calcutta Selectors were far-seeing on this point.

They were less than intelligent throughout the tournament in their use of Mashrafe Mortaza and Ajantha Mendis. Despite his international fame Mendis was deployed sparsely, perhaps because his initial forays were marked by troughs. In the result, he was relegated to the bench for most matches. This is significant: one has to investigate why. In the absence of inside information, I conjecture that his omission was informed by the requirements of team balance and Ajantha’s mediocre capacities as fieldsman. In 20/20 matches a few runs lost here and there can make quite a difference and also affect the morale of the fielding side.

As significant was the fact that Mumbai and Delhi respectively did not utilise either Dilhara Fernando or Farveez Maharoof in any of their matches. Though both featured only in the latter stages of the 2008 IPL in India, these men had performed remarkably well and were-–if my recollections are correct—among the best bowlers in that series.

So, why were they omitted? To surmise: again it would have been (1) a question of team balance; and (2) their clumsiness in the field, an absence of “cricket quickness,” namely, the agility and swift acceleration that makes one a good inner ring fielder as well as a capable boundary rider.

Dilhara’s place in the starting Mumbai Eleven was also undermined by the presence of Lasith Malinga (whose recovery from injury had been judiciously handled back home) in the same squad. Malinga’s success in South Africa also undercut Dilhara’s place in Sri Lanka’s squad as our potentially best wicket-taking bowler.

Dilhara was also shunted out by the selection of Maharoof, Kulasekera, Thushara and the newcomer Isuru Udana. Why? All can bat better than Dilhara; while Kulasekera and Udana are more agile in the field. This is quite tough on a bowler of Dilhara’s skill and determination and I hope the Selectors keep him up there as part of our leading fast-bowling stock (with a weather eye on his no-balling propensities).

Sri Lanka’s players eventually went through the T20 championship in England without any injuries and with remarkable success. I considered it a basic error for the team to bat first at Lords during the Irish game (I was more apprehensive before that match than any other). In my view any standard policy must be adjusted to pitch circumstance. Likewise, I would have given Indika de Saram more opportunities to acclimatise to English conditions in the warm-up games by sending him higher up the order. His failures lower down the order in those matches then led to a policy of excluding him in the competition rounds – where I would have dropped Chamara Silva and Mubarak on at least on one occasion in Round Two and slotted in de Saram and Maharoof to permit them a chance to reveal their potential.

By the time of the semi-finals Sri Lanka’s bowling squad was much praised by the TV commentators on the strength of their performances as well as their variety and idiosyncrasy. But I always felt that the Pakistan Seven were a better bowling combination than our Seven. Among their main bowlers only Razzaq, young Mohammed Aamer and Fawad Alam were potential weak links; whereas Mathews, Udana (or Kulasekera) Jayasuriya and Dilshan could also be taken to the cleaners. Again, as one RW stressed on Dilmah cyber-net, the Pakistanis are good players of spin (Younis Kkan is a superb sweeper) and had played our match-winning spinners comfortably in Round Two. As it was, in keeping with the volatile character of cricket, the weak links had some striking successes: Mathews in the semis and Razzaq, alas, in the finals. [Moreover, rather to my surprise both Razzaq and Matyhews figure reasonably high in the list of bowlers with the best averages and best economy rates.]

The Pakistan side were peaking and on a roll by the time they got to the semi-final; and with Afridi complementing his match-winning bowling with a recovery of his batting capacity, the side with nothing to lose outshone Sri Lanka convincingly on the final day. They were also motivated by their recent history: they made a statement to the cricket world. Recent cricket regimes, with the notable exception of Sri Lanka (who were repaid with unkindness at Lahore!!), have indeed treated Pakistan’s cricketers in abominable fashion for over five years.

These caveats notwithstanding I extend my congratulations to Kumar Sangakkara and Sri Lanka’s coaching/fitness teams for the style and manner of their performances at the T20 Championship in England. Apart from the two sets of results identified at the outset of this essay, let me identify three other pleasing dimensions that emerged during the series.

Angelo Mathews revealed his promise as an intelligent cricketer and a promising batsman in particular. So our plaudits should be extended to the Selectors and team management for identifying and encouraging the lad. Particularly important was the ability he revealed to hit into the V, with an occasional foray wide of long-on (a lesson surely for Mubarak, Sanath and others who got out on occasions trying to hit bowlers square). His bowling and fielding can be described as useful, though one would anticipate him yielding lots of runs as bowler on some occasions.

The pressure of the occasion got to Isura Udana during the finals, first when the team management gambled and sent him one spot earlier as pinch-hitter; and then in over number 18. But, seeing him in action for the first time, I am mighty pleased. For one, he is athletic and a decent fielder. He took a great catch off his own bowling and dived forward on the run once at deep midwicket to attempt a catch (earning a blow on face) in a manner which a player like Maharoof or Thushara could never have replicated. As significantly, he is a leftie who bats right-handed. With a stronger left arm and thus with a capacity to keep elbow-high and straight, Udana should have the capacity to develop the on-drive as well as hit in the V. I understand now why his batting strike rate and scores during SL’s domestic 20/20 series impressed the Selectors as well as Sangakkara and company. In brief, Udana is a potential Mitchell Johnson -- a bowling allrounder -- though one whose bowling will not depend so much on pace as much as variation and well-disguised slower balls (an asset that can be nullified by certain pitches).

Finally, Sri Lanka confirmed its capacity to surprise the cricket world with unorthodoxy. Not only did we have two mystery spinners of different types on show, baffling some of the opposition on several occasions, but Tuan Tillekeratne Dilshan re-invented Douglas Marillier’s scoop-shot over the wicket-keeper’s head with striking success (did anyone see Kamran Akmal’s face once?) and injected a new word into our cricket vocabulary: the “dilscoop,” a term that now sits proudly on the mantelpiece beside the “carrom-ball” and “doosra.”