From Nishad Jayasundara, United States

The transition is shaping up to be a tough one © PA Photos

For Sri Lanka, the year 2011 began with fireworks. The small island nation was in the World Cup final for the third time, a feat only bettered by Australia. For several decades, cricket had put Sri Lanka on the map for all the right reasons. It was all good news, only until Nuwan Kulasekara dropped Gautam Gambhir on that special evening in Mumbai. The moment that ball hit the ground next to the diving Kulasekera, Sri Lankan cricket took a turn for the worse.

A sport that has captivated a nation has been on a downward spiral over the past few months. The decline has been so rapid that the Sri Lankan team hit a new low by losing ten wickets in less than 25 overs against England. It was gut wrenching. When Sri Lanka lost the World Cup final, the country's president remarked, "we didn't want to make a billion Indian brothers and sisters unhappy". While the president and his fellow citizens were trying to find some humour in a heart-breaking loss, Sri Lankan cricket had begun to fall apart.

One of the most illustrious captains of Sri Lanka resigned. The chairman of selectors followed, together with rest of the committee. The coach also put in his papers. Through all this, the greatest spinner of all, the wizard of the doosra, retired. The best genuine quick bowler Sri Lanka has produced said goodbye to Test cricket without giving himself a chance to prove he is the best. Sri Lankan cricket suddenly looked like a ship with a broken mast trapped in a storm, literally short-staffed on sailors and without a captain to command them. Though Tillakaratne Dilshan stepped up to the plate announcing an early exit from IPL, the storm has refused to relent.

Lasith Malinga’s retirement from Tests - whether the motivation was to secure his own financial future or physical health, or both - left the Sri Lankan attack on board to England looking paper thin. In the two warm-up games, when everyone gave Sri Lanka just an outside chance of surviving the English fast men or denting their batting line-up, the visitors pulled off two stunning victories. However, despite that, they were exposed; the weakness against the moving ball, and the difficulty finding right lengths to bowl on seaming tracks with the unfamiliar Duke ball, was apparent throughout.

The weaknesses continued to the big stage. What was supposed to be the biggest strength of the Sri Lankan team - the batting - failed them when it was most needed. Back home, on the street corners or in the parliament, questions will be raised. Fingers will be pointed. Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene’s commitment to Test cricket - as they arrived late from the IPL for an important tour - will no doubt be discussed. While selecting five bowlers to address the lack of depth in the attack appeared to be the right move, the team management will have to answer for the lack of variety in a line-up that was missing Suraj Randiv and Chanaka Welegedara.

How could a team lose the plot so woefully? "If you understand what goes on in Sri Lanka cricket behind the scenes you'd be amazed how well these guys play," Stuart Law, the interim coach, recently echoed the sentiments of his predecessor Trevor Bayliss. One should also be amazed at the millions who continue to follow the game in Sri Lanka, given the whirlwind tours Sri Lanka Cricket take them through more often than not. Resignations, retirements, injuries, and the allegations of match-fixing followed by more last minute injuries, reports of failed drug tests and finally a dispiriting innings defeat will test the patience of the most ardent fan. Off-field distractions should not be an excuse for results, however. Sri Lanka will bounce back, they are capable. For a team that went through the trauma of the Lahore attacks, a rather peaceful English attack ought to be less frightening. They just have to believe.

From James Adams-Pace, United Kingdom

Clearly the better choice © Getty Images

The media coverage of England’s team selection for the Test series against Sri Lanka went a long way towards proving that Edward Eggleston’s assertion about journalism is correct: it is “organised gossip”. For weeks, a number of journalists argued Ravi Bopara should be chosen to replace Paul Collingwood in England’s Test team.

It was argued that, as a batsman of supreme potential, Bopara should be given another chance to prove his worth on the world stage. If not solely his batting, his above-average bowling should earn him a place, as he was seen as a like-for-like replacement for Collingwood, who had chipped in with a few medium-pace overs in the past. Indeed, if not for these reasons, then Bopara should be held up as a paragon of integrity and rewarded for his decision to stay in England and play in the County Championship, rather than slither away to the IPL and play Twenty20 cricket like Eoin Morgan.

What a surprise Sunday morning must have been, then, when Morgan was selected ahead of Bopara, leading many to claim that one innings, of 193 against Sri Lanka in the tour game, swayed the selection in Morgan’s favour. For all their rationale and grapevine whisperings, many seem to have missed three key factors that made the selection of Morgan a more appealing, and rational, proposition.

Firstly, because of the way England cricket is currently run, politics does not factor into selection: ability and form does. The England team isn’t a body that chooses players because of the bold stands they make, no matter how admirable such a stance is. The basis for selection is, and quite rightly should be, meritocratic; the best players are picked ahead of those who are not as good. When Tim Bresnan was chosen over Steve Finn for the fourth Ashes Test last winter, he was not picked because of his favourable opinions on county cricket, but because he was believed to be the better player for the MCG. The point, here, is that precedent-setting was not on the ECB’s agenda; picking the best player was.

Secondly, for those with short-term memories, Bopara does not have a favourable record for England. While he has averaged 118 against an ordinary West Indies attack, he has more recently struggled against an Australian team that will hardly go down in history as ‘great’. In the 2009 Ashes, Bopara averaged a paltry 15.00 with a highest score of 35, suggesting there was something missing from his game, preventing him from establishing himself as an international player (and this is not taking into consideration his first international series against Sri Lanka where he averaged 8.00). Ten Tests with modest returns do not help Bopara’s case.

While Morgan’s Test average is roughly the same as Bopara’s, he has played fewer Tests and has scored a century against a very good Pakistan attack in a game where England’s batting had begun to wobble. Morgan’s previous Test innings have shown greater promise than Bopara’s.

Finally, if England are a team that plan ahead, then why did everyone forget that Morgan has been the No. 6 elect for some time? Having been chosen to play against Bangladesh and Pakistan in the summer and used as the reserve batsman in the Ashes series, England have believed for a while that Morgan is the best player to replace Collingwood, and have nailed their colours to their mast since the summer. Maybe closer attention to previous squads would have this point obvious.

The selection of Morgan, then, should have been less of a surprise than it was and should be seen as more positive than has been portrayed. Indeed, for those who have deplored the ECB for setting a terrible precedent – making the County Championship seem secondary in importance to the IPL – they should instead be commending the board for sticking to a selection policy that puts merit above all else.