Dilemma for Sri Lanka as Perera is reported

Ruchira Perera, the Sri Lankan left-arm seamer at the centre of the Lord's Test throwing controversy, has, not surprisingly, been reported to the International Cricket Council.

The immediate reaction of the Sri Lankan manager, Chandra Schaffter, was: "Our perception is very simple, we are quite happy to follow the procedure that is in place. The umpires might have had to do it because of all the pressure from the media, or maybe they felt that it was genuinely required and there is no harm in that because if he is looked at and cleared then he is cleared for all time."

The match referee, Gundappa Viswanath, and the two umpires who officiated in the match, Daryl Harper and Srinivas Venkataraghavan, registered their concerns over the legality of his bowling action at the conclusion of the Test.

Through being reported Perera is now at Stage One of the ICC procedure to oversee such concerns, and while the speculation will do nothing for his confidence, it will not prevent him being available for selection in nine days' time for the second Test, at Edgbaston.

Having reached this first phase, the only thing Perera has to do in order to carry on playing international cricket is work with a specialist advisor in an attempt to eradicate the problem, just as Sussex's James Kirtley had to earlier this year. This advisor would be appointed by the Sri Lankans.

The dilemma for Sri Lanka, though, is whether to pick him or not, because if Perera were to be reported again by any official within a 12-month period he would then move to Stage Two, when an advisor would be appointed by the ICC. He would have to report back to the ICC with his findings at the end of a three-month period. Stage Three, the final stage of the process, would be reached if the bowler was reported for a third time and this would cause the ICC Bowling Review Group to meet. Depending on their findings they could issue a 12-month ban.

Perera's problems will, unfortunately, be what the first Test match is remembered for most, and that is sad, because while the game failed to move on from a wonderful first day, there were several notable achievements. All these triumphs, however, took place with the bat, as four players – Marvan Atapattu, Mahele Jayawardene, Michael Vaughan and Mark Butcher – each had the pleasure of scoring maiden Test centuries at Lord's. The outstanding innings, though, had to be Jayawardene's hundred. It was an innings of pure class, one to light up any Test ground, let alone the home of cricket.

And it is the fact that the bat was so in control of the ball that probably stopped the game being the spectacle we all hoped it would be. The quick bowlers would have arrived at Lord's a week ago licking their lips and expecting to leave with a hatfull of wickets. The weather was overcast and the Lord's groundsman, Michael Hunt, was concerned about the moisture he felt was still in the pitch. For the eight seamers selected to have left with so little to show for their efforts would not only have damaged their averages, but also their egos.

The comfortable way in which batsmen accumulated their runs, apart from on the Saturday, when England's batting was poor, is something not many pundits were predicting at the game's outset. But the pitch played better than any of us imagined. It was a Test pitch of the highest standard, not devoid of help if a bowler aggressively hit the right areas on a good length, but one that was, essentially, good for batting. It exposed the fact that none of the bowlers bowled particularly well. England's in particular appeared more interested in banging the ball in short rather than probing on or outside off-stump.

Another thing this Test highlighted was how much England miss the services of Darren Gough. Without him they lack a bowler to lead their attack. Andrew Caddick should be capable of this having played 54 Tests and taken 201 wickets, but he seems to perform best when working off someone rather than leading them over the top. Gough, however, is the natural leader: he carries an attack not just through his ability and wholehearted effort, but also through sheer force of personality. He seems to thrive in the conditions Caddick shows contempt for.

Dominic Cork has filled the role well in the past and tries to do so now, but sadly the influence he can have on a game is diminishing. This leaves Matthew Hoggard and Andrew Flintoff, two inexperienced bowlers still finding their feet at this level. Like all youngsters there is going to be an element of inconsistency about their performances, but following the first Test it seems Flintoff is the likeliest leader of the four.