Rogers and Smith centuries put Australia in front on flat Lord's pitch: T2 D1

Australia 1/337 (90ov, Rogers 158*/282b/25x4, Smith 129*/217b/1x6 13x4) vEngland; T2/5 D1/5 at Lord,s. Toss: Australia. 

Winning the toss gave Australia, who brought in Mitchell Marsh and Peter Nevill for Shane Watson (as expected dropped) and Brad Haddin (personal reasons) the considerable advantage of first use of a flat Lord's pitch. Chris Rogers and Steve Smith, coming together after David Warner was dismssed for what now looks a trifling though quickfire 38, have added 259 for the 2nd wicket . They gave few chances (fewer, I thought,  than were in the eyes of some beholders/commentators) and with their judiciously aggressive strokeplay capitalised on the blandness of pitch to reduce the England attack to near impotence.

Much of the quick scoring came at the beginning of the innings and during the last session. In between England, whose bowlers lacked the edge and some of the accuracy they'd showed at Cardiff, opted for a wide of off stump line in the hope of induced some errors. The scorecard shows that this strategy didn't work.

The pitch has been rightly criticised for its flatness. Whether it is sufficiently flat to condemn the Test to a draw is too early to say. Australia have a good numbers of runs on the board at the moment, but they will need to add many more to give them the scoreboard pressure which might assist their bowlers to dismiss England twice. Just over a month ago New Zealand lost to England at Lord's after a first innings of 523.

For all the assistance offered by the pitch both Rogers, on his English home ground, and Smith batted extremely well.

Observations on the eve (or morning if you're in England) of the second 2015 Ashes Test

On the eve of Ashes T2 the usual situation- England wobbly, Australia confident - has been reversed by the Cardiff result  which was a fair reflection of the gulf between the teams.

Since then Australia have gone into something close  to panic mode and flagged  two changes in advance: Brad Haddin omitted for"personal reasons" and Shane Watson (probably) dropped. Whether Mitchell Starc will take the field is uncertain, though if you listen to the positive noises coming from the Australian team and its media support group (as well as observing Peter Siddle's making positive sounding comments but with a glum, disappointed face on a media interview recently), you'd be inclined to think that Starc will play.

In all of this I seem to be the only person suggesting that Adam Voges's  position should be in doubt. Yes, he did well in the West Indies, but it was against weak opposition: weaker, due to injury, than the team which performed well against England just before Australia'sTests.

If Voges was omitted for Mitchell Marsh this would give Shane Watson, whose modest performances at Cardiff were less modest in batting aggregate than some of his teammates, another chance. The downside to all this is that the umpires are well aware of Watson's susceptibility to lbw, so they will be all too ready to adjudge him out ( as happened in T 1), expect  a review which will possibly confirm an "umpire's call", which will probably only confirm the official's decision even if replays show the ball scraping leg stump. In effect Watson is being required to bat with 4 (or more) stumps. Yes, he's not come to terms with this weakness (nor it seems have any of the coaching been able to offer constructive guidance), but for all his exasperatingly failures, he has made some runs.

Brad Haddin has found it hard to bear the cross of dropping Joe Root on 0, and hasn't for some time rediscovered the batting touch which helped Australia so much in the 2013-14 Ashes. So it's probably right for him to sit out T2, but he shouldn't have to end his career by being dropped (only a fool would believe the "personal reasons" justifications which have been trotted out).

England? Unchanged  XI perhaps?

Here's an interesting piece on the series from a US perspective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/sports/cricket/englands-risky-approach-is-paying-off-at-the-ashes.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

England complete crushing of Australia to take 2-0 series lead: T2 D4

England 361 & 7/349 dec (114.1ov, Root 180/338b/2x6, 18x4, Bell 74, Siddle 3/65, Harris 2/31) def Australia 128 & 235 (90.3ov, Khawaja 54, Clarke 51, Swann 4/78, Root 2/9, Bresnan 2/30, Anderson 2/55) by 347 runs; T2/5 D4(/5) at Lord's, London. England lead series 2-0 with three Tests to play.

Player of the match: Joe Root.

What more is there to be said? England completed wiping the floor with Australia. It's hard to see them relinquishing the Ashes in this series, and perhaps in the return bout later this year.

Once again some toothless and some inept batting saw Australia crumble against some good though by no means as unplayable bowling as some made it appear. Only Usman Khawaja and Michael Clarke made 50s - just - with the only other small crumb of comfort coming from yet another substantial 10th wicket partnership: 43. 

How can Australia win without the top order contributing many more runs? As things stand now it can't. How can this situation be remedied? At the moment I don't know but will ponder the question over the coming days.

<a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/engine/match/566933.html">Scorecard</a>

Australia's situation hopeless, so what are its next steps? T2 D3

England 361 & 5/333 (110ov, Root 178*/334 b/ 2x6, 18x4, Bell 74/103b/11x4, Trott 74, Bresnan 38, Siddle 3/65) lead Australia 128 by 566 runs with 5 2nd inns wickets in hand; T2/5 D3/5 at Lord's, London.

England did to Australia what India did in the series earlier this year : batted watchfully for two sessions then cut loose in the last, adding 162 in 32overs out of  2 /303 from the 90 bowled in the day. They are in an impregnable position.

It was Joe Root 's day : his innings has set the foundation of a huge England win. Does .Australia  have anyone with a portion of his gritty perseverancel? Short answer - no.

So what can we do? First, the bowlers must regroup as best as they are able: not all of them have bowled poorly and in the first two sessions many of them restrained Root, albeit without troubling him too much .

Of course a declaration may - should -  be imminent, perhaps after Root has had an opportunity to reach 200, in which case it won't matter too much.

The batting? Follow Root's example: be positively defensive, and look to build innings and partnerships. How many of the top seven are capable of doing this? I won't make my private opinions public, but I'd
be pleased if four or more made at least 70, with two of them making big tons.

These won't win the Test, but they could be the next steps which Australia must take on the path back to competitiveness.

Bell's toll mounts before Smith tweaks Australia back into game: T1 D1

England 7/289 (89ov, Bell 109/211b/16x4, Bairstow 67/146b/7x4, Trott 58/87b/11x4, Smith 3/18, Harris 3/43) v Australia; T2/5 D1/5 at Lord's, London. England won toss and chose to bat.

On a hot London day Australia made early inroads into the England batting, from which point Jonathan Trott, Ian Bell and Jonny Bairstow regained the initiative. They took the total from 3/28 to 4/127 and 4/183 at tea, when I went to bed...and caught up with what happened subsequently on the Fox Sports highlights.

In the last part of the final session Steven Smith reminded us that he is now a batter who can bowl leg spin (not the reverse as was the case when he came intoTest cricket in the last Ashes series). First he induced Bell to edge a pitch perfect turning legbreak to slip, next c&bing Bairstow off a low full toss (the kind you some see in shorter forms of the game) and then having Matt Prior caught behind off a quicker straight ball.

5/271, 6/274, 7/283 pulled England up, but they wouldn't feel that they'd had a bad day. They had one piece of good fortune when Bairstow was bowled neck and crop by Siddle: a delivery which was adjudged by the third umpire to be a no ball ( after watching it for the umpteenth time I am beginning to see why  the official came to that conclusion). Yet he, Trott and,especially, the mature - in both temporal and stylistic senses of the word- Bell combatively responded to some high quality Australian bowling and took advantage of some of moderate quality.

Ryan Harris, restored to the eleven at the expense of Mitchell Starc, took early wickets and thereafter, bowling in short spells to keep his frail body fit for combat, kept England restrained, which he needed to do as neither James Pattinson nor Ashton Agar were able to bowl a consistent line and length. But without Smith's late intervention the Australians would not have slept so easily as I hope they did.

So who's in front? If I have to make a call I'd say England, but the First Test showed that the sides are evenly matched, and the first day's play confirmed this. The weather forecast is very good - more Australian than UKish- so there should be plenty of good cricket to look forward to. 

<a href= "http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/engine/match/566933.html"> Scorecard</a>

Trivia

* Start of play was delayed by The Queen's visit 

* The Sky scorer pointed out that early in England's innings the 10,000th leg bye in Test cricket was nudged up. Think of it 

* Of the teams presented to Her Majesty only the two captains wore blazers: aren't the rank and file issued with them any more?

Back from break to see NZ hold England in check in day of 1950s style Test cricket

I've taken a break from cricket following, not only because there's been no IPL coverage apart from sketchy highlights of matches and a bit more on the emerging scandal (or series of scandals) there.


But last night I settled onto the couch and watched the first two sessions of England v NZ T1 at Lord's, which turned out to be (1) a good day for the Black Caps and (2) a throwback to the 1950s.

England (Alistair Cook) won the toss, opted to bat, and struggled against some steady NZ bowling, a lush outfield and perhaps their own defensive mindset.

4/160 from 80overs isn't the kind of batting to lure crowds through turnstiles (and perhaps to the TV screen). Yet young Trent Boult 17-7-29-2 and old(er ) Bruce Martin 24-11-37-1 had reason to be pleased, even though Martin's missed c&b from Jonathan Trott before he'd scored was a big blot on an otherwise clean NZ fielding sheet.

Slow batting, slow outfield, rain forecast: are these the ingredients of a draw?

I predicted (to myself) that on home turf England would reverse their modest achievements in the recent Antipodean series. But after T1D1 a 2-0 result looks less likely. For what it's worth I reckon England are better placed than 4/160 suggests. If Matt Prior can hit out and the rain keep away England may yet win. On the other hand if the Black Caps can persist and play four or so more days like the first (a big ask IMO) who knows what might happen?

England 4/180 (80ov) v New Zealand; T1/2 D1/5 at Lord's

Australia North Pakistan south in T#1

Australia 253 and 334 beat Pakistan 148 and 289 (91.1 ov, Salman Butt 92, M North 6-55, S Smith 3-51) by 150 runs: T#1/2 D4 at Lord's Australia lead series 1-0.

A glance at the scorecard suggests a comfortable win for Australia, the Cricinfo Bulletin
described it as "massive", but I thought it was closer than either of those assessments.

Pakistan, led by Salman Butt's doughty 92/173b (15x4) and supported by solid performances from the top seven, with the exception of the captain whose crossbat swipe saw him well caught on the boundary for 2/4b, fought hard. Australia's front line bowlers didn't sweep all before them. After Ben Hilfenhaus removed Azhar Ali (whose ability I'd privately questioned) for a gutsy 42/87b (4x4) Tim Paine's stumping of Butt off Marcus North's first ball of the innings tipped the psychological balance in Australia's favour though Pakistan - or most of the team - didn't throw in the towel.

North, whose bowling role in the team has fluctuated between Hobson's choice spinner and occasional part-timer, became the unlikely destroyer with 6/55 from 18.1 overs (1m). His name will be added, along with Shane Watson's, to the Lord's honour board. That Shane Warne hasn't qualified shows the limitations (absurdity?) of judging players by performances at one ground. (North is now the third occasional/ part-time bowler in this team to take 6 wickets in a Test innings.)

Steve Smith, who'd taken the only wicket on D3, bowled a tidy spell. He doesn't spin the ball as much as Warnie but should keep improving. His 3/51 will probably have more long term benefits for Australian Test cricket though it was North who provided the generous margin of victory and perhaps (though this is drawing a long bow) even the victory itself.

A word about Ricky Ponting. Another poor match with the bat at Lord's (see comment above) but a good - very good - decision to opt to bowl North ahead of Smith.

Scorecard

Cricinfo Bulletin

Fox Sports report with link to video highlights.

Pakistan batting keeps them in with a chance after Aust tail wags T1 D3

Pakistan 148 & 1/114 (37 ov, Salman Butt 58*) need 326 more runs to beat Australia 253 & 334 ( S Katich 83, B Hilfenhaus 56*,Umar Gul 4-61) T#1/2 D3 at Lord's.

Australia should win, but will they? A better second innings was founded on yet another underpinning by Simon Katich 83/174b (14x4) and the unexpected bonus of a maiden Test 50 (and highest first class score) by Ben Hilfenhaus 56*/84b (6x4, 1x6). Tim Paine compiled 47/85b (3x4) , while each of the other middle and lower order batters - Mitchell Johnson , Marcus North, Steve Smith and Doug Bollinger- reached double figures.

The sun came out so it's fair to say that conditions favoured batting, and it wasn't only Australia who benefited.

The Pakistan second innings batting to date has made their 440 - now 326 - target look not so much impossible (as history suggests) as unlikely. Salman Butt 58*/118b (9x4)is looking good (as he usually does) and solidly determined (as he often does). The first session on D4 will be very interesting. If the outcome of the match isn't pretty clear by lunch then Australia will be in trouble. Which isn't to say that they'll lose (only that I may have to stay up and watch more play).

Scorecard

Cricinfo Bulletin

Fox Sports report with link to video highlights.

Watson's bowling (not batting) gives Australia edge T2D2

Australia 253 (S Katich 80, M Hussey 56*, Mohammad Aamer 4/72) and 4/100 (29.3 ov, S Katich 49*) lead Pakistan 148 (40.5 ov, Salman Butt 63, S Watson 5/40) by 205 runs with 6 second inns wkts left: T#1/2 D2 at Lord's.

Shane Warne observed, a tad ruefully, from the TV commentary box that he'd never taken more than 4 wickets in an innings in a Lord's Test. He did give due credit to Shane Watson, nowadays billed as an opening bat who bowls a bit, for (my words) throwing away the script and demolishing the Pakistan middle order with 5/40 from 7.5 overs.

Only some stern resistance from Salman Butt 63/94b (12x4) and a characteristic T20 style 31/15b (4x4, 2x6) from captain Shahid Afridi (playing his first Test for 4 years) took Pakistan to 148 after Australia's last pair had taken the teams total to 253.

105 looked a very good lead in the situation, but the first two days been played in quintessentially English conditions, an irony which some of the players on each side would appreciate. Of course quintessentially English conditions aren't always present even in that country's high mid summer so if the sun really comes out, who knows what might happen. Not everyone would agree with the Fox Sports report headline "Mohammad Asif and Umar Gul keep Pakistan in Test with late wickets" but IMO it's not too far fetched.

Let's hope for a full day's play. If that happens the match could well be decided today.

Scorecard

Cricinfo Bulletin

Fox Sports report with link to video highlights.

Pakistan gain edge as Tuesday Test starts

Australia 9/229 (70 ov, S Katich 80) v Pakistan, T1/2 D1 at Lord's

Security considerations have determined that Pakistan are the nominal home team for this two match series which began on Tuesday (is this the first time that a Test match - at least one involving Australia - has begun on that day of the week?)

To my surprise, the Pakistan bowlers generally bowled as if they'd played most of their cricket in England, so well did they use the conditions at Lord's after Shahid Afridi won the toss and (as they say nowadays) "chose to field" .

Mohammad Aameer (18-2-66-3) and Mohammad Asif (17-5-53-3) kept Australia in check for much of the short day. The former took the crucial early wickets of Shane Watson and an out of sorts (by his standards) looking Ricky Ponting, while the latter broke the only substantial partnership on the stroke of tea when he had Michael Clarke lbw for a measured 47/77b (8x4). He followed up soon after the interval when he had Simon Katich caught behind for a characteristically gritty 80/138 (9x4) and then bowled Marcus North for a duck.

2/171 thus became 5/174, and it didn't improve as Umar Gul put Tim Paine out of his misery and Danish Kaneria removed Steven Smith and Mitchell Johnson, from both of whom good things with the bat had been expected, cheaply. Mike Hussey is hanging in there for 39*/75b (5x4, 1x6) but from this position even 250 would look a good score.

If the conditions continue to be bowler-friendly Australia may not be as perilously positioned as they appear to be at the moment. If the rain forecast for each of the next few days materialises then a draw can't be ruled out, either.


Scorecard

Cricinfo Bulletin.

Fox Sports report with link to video highlights.

Australia take series as England again underperform

Australia 3/221 (43.4 ov, M Clarke 62*, T Paine 51) def England 220 (46.3 0v, A Strauss 63, B Lee 5/49) ODI #4 at Lords. Australia lead series 4-0.

Looked like a glorious day at Lord's. Good bowling from the Australians, especially Brett Lee in the final overs, saw England, Andrew Strauss again the exception, underperform with the bat.

With Ricky Ponting restored to the team 220 was never going to be enough and so, though the skipper didn't match his opposite number his 48 plus Michael Clarke (who is improving with each innings in the series) and Tim Paine's contributions saw their side home in a canter.


Scorecard

Australian late batting surge provides margin of safety: ODI #2

Australia 8/249 (50 ov, C Ferguson 55) defeated England 210 (46.1 ov, P Collingwood 56) by 39 runs. Australia lead series 2-0: ODI #2 at Lord's.

A low scoring, by the standards of modern ODIs, saw Australia recover modestly from 3/73, stutter to 6/179 then surge T20 style in the last five overs to reach 8/249. Callum Ferguson's 55 (58b, 5x4) kept the momentum going before Mitchell Johnson's 43* (23b, 5x4) last overs flourish gave Australia more hope.

England began purposefully but after Ravi Bopara was out at 74, the innings followed a similar pattern to their opponents', except that there was no Johnson to redeem the top order's shortcomings. Andrew Strauss looked as if he might do do but with the total 85 he hit an ultrasoft return catch to Nathan Hauritz for 47 (53 b, 6x4). Paul Collingwood had his scratchy moments but hung on for 56 (84b, 3x4) to give England a chance if someone could stay with him. Which no one did.

Scorecard .

1-0 to England: Ashes 09 T2 D5

England 425 and 6/311 dec beat Australia 215 and 406 (107 ov, M Clarke 136, B Haddin 80, M Johnson 63, A Flintoff 5/92, G Swann 4/87) by 115 runs: Ashes T2 D2 at Lord's.

England were on top pretty well throughout the match and deserved to win. Congratulations to them.

The 115 run margin was, if closer than looked likely on D4 when Australia were 5/128 in their second innings, undeniably emphatic. As the first England win at Lord's in an Ashes Test since 1934 the victory will give the team an additional morale boost.

On D5 neither Brad Haddin nor Michael Clarke was able to carry on from where they left off the evening before: Haddin was caught in the slips off Andrew Flintoff without adding to his overnight 80 (130b/ 10x4) or his team's 313, while Clarke added only 11 to his tally before Graeme Swann bowled him for 136 (227b/14x4). Mitchell Johnson's aggressive 63 (75b/9x4) featured some strong hitting and driving but but itself was never going to get Australia home. Flintoff bowled throughout the session to finish with 5/92; he was well if less ostentatiously supported by Swann's 4/87.

Flintoff won the Player of the Match Award, though as our former PM John Howard astutely observed during a guest spot on today's ABC RN Breakfast, England won the game on the back of Andrew Strauss' 161 and good bowling from Jimmy Anderson and the other quicks which skittled Australia for a paltry first inngs 215.

Where to from here?

Australia have the job in front of them to regroup before T3. There will be much discussion about what changes should be made: should Johnson, or Phillip Hughes or both, be dropped are some of the more important questions. I think that room must be made for Stuart Clark unless he performs poorly in the 3 day match at Northhampton. He can (or should be able to) provide the nagging accuracy which makes it harder for batters to break into a gallop.

England have a few issues of their own, eg can Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen keep fit enough to contribute as the former has and the latter should in first two Tests? Winning two of the three remaining Tests to recover the Ashes is a big ask, but not an impossible task.

Scorecard

PS British Airways and Qantas are offering 425 UK - Sydney flights for 215 pounds each . (thanks to my daughter for drawing my attention to this).

Clarke - Haddin partnership raises hopes of Aust win: Ashes 09 T2 D4

England 425 and 6/311 dec v Australia 215 and 5/313 (86 ov, M Clarke 125*, B Haddin 80*) Australia require another 209 runs with 5 wickets remaining . Ashes 09 T2 D4 at Lord's.

Thanks to Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin's unfinished 6th wicket partnership of 185 the second Test has gone into the fifth day and Australia against all expectations (and the run of the play) is still in with a chance. A slender chance yes, and one which I didn't expect to emerge from a disastrous Australian top order batting performance. Not to mention some poor umpiring: it beggars belief that a top international umpire could fail to pick up the palpable no ball with which Andrew Flintoff dismissed Simon Katich.

The stylish Clarke 125* (198b/ 13 x4) and the ebullient (and occasionally flashy) Haddin 80* (126b/10x4) batted superbly. They have set up another day's (or night's in these parts) mandatory viewing.

The key question is "can Australia win from here?" I don't think so: even if the pitch remains true it's asking a lot for the remaining batters to scrap (or, in Clarke's case, stroke) their
team to victory. But if they get within 100 runs that will show that the team is capable of landing a heavy punch on England.

Scorecard

England grind Australia down: Ashes 09 T2 D3

England 425 and 6/311 (71.2 ov, M Prior 61, P Collingwood 54) lead Australia 215 ( J Anderson 4/55) by 521 runs with 4 second inns wkts in hand and 2 days to play: Ashes T2 D2 at Lord's.



Game over? After a day when England chose not to enforce the follow on, batted circumspectly until tea (2/130), then let fly to build a lead of 521 before rain stopped play, is there any other conclusion which a reasonably knowledgeable (and not too one eyed) cricket follower could draw?

The central fact is that England have outplayed Australia for the entire match and deserve to win. Australia may have a good batting lineup but its attack, especially given Mitchell Johnson's loss of form, is thin, very thin, as the match Scorecard confirms.

Disclosure: I had an early night, so I only watched the Sky/ Fox highlights of the second and third sessions.

Australian batting implodes: Ashes 09 T2 D2

Australia 8/156 (49ov, M Hussey 51, J Anderson 4/36) trail England 425 (101.4 ov, A Strauss 161, A Cook 95, B Hilfenhaus 4/107) by 269 runs with 2 second inns wickets in hand: Ashes 09 T2 D2 at Lord's)

The low point, if it can be called that, of England's day came at the outset when Andrew Strauss was out without adding to his overnight score. His individual 161 (268b/22x4) turned out to be more than the first 8 Australian wickets, in a stunning form reversal from Cardiff, could muster.

Yes, the conditions may have been more favourable for quick bowlers than at Cardiff, yes there may have been a contentious dismissal or two, but the fact remains that England barely faltered in amassing what should be an impregnable position.

The only two Australian batters who showed any form were Mike Hussey, who'd missed out in the First Test, 51 (91b/8x4) and Simon Katich 48 (93b/ 6x4).

Weather and bad light cut the day short, and may do so for the next three scheduled ones but it's hard to see Australia, despite Hussey's positive spin in the post play media conference, getting out of this one without a heavy defeat.

Scorecard .

England dominate early, surrender initiative later: Ashes 09 T2 D1

England 6/364 (90 ov, A Strauss 161*, A Cook 95) v Australia: Ashes Test #2 Day 1 at Lord's

Andrew Strauss and Alistair Cook took advantage of some abominable Australian bowling, much of it from Mitchell Johnson, and slack fielding to race to 0/126 at lunch from 27 overs. Johnson's propensity to bowl short outside off stump helped first Strauss then Cook accelerate.

It was a surprise, not least to Johnson, when Cook was lbw to him for 95. Thereafter the Australians regrouped (they surely couldn't have kept going in the sub-Test standard manner) and gradually worked their way through the middle order. The bowlers were assisted by some poor shot selection, notably by Kevin Pietersen (no excuses) and Paul Collingwood (perhaps deserving a bit of slack after his efforts at Cardiff) .

Ben Hilfenhaus was the best of the attack over the day, though Nathan Hauritz blotted his copybook and dislocated a finger when he missed a hard hit return catch at 0/154.

The pitch was true and the outfield fast yet I think England had the better of the day. I thought the same after D1 at Cardiff so will wait to see what happens before predicting a result.

Scorecard

English conditions= English supremacy

England 377 (R Bopara 143, G Swann 63*, F Edwards 6/92) and 0/ 32 defeated West Indies 152 (G Onions 5/38,G Swann 3/16)and 256 (B Nash 81,D Ramdin 66, Swann 3-39, S Broad 3-64) by 10 wickets: T#1/2 at Lord's.

OK, it wasn't just the conditions which were typical of an English May (the earliest a Test has been played there). Though they did play a big role in the convincing English victory.

The West Indies fielding was atrocious and the batting well below par, though England's batting wasn't much better.

How reliable a guide to the Ashes the performances in this match of the England successes Ravi Bopara, Graeme Swann and Graeme Onions will be remains to be seen. Bopara and Swann look good though whether Onions will be able to trouble Australian batters in July and August remains to be seen.

Scorecard .

Great ball of fire

England 7/289 (90 ov, R Bopara 118*, F Edwards 4/93) v West Indies: T#1 D1 at Lord's.

Fidel Edwards' first ball to Kevin Pietersen seemed to be going down the leg side but it pitched and moved away, touching the edge of the bat as it went through to keeper Ramdin, who had changed course in the nanosecond after this pic (which I took from a TV replay).

Not perhaps quite as good as the famous Warne delivery to Gatting, but pretty good nevertheless. Look out for footage on TV and/or YouTube.




For me this was the highlight of a day in which England, after being sent in by the West Indies, made 7/289 from 90 overs. This is not to overlook Ravi Bopara's 118*, which may well turn out to be the highlight of the match and perhaps, if he continues in similar vein, of the summer .

Fidel Edwards carried the West Indies bowling but was badly supported in the field - at least six catches, few of them difficult, went down in the latter part of the day.

On paper the match looks even but conditions favour the bowlers, so if England can add a few more runs they should be well situated.

Scorecard