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

Watson's 176 gives Australia honours against England attack of uneven quality: T5, D1

Australia 4/307 (90ov, Watson 176/247b/1x6,25x4, Smith 66*/133b/1x6, 9x4) v England; T5/5 D1/5 at The Oval, London. Australia won toss and chose to bat.

But for Shane Watson answering his critics in the best possible way ( and from no 3 at that) Australia would be in a much less comfortable position than they are.

I was sceptical about the changes to the Australian team.  Mitchell Starc for Jackson Bird was fine, though James Faulkner, described by several  commentators as a bowling allrounder, for Usman Khawaja, the formervno3 was not easy to fathom. 

Yet Watson, after being tried as an opener and no6 in this series, stepped back to no3 and has made it his own with an innings of characteristic positive stroke play. The difference this time was that he batted on and on, struggling a little in the 90s, but eventually crossing the century threshold, and continuing from there. (In.another reversal of previous form the DRS reprieved him from another appallingly wrong lbw decision from Umpire Dharmasena).

England were two (or at best one and a half) bowlers short. Neither of their debutants, Chris Woakes  Simon Kerrigan, looked Test class, especially alongside the old stagers Jimmy Anderson, Stuart Broad and especially Graeme Swann who had to bowl more than they'd have wished. Anderson returned to something near his best form though Swann, after Kerrigan's embarrassing Bryce McGain-like Test debut 8-0-58-0 (I reckon I'd have done better than him and I never bowled my left arm spin higher than Adelaide Turf and English village cricket) had to bowl more defensively.

So it was definitely Australia's day, but if Watson had been caught at slip off a hard but catchable chance, they would have been 4/151 and clearly frittering away the opportunity to build a score on a good wicket against bowling of widely varying quality.

For most of the day England kept themselves if not in, then not far out of the game. They did so by, Watson's let off excepted, taking a wicket just as it looked as if they were fading. Steve Smith has batted well in his fidgety-aggressive style, and he will need to shepherd the others to take even fuller advantage of batting first and England's shortcomings.

<a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/engine/match/566936.html">Scorecard</a>

Sun shines at Lord's on England as Australia fall under dark batting clouds of their own making: Ashes 2013 T2 D2

England 361(100.1ov, Bell 109, Bairstow 67, Trott 58, Harris 26-6-72-5, Smith 3/18)

 & 3/31 (20ov, Siddle 3/4) lead Australia 128 (53.30v, Watson 30, Swann 21.3-5-44-5) by 264 runs with seve 2nd inns wickets in hand; T2/5 D2/5 at Lord's, London.

Make no mistake about this: England may have lost 6 wickets on the day, but Australia lost ( or surrendered) 10 for a paltry response which has almost certainly left the Ashes in England's grasp.

The England last wicket wagged a bit - Stuart Broad 33/29b/1x6,5x4 and Graeme Swann 28*/26b/5x4, adding a handy 48 for the last wicket. 

When Australia batted Shane Watson and Chris Rogers initially held a feisty England attack at bay without troubling the scorers much. Then Watson played some exquisite off drives to move to 30 before he fell lbw (confirmed by review) to Tim Bresnan on the stroke of lunch. 

Australia 1/42 at lunch self-destructed to 7/96 at tea. 

It pains me to describe the dismal sequence of events, so I won't, except to draw attention to the bizarre lbw decision ( not reviewed) against Rogers: a loose, dropping full toss from Swann (which if bowled by a subcontinental bowler would surely have raised eyebrows among those concerned about spot betting). It wasn't out, but there was no review as Australia (no names mentioned here) frittered away its DRS opportunities.

Enough said...for now.

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

England keep ODI series alive with comfortable win at Adelaide

England 8/299 (50 0v, J Trott 102, M Prior 67, D Hussey 4/21, S Smith 3/33) def Australia 7/278 (50 0v, S Watson 64) by 21 runs: ODI #4/7 at Adelaide Oval. Australia lead series 3-1.

For various reasons I haven't watched a lot of cricket since the Ashes Tests, but yesterday I went to the Adelaide Oval to see if Australia could wrap up the seven match series with a fourth consecutive victory. They couldn't, and England won comfortably - far more comfortably than a margin of 21 runs suggests. But at least the match lasted longer than the 59 over 2007 match , ie into the night.

Andrew Strauss won the toss and, not surprisingly given a warm (29deg C), sunny day and a good pitch, chose to bat.

Brett Lee's first over went for 12 (in 2007 he'd bowled 8 for 8 runs and 2 wickets) and while in his second he made amends of sorts when Strauss edged him to the keeper. 1/23 from 17 balls was evidence of England's intentions and the waywardness of Australia's bowling. Jonathon Trott joined Matt Prior, who having, at the third attempt, opened his account for the series, continued to punish the bowling. Trott didn't waste too many opportunities but built his innings more methodically than his partner who posted his 50 with a six off Lee.

While Michael Clarke switched the four quicker bowlers around none of them looked especially penetrative There were a couple of run out chances which the Australians missed (neither side was at its best in the hitting the stumps department), otherwise the score mounted and a 300+ total looked more and more likely as the 100 was posted in 15 overs.

Xavier Doherty then came on. He conceded only 1 one in his first over, encouraging Clarke to throw the ball to Steven Smith, who bowled one scratchy over for 9 runs before Prior cut the first ball of his second to point. Prior's 67/58b (1x6, 8x4) out of 136 from 22.1 overs was as good a launching pad as could have been expected, and there was plenty more batting to come.

But as Doherty bowled steadily at one end for 10 straight overs for 44 Smith struck again...and again, as Kevin Pietersen hit a catch to long on and Ian Bell came down the wicket to his second ball and was smartly caught behind by Brad Haddin.

4/158 wasn't quite what the ideal England script would have read, but it weasn't bad either, espeically Trott was still there moving along at his own pace (which wasn't as slow as some had thought). Eoin Morgan joined him and together, as Clarke shuffled the quick bowlers, they kept moving things along. Then, when we were wondering when (or even whether) David Hussey would be given a bowl, he came on for the 40th over of the innings, during which he induced Trott, who'd perhaps relaxed after reaching his century, to edge a turning ball onto his stumps. Trott's 102/126b (6x4) was a masterly innings of quiet aggression which confirmed England's superiority.

Hussey struck again with the first ball of his second over, having Morgan caught at point/ square leg reverse sweeping. 6/227 and Australia were at last in with a chance of restricting England to well under 300.

But Clarke took Hussey (2/3 from 2 overs) off and brought Lee and Doug Bollinger back. Neither had hitherto bowled well, and nor did they improve much as Paul Collingwood 27/27b (1x6, 2x4) and Michael Yardy 39*/27b (6x4) made hay under the floodlights. This was a failure on Clarke's part to read the game: in the more leisurely atmosphere of a Test match it would have been fine, but here, where spin had held England if not in check then under greater restraint, he should have given Hussey another over or two, Powerplay or imminent innnigs end notwithstanding.

As it happened the quicker bowlers continued in their expensive vein so he had to come back , and took two more wickets, finishing with the surprising (though not entirely undeserved ) analysis of 4-0-21-4. The three slow bowlers collectively bowled 21 overs and took 7/98 whereas the four quick ones bowled 29 0vers for 1/197. Enough said?

300 looked beyond Australia's grasp, though they gave it a reasonable shot and at least gave the scorecard the illusion of a close finish. But in the first phase a slow run rate, with the first 100 taking 30 balls longer than England's (120 v 90 b), and the loss of three wickets, including yet another modest score by Clarke, put England in control. Its quick bowling was tighter than Australia's (Jimmy Anderson bowled the only maiden of the contest) and if Yardy's slow-medium darts were milked, Collingwood and, surprisingly, Trott with their gently probing medium pace prevented any breakaway, and took 3 wickets between them.

From this point a Shane Watson century was Australia's best hope. But on this, as on other occasions (and he shouldn't be criticised for this: at least he's scoring runs), it wasn't forthcoming for at 116 he was caught behind off Ajmal Shahzad for a worthy 64/72b (1x6, 5x4).

Neither Cameron White, despite his big hitting reputation, nor David Hussey were able to move things along. They spent some time playing themselves in before falling to Trott. White's 44/64b was especially disappointing: he rarely looked in command and only hit two fours.

After they were out Smith played aggressively, but not aggressively enough to haul the asking rate back to where a final overs tilt at the total might have been feasible. After John Hastings went cheaply (IMO Dan Christian has a better claim on his place: maybe not as good a bowler but a more punishing lower order batter), Lee (who should have gone in ahead of Hastings) 39*/32b (5x4) and Smith 46*/47b (4x4) added 78 in the last 10 overs in what became, as the possibility of victory faded, centre wicket practice.

The metaphorical fireworks required for Australia to snatch an improbable victory didn't eventuate before the real fireworks commemorating Australia Day brought proceedings to a close. .

A good game, which showed many of the best features of 50 over cricket. There were few controversies and the umpires controlled the game well. It was good to see Simon Fry, with whom I played cricket many years ago, umpiring his first ODI after many years as fourth umpire.

The overlong 7 match series is not yet over. On this occasion England looked a more complete team than Australia, but the gap between them isn't wide enough to make the results of the last three games easy to predict.

Scorecard

Fox Sports report with link to video highlights.

14 wickets in day, though late Australian revival sets up tight finish : T1 D4

India 405 & 4/55 (17ov) need 161 more runs with 6 wkts in hand to beat Australia 428 & 192 (60.5 ov, S Watson 57): T1/2 D4/5 at Mohali.

Another intriguing day's cricket with some good batting and a lot of good bowling saw India wrest the initiative from Australia before, chasing what looked like an achievable target, they faltered again. Tomorrow should see one side win: a draw (though not a tie) is out of the question.

For a time, as Shane Watson piled on and Simon Katich accumulated runs, it looked as if Australia would build a substantial lead. But when, with the total 87, Watson played on to Ishant Sharma the wheels began to fall off Australia's innings. The captain (another failed pull shot) and vice-captain (bamboozled by Sharma) fell cheaply while Katich held the fort. Mike Hussey contributed to the defence but after Katich fell for 37/118b (2x4) at 137 India's grip tightened as the bowlers made it hard for the middle and lower order to score.

Zaheer Khan delivered the coup de grace with two great balls which accounted for Nathan Hauritz and Ben Hilfenhaus. This left Australia, having lost 10/105, with a disappointing 192 and India a target of 216. Watson's 56/59b (1x6, 7x4) was the highest score of the innings (and the day). The wicket didn't play easily but Watson showed that many of its demons could be, if not cast out, then tamed.

About this time Cricinfo's Facebook page reported

"It's all happening in Mohali ... Australia have lost wickets in a heap and it is India who are on top."

Hubris gave way to a partial nemesis as Australia fought back to have India 4/55 at stumps. Ben Hilfenhaus may have been lucky to get Gautam Gambhir lbw for a duck (one of several questionable umpiring decisions from a pair who hitherto had been pretty good) but he and the other bowlers kept the pressure on. Virender Sehwag (a modest, by his standards 17/23b) , Rahul Dravid and Suresh Raina couldn't reproduce their first innings form.

But Sachin Tendulkar is still there with a watchful 10*/25 (1x4). M S Dhoni and the injured V V S Laxman (beware the injured batsman?) are still to come so India should not be written off.. just yet.

Scorecard .

Fox Sports report and link to video .

Times of India report

Cricinfo Bulletin .

India in hot pursuit of Australia's 428: T1D2

India 2/110 (21 ov, V Sehwag 59) trail Australia 428 (151.4 ov, S Watson 126, T Paine 92, R Ponting 71, Zaheer Khan 5/94) by 318 runs with 8.1st innings wickets in hand. T1/2 D2/5 at Mohali.

Australia probably did as well, if not a little better, with the bat than they would have expected at the start of the day's play, reaching 428 with a combination of grit and aggression. In the last session India came out pugnaciously, scoring at 5.23 runs an over (cf Australia's 2.82) putting the wind up their opponents before two late wickets shifted the advantage back to Australia.

In the first session Australia added 1/74, though lost Shane Watson for an extremely accomplished (notwithstanding that second ball chance) 126/338b (10x4).

Tim Paine was batting with more assurance and with Mitchell Johnson added 82 from 20overs before Johnson was caught behind off Zaheer Khan, clearly the best Indian bowler over the innings, for an ebullient 47/66b (3x6, 5x4).

7/357 became 10/428 as Tim Paine took over and the Indian fielding lost its zest (and some of the bowling its accuracy). Having done the hard yards and moved within sight of a century Paine was caught in the slips for an initially gritty, subsequently more fluent, 92/196 (12x4) which put Australia on top. At least for the moment .

Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir began well , the former batting fearlessly, the latter more circumspectly, long enough to worry (though not rattle Australia). Yet both were out before stumps to Johnson: Gambhir lbw for 21/45b (2x4), Sehwag miscueing for 59/54b (10x4).

While Australia are in the better position it's still relatively early in the match. How will India's strong batting respond? Does Australia have the bowling to dismiss them twice?

I feel that India have made it easier for Australia, most notably by dropping Watson from the second ball of the match. but the match is still there for the taking. A draw is also still a possibility as the pitch doesn't seem to have deteriorated: it played better than on D1.


Scorecard

Fox Sports report & link to video highlights

Cricinfo Bulletin

Classic Test cricket: Aust on top early but India claw back to gain ascendancy T1D1

Australia 5/224 (90ov, S Watson 101*, R Ponting 71, Z Khan 3/45) v India T1/2 D1/5 at Mohali.

A day of quintessential Test cricket.

First acknowledge Shane Watson, who rode his good fortune of being dropped at second slip from the second ball of the match to underpin Australia's modest 5/224 with 101*/279b (8x4) .

Then note how the match developed:

Session 1: 1/101, 28 ov
Session 2: 2/78, 29 ov
Session 3: 3/45, 33 ov.

Ricky Ponting's 71/124b (10x4) was the connoisseur's choice though Watson's persistence and extra 30 runs will count for more at the end.

The Indian fielding was sloppy at first - some of the batting legends were lead legged - but recovered when Suresh Raina ran out Ponting and took the wind out of Australia's sails.

Pragyan Ohja's slow left arm bowling spun occasionally and kept the visitors in something like check before Zaheer Khan came back in the last session to take a couple of vital wickets and give India the upper hand.

The wicket kept low, which doesn't augur well for the side batting last, and Ishant Sharma is injured so to stay in the game India will need to take the last five Australian wickets cheaply and use its batting firepower to post a competitive total, which IMO would be a lead of 150+.

Scorecard

Fox Sports report (inc video highlights)

Cricinfo Bulletin

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.

Katich leads Australia's methodical buildup

Australia 231 & 4/333 (114 ov, S Katich 106, M Hussey 67 S Watson 65) lead New Zealand 264 by 300 runs with 6 second innings wickets in hand T2D3 at Hamilton

Simon Katich's Test cricket style 106/279b (12x4) underpinned Australia's solid progression towards a position of considerable strength. All the other batters except for Ricky Ponting supported him: Hussey mirroring Katich's strike rate, Watson, Clarke and North driving a gear or two higher. The NZ attack was, as NZ attacks often are, honest rather than penetrative: it's hard to see the (also honest) NZ batting chasing down what looks like more than 400 in the 4th innings.

Scorecard

Cricinfo Bulletin

Feeble West Indies succumb again to disciplined Australia

Australia 2/171 (26.3 ov, R Ponting 57*, S Watson 53) def West Indies 170 (39.4 ov, D Smith 43, D Bollinger 4/28) by 8 wickets: ODI#2 at Adelaide Oval. Australia lead series 2-0

Hot weather was forecast for Adelaide, and hot it was: the temperature stayed in the high 30s all day; and the wind blew hot from several directions, including the south west, which is normally from where cooler breezes blow.

I arrived early and had no difficulty getting a seat in the shade under the Moreton Bay figs. Further evidence of the temperature was given immediately after the toss (which West Indies won) when match referee Javagal Srinath strode off the ground not breaking the purposeful stride (which I recall from his days as a spearhead of India's attack) while removing his suit jacket and revealing a short sleeved shirt underneath. Wise man.

And the match itself? The result was determined quickly, if not from the first ball when Chris Gayle was lbw to Doug Bollinger, then soon after when the Windies were 4/16 (Bollinger 3/5 from 5 overs) on a good (is there any other kind?) Les Burdett pitch.

Things couldn't get any worse but they didn't get much better for the visitors either. Some of the middle order got a start and Dwayne Smith with 43/63b (only 2x4 but one straight driven 6 which landed four rows back near the sightboard - one of the longest hits I've seen at Adelaide) led a revival of sorts to 170 all out from 39.4 overs. Perhaps the calls to reduce ODIs to 40 overs a side are designed to even things up even more?

The last two WI wickets were impressive demonstrations of Australia's prowess. Ricky Ponting ran out Ravi Rampaul with a direct hit and next ball Mike Hussey ran perhaps 40 metres then dived to catch Smith.

An early finish meant a long break between innings, which seemed silly in the circumstances. But of course there were the TV schedules to consider. I expect many viewers looked elsewhere for their evening's entertainment: not many spectators augmented the thin numbers who'd braved the heat (and in some instances the overzealous security and police). Despite what many others said I thought given the weather, the one sided contest and that it was a working (and school) day, that 8,378 was not a bad attendance, even if it was the lowest ever for an ODI featuring Australia at Adelaide.

Those of us who stayed watched Australia sweep (and pull and drive) the West Indies attack aside in 26.3 overs (and 109 minutes). The visitors played like losers - there were no Ponting or Hussey moments in the field - but this doesn't detract from Shane Watson's 53/50b (2x6, 7x4) and Ponting's 57/55b (2x6, 8x4).


Scorecard

Australia looking down barrel despite Pakistan fumblings: T2 D3

Australia 127 and 8/286 (87ov, S Watson 97, M Hussey 73*, Danish Kaneria 4/117) lead Pakistan 333 by 80 runs with 2 2nd inns wkts in hand: T2 D3 at SCG

It didn't take long for Doug Bollinger to take his fourth, and Pakistan's last, wicket giving him 4/72 and the visitors a lead of 206 on the first innings.

When Shane Watson and Phil Hughes started Australia's reply they had a couple of tentative moments and, in Watson's case, a let off, but settled in to bat more assuredly than they'd done in the first innings. For a time a combination of good batting, loose bowling and sloppy fielding made it seem as if the vigorous Australian response many were expecting would wipe off the deficit with relative ease.

But when after lunch Hughes was caught off his own bowling by Danish Kaneria for 37 the wheels wobbled. 1/105 became 3/199 (including Ricky Ponting for a modest 11) at tea. Then they fell off to 8/257 before Mike Hussey, the beneficiary of some slapdash wicketkeeping, and Peter Siddle effected a minor repair job and restored a smidgin of respectability to the Australian total. But a lead of 86, even on a wearing D4 pitch, should not raise local hopes too much. Pakistan should win tomorrow, and deservedly so.

Scorecard

At last a century (for both Australia and Watson): T1 D4

Pakistan 258 & 3/170(45 ov) require 252 runs with 7 wickets in hand to beat Australia 5/454d and 8/225d (73.1 ov, S Watson120*, Mohammad Aamer 5/79) : T1 D3 at MCG.

The obvious highlight of a day in which Australia continued to move towards victory over a dogged Pakistan was Shane Watson's first Test century, which was also the first by any Australian this season.

If you've seen the TV highlights of the day's play you'll be aware that Watson was extremely fortunate not to be caught in the gully off the 186th ball he faced, and fortunate enough to score from the subsequent fumble the run he needed to bring up his century.

120*/220b (1x6, 10x4) out of 8/225 speaks for itself. Now, I wonder, will we stop hearing Watson described as a "stand in" or "makeshift" opener? There are good reasons why, as an allrounder, he should bat down the order but why tag him with these labels which are now (and have been since T2 against the West Indies) plain wrong.

While I doubt whether anyone seriously believes that Pakistan can win or even draw this Test, the visitors have shown flashes of pugnacity and resolution which I didn't expect of them, especially after their modest performances in New Zealand. In Australia's second innings Mohammad Aamer's 5/79 showed that he, like Umar Gul with the bat, is one several positive signs for the on field future of Pakistan cricket.

Scorecard

Australia sort of comfortable against below par Pakistan: T1 D1

Australia 3/305 (90 ov, S Katich 98, S Watson 93, R Ponting 57) v Pakistan: T1 D1 at MCG

A good day for team Australia if a slightly disappointing one for Shane Watson and Simon Katich. Both were out - yet again - in the 90s, after putting on 182 for the first wicket against some modest Pakistan bowling and frequently slapdash fielding. No doubt the kerfuffle which produced the run out will be shown on TV and YouTube (follow the link below to watch the Foxtel highlights if you're in Australia). TV adjudication was required to send Watson, the crowd's preferred survivor, on his way for 93/191 b (11x4) .

Katich had started less confidently, was dropped early, but rode his luck well enough to nudge his way yet again to the brink of a century before being caught at backward point, where he'd been dropped early on, for 98/226b (5x4).

Ricky Ponting had cast aside any doubts about his fitness and took his place in the side. After winning the toss and electing to bat on what looked like a good typical MCG drop in wicket he came to the wicket with 182 on the board and peeled off a quickfire 57/60b (7x4), latterly in partnership with an assured looking Mike Hussey who on 38* is well placed to resume on D2 with nightwatchman Nathan Hauritz, another who had a temporary cloud over his fitness before play.

Pakistan were disadvantaged by an injury to leg spinner Danish Kaneria, who was in good form in the recent series v New Zealand. Unlike Ponting and Hauritz he was left out. Whether it was also wise to omit Umar Gul, who was not in good form in New Zealand, remains to be seen. His replacement Abdur Rauf didn't exactly set the world on fire today.

Australia can feel comfortable, well sort of comfortable, with today's effort. It would irritate the team that the curse of the 90s has struck in so many ways this season, but 99.99% of cricketers at all levels would, once they'd regrouped after being dismissed, be pleased enough with a score in the 90s.


Scorecard

Still no century but Australia comfortable after D1

Australia 3/339 (90ov, S Katich 99, S Watson 89, M Hussey 81*) v West Indies T3 D1 at WACA Ground Perth

Simon Katich and Shane Watson again got Australia off to a cracking start, but as here in Adelaide neither was able to notch a century. Watson was caught behind for a belligerent 89/130b (15x4) while Katich, for the second time in Tests was dismissed for 99, on this occasion caught at square leg from 177b (10x4), Nevertheless their contributions, and that of Mike Hussey who looked much better than at Adelaide in making 81*/155b (10x4), offset the cheap dismissal of Michael Clarke and the retirement of Ricky Ponting with an injured elbow.

Much has been said about injuries to key players on each side. Shiv Chanderpaul and Adrian Barath couldn't take the field for the Windies whereas Australia only lost Peter Siddle from their Adelaide XI. With relative unknown Clint McKay making his debut Australia's attack is far from its strongest though the loss of two top order opposition batsmen should make their collective task easier.

The West Indies attack was, not surprisingly on a first day WACA wicket, more steady than penetrative. Gavin Tonge who'd been talked up (and not only by his own side) as a quick bowling prospect was disappointing on his Test debut though Kemar Roach continued to look good.

Key question for D2, or session one thereof: will Mike Hussey make a century?

Scorecard

I was wrong again: West Indies revival puts Australia under pump

West Indies 451 and 0/23 (4 ov) lead Australia 438 (131.1 ov, S Watson 96, S Katich 80,M Clarke 71, B Haddin 55*, S Benn 5/155) by 35 runs with 10 second innings wickets in hand: T2 D3 at Adelaide Oval.

From the second ball of the day, with which Sulieman Benn bowled Shane Watson for his overnight 96/148b (16x4) Australia moved towards the 451 required for a first innings lead. On the evidence of D2 and T1 I, like others including coach Tim Nielsen (who'd talked up the chances of an innings victory) expected them to achieve this goal comfortably.

But it didn't happen. The West Indies attack, the sharp edge of which consisted of Sulieman Benn (5/155) and Kemar Roach (3/93), kept sufficient pressure on to prevent a major partnership from developing and, crucially, induced several well set batsmen, notably Simon Katich (80) , Ricky Ponting (36) and Michael Clarke (71) into error while making Michael Hussey (41) look out of touch.

The consequences? For Australia, no century maker, a small first innings deficit and a sense of deflation after the euphoria (hubris?) of D2 and T1. For the West Indies, renewed confidence in their abilities and, as the 0/23 comfortably taken from the day's final four overs suggested, perhaps a sense of possibility. There are two days to go, and the latest weather forecast includes rain late tomorrow and on Tuesday, so a draw now looks more possible. To my mind the major problem facing the Windies is whether their attack is strong enough to dismiss Australia a second time. Benn (53 overs) and Roach (25.1) will be sore tonight after their efforts. It will be hard though not impossible (apart from expecting Benn to wheel off anything like another 53 overs) for them to repeat their efforts in Australia's second innings but they will need more support, if only in the form of consistent line and length, from the other bowlers.

Elsewhere, at Mumbai India completed their trouncing of Sri Lanka and moved to no1 in the world Test rankings , while at Wellington Pakistan levelled the series by defeating New Zealand

Draw confirms Australia's batting strength and both sides' bowling weakness: Ashes T3 D5

Australia 263 and 5/375 (112.2 ov, M Clarke 103*, M North 96, M Hussey 64, S Watson 53) drew with England 376: Ashes 09 T3 D5 at Edgbaston

The first two sessions of play were absorbing. Australia worked their way steadily and without too many indiscretions towards a position of safety and then, as tea approached, one of some strength which could have made for an interesting result had the match been played to a finish.

Shane Watson and Mike Hussey kept the England bowlers at bay for the first hour and a bit. From the last ball of the day's 16th over (and, surprisingly, his first) Jimmy Anderson induced Watson to snick one to the keeper: 3/137. Watson's 53 (114b/9 x4) completed a good batting double and hushed the many critics who thought he was no Test opener.

Michael Clarke looked assured from the outset. This was just as well, for not long after his arrival Hussey, who had looked in better touch (and more assured about which balls to leave) than previously in the series, fell to Stuart Broad for 64 (130b/13x4): 4/161.

The England bowlers were steady but far from unplayable: they weren't able to swing the ball as some of them had done in the first innings. At lunch 4/172 it was clear that a considerable though not impossible improvement (like two or three quick wickets) was required to keep England in with a good chance of victory.

That didn't happen. Clarke and Marcus North, the one elegant, the other pugnaciously gritty, batted through the next session against some increasingly pedestrian bowling (Graeme Swann was especially disappointing) . During the extended afternoon session 36 overs were bowled and Australia added 121. 4/293 (Clarke 73*, North 64*) at tea was safety plus.

There were one or two wobbly Australian moments in the last session, when England needed six or seven of them (and a couple of miracles). Unfortunately for them their prospective miracle worker Andrew Flintoff listened to his stressed body and didn't bowl. He must be doubful for T4.

In the 11th over after tea North was brilliantly caught by Anderson in the gully off Broad for 96 (159b/ 15x4). This was the third and last wicket to fall in a day when 84.2 overs were bowled. When Clarke reached his century the captains called the game off, leaving him 103* (192b/14x4) and Australia 5/375, a healthy lead of 263.

So, an honourable draw. England were on top for most of the game but couldn't finish off a resolute and perhaps (though it's really too early to tell) resurgent Australia.

Yet in the series England are still ahead 1-0. Therefore the challenge for Australia will be how to maintain its batting strengths while reshaping its attack. The batting order shouldn't change, but the attack must. Lawrence Booth writing for The Guardian's The Spin succinctly states the obvious:

Are England glad Stuart Clark is serving the shandies? You bet they are.

Australian selectors please note.

Scorecard

Weakened Australia hold firm: Ashes T3 D1

Australia 1/126 (30 ov, S Watson 62*) v England Ashes 09 T3 D1 at Edgbaston.

Australia has not fielded its best available team. Stuart Clark was once again omitted. Moreover Brad Haddin withdrew with a broken finger between the toss (won by Australia) and the start of play . England sportingly allowed Graham Manou to replace him (a decision not without some self interest as an injured yet in form Haddin was potentially more dangerous, at least with the bat, than his untried deputy). The wayward Mitchell Johnson was retained (at Clark's expense) while Phillip Hughes, surprisingly, was dropped for Shane Watson, whose opening record in the longer forms of the game has been decidedly modest.

As it turned out Watson justified his selection with an impressive 62*(105b, 10x4) . He and Simon Katich put on 85 for the first wicket against an England attack which lacked the zest it had shown at Lord's. Still, 30 overs in a rain shortened day does not a Test match make, let alone give us much of a guide to the outcome. The weather may continue to play a part, even if there's provision to make up lost play over the remaining days.

Scorecard