Cook and Bell bat Australia out of match and series: T5/D3

England 7/488 (141 ov, A Cook 189, I Bell 115, A Strauss 60. M Prior 54*) lead Australia 280 by 208 runs with 3 first innings wickets in hand: T5 D3 at SCG.

England batted through the day adding 4/323 from 93 overs and by doing so snuffed out any hopes Australia might have had achieving a first innings lead or, more realistically, a relatively small deficit.

After nightwatchman Jimmy Anderson and Paul Collingwood both fell cheaply (the latter giving Michael Beer his first Test wicket). Alistair Cook and Ian Bell put England 100 in front before Cook, having been rightly reprieved on 99 by the UDRS, was out for a commanding 189/342b (16x4). Bell, who on 67 was also let off by the UDRS when perhaps the original decision should have stood, and Matt Prior, added another 107 before Bell fell for 115/232b (13x4) his first century against Australia. Prior's brisk 54*/59b (1x6, 5x4) was just right for the situation.

The Australian bowling? It was another day of honest trundling. There were a few edges but too few balls which beat the bat. Shane Watson was probably the best, and that's not saying much.

Not that I want or need to say much. England are well on course heading for another victory and series win, both of which they well deserve. I'm now going to watch a more even match: South Africa v India at Cape Town.


Scorecard

Pakistan batting falters in face of solid Australian total: T1 D2

Pakistan 4/109 (49 ov) trails Australia 5/454dec (128 ov, S Katich 98, S Watson 53, M Hussey 82, N Hauritz 75, R Ponting 57) by 345 runs with 6 first innings wicket in hand: T1 D2 at MCG.

A very one sided and not especially memorable day's play.

There wasn't even an Australian century to celebrate despite Bill Lawry's prediction that Mike Hussey, 82 at the time, would score one. Alas Lawry's claim was the kiss of death for Hussey, who was lbw (confirmed on review by UDRS) without adding to his score. He faced 113b, hit 10 4s and looked in good touch (so the reasons for Lawry's prediction weren't too far fetched).

Nathan Hauritz batted on without ever looking as polished or as entrenched as Hussey or Michael Clarke, who joined him at the crease (and who probably regretted not coming in last night to take advantage of the shortcomings of the Pakistan attack) . When Hauritz was lbw for 75/152b (1x6, 8x4), his highest Test score, Ricky Ponting declared.

The Pakistan batting was of modest quality, except for Salman Butt who looked fairly comfortable until he fell lbw to Shane Watson for 45/113b (1x4). The Australian bowling was tight, conceding just over 2 runs an over, which augurs well for a home win, though probably not for exciting cricket.

Scorecard

Only 21 balls but still controversy

Australia 520/7d & 150 defeatedWest Indies 312 & 323 (94.3 ov) by 35 runs: T3 D5 at Perth. Australia win series 2-0.

21 balls and a lengthy though fruitless review of the umpire's decision was all it took to decide the match this morning. The result was not unexpected though the slender margin was, at least after the first two days.

Had video umpire Asad Rauf interpreted the guidelines anywhere near as liberally as he did in Adelaide with Shiv Chanderpaul he might have overruled Billy Bowden's decision that Kemar Roach nicked Doug Bollinger to the keeper. Certainly the replays I saw on TV were inconclusive. The

I've been flooded by emails saying that Roach should not have been given out because replays didn't show an edge. I don't think that's how it works. Bowden gave him out on the field and since replays did not prove that he didn't nick it, the on-field decision should stay. The irony is that, if Bowden had given him not out, and the Australians had asked for a review, Roach might well have been given not out after the review because replays didn't prove that he was out. It's complicated, this UDRS. I couldn't tell whether he nicked it or not. Hot Spot didn't show much, but it often doesn't pick up faint edges. This debate will rage on and on ...

They are showing Snicko now and there's a faint indication of an edge. Ever so faint, it could have been an edge, it could have been something else. I guess only Roach will really know.

The Cricinfo commentator (access via summary scorecard) agreed with me yet thought that the decision should stay:

I've been flooded by emails saying that Roach should not have been given out because replays didn't show an edge. I don't think that's how it works. Bowden gave him out on the field and since replays did not prove that he didn't nick it, the on-field decision should stay. The irony is that, if Bowden had given him not out, and the Australians had asked for a review, Roach might well have been given not out after the review because replays didn't prove that he was out. It's complicated, this UDRS. I couldn't tell whether he nicked it or not. Hot Spot didn't show much, but it often doesn't pick up faint edges. This debate will rage on and on ...

They are showing Snicko now and there's a faint indication of an edge. Ever so faint, it could have been an edge, it could have been something else. I guess only Roach will really know.

Did Roach know? He called for the review at least as, if not more, quickly than I can recall any player doing so in the brief time the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) system has been in place. If anything his rapid response suggests that he didn't believe that he'd hit the ball. In any case the video umpire should have looked at the objective evidence before his eyes. If it was inconclusive then IMO Roach should have been given the benefit of the doubt, a core principle of umpiring decision making.

This aside Australia were the better side in this match, though less emphatically than they would have expected after the first two days. A 2-0 series victory doesn't accurately reflect the differences between the teams, particularly the improvement which the West Indies made in the last two matches. Australia might claim that they were unlucky with injuries, yet this is a feeble excuse for their underperformance when many commentators predicted three emphatic victories.


Scorecard