Australia lay solid foundation

Australia 3/259 (S Katich 113 no, R Ponting 65) v West Indies. Second Test Day 1 at Antigua

Rain briefly delayed the start but once play got under way Australia, having won the toss and elected to bat focused on laying a solid foundation. This they did through innings of 113no /248b (9x4) from Simon Katich and 65/123b (5x4) from Ricky Ponting. Ponting looked the more fluent of the pair as he went past his 10,000 runs in Test cricket.

The West Indies bowling was steady but, in the absence of a front line spinner, lacked variety while the fielding was well below the high standard of the First Test. Naturally Australia will be looking to
build a formidable first innings total as a foundation for an attack on the Windies batting.

It's early days yet and the wicket is playing well, but it looks as if Australia will be hard to beat from here.

Scorecard

Clark bowls Australia to victory

Australia 431 and 167 defeated West Indies 312 and 191 (S Clark 5/32) by 95 runs. First Test Day 5 at Sabina Park, Jamaica.

Thanks chiefly to a sustained display of probing and often penetrative bowling by Stuart Clark Australia won by a margin greater than I'd predicted and gained time to regroup for the next two Tests.

The regrouping will need to be mental as well as physical as the Windies have shown that, in contrast to the New Zealanders in England, they have a tenacious approach to their game which has been lacking for some years. Bowlers such as Fidel Edwards and Daren Powell who looked ordinary in Australia only a couple of years ago are now much more challenging propositions.

Both sides still have weaknesses: opening batting and spin bowling spring to mind but whether the Windies are able to lift further (if Chris Gayle and Jerome Taylor return for the Second Test this will help) is a moot point. Not that Australia can be complacent: the second innings collapse to 5/18 showed the brittleness of the batting, while the bowling and fielding lacked consistency.

More low sleep nights beckon as the Second Test begins this weekend in Antigua.


Scorecard

Cricinfo coverage

England rise, New Zealand choke

England 202 and 4/294 (A Strauss 106) defeated New Zealand 381 and 114 by 6 wickets. Second Test Day 4 at Old Trafford, Manchester.

New Zealand surrendered abjectly and unconditionally to a competent England team in the last two days of the match. On what turned out to be the final day the Black Caps turned in a lacklustre performance with the ball and in the field. My question about whether they had the self-belief to push for, let alone force, victory turned out to be a rhetorical one as nobody was able to chip away at the England batting for long enough to make a difference.

For me and perhaps many others the moment of recognition was when Iain O'Brien, an honest into the wind trundler dropped a simple return catch. The game had looked lost at that point: after his sub-club cricket display of ineptitude not only it but also the Third Test looked England's.

The competitive New Zealanders, eg RossTaylor, Brendon McCullum, Jacob Oram (who was less competitive in this match) and Daniel Vettori (much of whose bowling in the second innings lacked zest and zip), much be hoping that the whole side can lift enough to register a Kiwi cricket victory , aka a draw, in the Third Test.

Scorecard

Cricinfo coverage

Will Australia be able to keep a resurgent West Indies at bay?

Australia 431 and 167 (A Symonds 79, D Bravo 4/47, D Powell 3/36 , F Edwards 3/40) v West Indies 312 and 1/46. West Indies need another 241 runs with 9 wickets in hand. First Test Day 4 at Sabina Park, Jamaica.

This has turned into a cracker of a match.

On Day 4 West Indies continued their revival, albeit in a more muted way than on Day 3, and, while still not in the box seat, are still in strong contention.

Australia's abysmal start continued in the first over of the day's play when nightwatchman Mitchell Johnson was well caught behind by Denesh Ramdin off Daren Powell. 5/18: one of the worst starts ever for an Australian team, as several commentators of a Schadenfreudish disposition pointed out.

Fortunately (for Australia) Brad Hodge and Andrew Symonds repaired some of the damage with a 52 run partnership. Hodge was the more assertive early but seemed to wilt in the heat (not under the pressure) before he edged Dwayne Bravo - the right choice as first change bowler - low to Ramdin for a 27 that was worth much more. 6/70 was far from a secure position but it showed the remaining batters that all was not lost, despite the generally hostile and accurate bowling and the frequently brilliant fielding.

Symonds, as he'd done in the first innings, became more aggressive: he added 72 with Brad Haddin 23/76b and eventually finished with 79/ 118b (9x4, 3x6) which, apart from providing the cornerstone of Australia's response, showed that he is now a most accomplished Test batsman.

When West Indies, needing 287 to win, began their second innings the Australian attack was more uniformly disciplined, with Stuart Clark once again looking the most dangerous. He took the only wicket to fall, that of Brenton Parchment, who has struggled as an opener bu who is a brilliant fielder. As the light faded Stuart MacGill bowled two overs with a defensive field. He didn't turn the ball much but was treated with sufficient respect to stake a claim to bowl a few overs on the last day. That said, Andrew Symonds's off spin might be a better proposition on a wicket which has not broken up as much as might have been expected. He will not turn the ball as much as MacGill but should be much less prodigal.

241 runs is still a tall order for the West Indians and the Australians will certainly harry them all the way.

The outcome? I'd say a narrow (50 runs or less) Australian victory but wouldn't put money on it.

Scorecard

Do New Zealand have enough self-belief to win?

New Zealand 381 and 114 (M Panesar 6/37) v England 202 (A Strauss 60, D Vettori 5/66) and 1/76. England require 218 more runs with 9 wickets in hand: Second Test Day 3 at Old Trafford, Manchester.

On the face of it New Zealand are on top of England and should be able to win, yet over the course of the day's play the home team came back into the match after a poor first innings batting display.

The wind blew hard, impairing, according to the TV commentators, Hawkeye's accuracy (interesting!) and the temperature didn't rise above the mid teens. A typical May day in Manchester perhaps?

The high points of the day were the performances of the two left-arm spinners Daniel Vettori 31-5-66-5 for NZ and Monty Panesar 17-5-37-6 for England. Yes, the pitch helped them but they had to winkle out the opposition. Without detracting from Panesar's performance his task was made a little easier by the ineptness of the NZ batting (not that some of the England batting was much better) but his match figures of 7/138 reflect his contribution to the team.

The lowest point of the day was NZ's collapse for 114 all out (batting one short). This put some wind in the English sails and batting in the final session of the day looked easier than at any other time of the day, despite the demons in the pitch.



Scorecard

Captain rises and inspires bowlers

Australia 431 and 4/17 lead West Indies 312 (S Chanderpaul 118, R Morton 67, S Clark 3/59, B Lee 3/63) by 136 runs with 6 wickets left: Second Test Day3 at Sabina Park, Jamaica.

What a day! What a fightback by the West Indies. And how unexpected... though maybe less so after the resolution the Windies have shown in this match so far.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul's 118/276b (13x4, 1x6) solidified the shaky foundation of 3/68 and in time allowed Runako Morton 67/ 135b (10x4, 2x6) and Dwayne Bravo 46/60b, (4x4, 3x6) to play a few more strokes. Together and despite receiving little assistance from the others who batted today (nos 7 -11 contributed 4 runs between them) they took their side to a respectable first innings total of 312.

The defining moment was at 8/276 when Chanderpaul, on 86, was hit and knocked out by a short ball from Brett Lee: the last of the 95th over. The sound thudded out of my television set, and it seemed for several minutes as if he'd play no further part in the innings, and perhaps the match.

But he rose, continued his innings and added another 45 to his team's and 32 to his personal score. This brave act (which I hope doesn't turn out to have been foolhardy) brought the Windies
that much closer to Australia: the gap in the scores greater than the psychological one.

The Australian pace bowlers were more consistent today, even if Stuart Clark lacked his fire of yesterday. Stuart MacGill did not bowl well: as 22-2 -100 - 2 indicates. He'll need to lift several notches if he is to play any part in the second innings ie unless there's a target of at least 200 or so bowling him will be very risky indeed.

When Simon Katich and Phil Jaques walked out to open Australia's second innings they would have expected to build their team's lead, their scores and their reputations.

But it didn't happen, in fact there was a collapse of unAustralian proportions: Jacques caught behind off Fidel Edwards, Ricky Ponting snicking Daren Powell to Bravo in the slips (another good catch by him), Katich lbw to Edwards and Mike " Mr Cricket" Hussey bowled by Powell. It was then 4/12.

When bad light stopped play, no doubt to Australia's relief, the score had advanced to 4/17 and the lead to 136. If Australia are to win this one from here something like normal service will need to be resumed.

Another late night/ early morning awaits.

Scorecard

Taylor and bowlers put New Zealand on top

England 4/152 ( A Strauss 60) trail New Zealand 381 (R Taylor 154, J How 64, K Mills 57, J Anderson 4/118) by 229 runs on first innings with 6 wickets in hand: Day 2 Second Test at Old Trafford, Manchester.

I wasn't able to watch as much of the day's play as I'd have liked because Foxtel gave its cricket following subscribers short measure, delaying the telecast until the lunch interval, when it took the Sky Sports relay, which consisted largely of lunchtime chitchat, direct instead of showing more of the actual play.

This means that Australian viewers missed the session in which New Zealand scored 2/120 in 27 overs, Ross Taylor reached his century, and the team consequently established its ascendancy. Given that Daniel Flynn didn't return to the crease after his injury the previous day this was a considerable feat.

Grumbling aside, the last two sessions (of which I only watched the first as the second overlapped with the Aust - WI match telecast) also had their moments of interest, without changing the overall situation much. Taylor's 154/176b (17x4, 5 x 6) was, as these stats suggest, aggressive in intent and has caused a rethink of the strength of the NZ batting, while Kyle Mills's 57/78b (7x4, 1 x6)
has caused a rethink of its depth.

I am looking forward to watching more of the game tonight.

Scorecard

If you'd like more about the day's play, try this report from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article3998303.ece"> Simon Wilde at Times Online He makes some good points, but his prediction of a potential England total of 400 now looks even more fanciful than it must have done at the time (where was the sub-editor?):

England can still chase the dream of winning this match. With Andrew Strauss providing solidity at the top of the order, England passed 100 for the loss of only one wicket and on a good batting surface can aim to finally top 400 against a New Zealand attack as dependent on the swinging ball for success as their own.

The ball has stubbornly not swung here. Old Trafford pitches tend to last well too, which means England should not unduly fear batting last. Australia held out for a draw here in 2005 and last year West Indies were dismissed for 394 in the fourth innings, having been set 455 to win.

Their first task is to satisfy Michael Vaughan’s demand that two batsmen score centuries in the first innings as the basis for a commanding total and Strauss’s dismissal for 60 - to a fine catch by Brendon McCullum diving onto his bruised left arm - set back that aim considerably.

England’s meagre tempo of less than three runs per over did not suggest a team charging for the victory line; nor did it meet Vaughan’s preseries claim that we would see more confident batting from his team now that they had a series win behind them. They remain a nervous, introspective batting unit. By the close, England had lost four wickets, with Vaughan, Alastair Cook and nightwatchman Ryan Sidebottom also falling. They resume today on 152 for four.

England’s shabby performance in the field confirmed two things. One is that Vaughan was right when he said before the series that a four-man attack would only work if the four bowlers were operating to a high level. When he was talking, Vaughan was thinking of Flintoff as among his quartet but here, without his most dependable bowler, Vaughan struggled to maintain order.

England’s captain had conceded that four bowlers might struggle if they were required to bowl first and Monty Panesar, his spinner, was working with an untrammelled surface. Panesar had made the occasional ball turn on the first day, but his influence remained marginal, as figures of one for 101 from 22 overs suggest. He did, though, account for the key wicket of McCullum.

The second view that was upheld was that James Anderson is not a bowler who can be trusted at Test match level. If the ball swings, he can be dangerous, if it does not he is a needless luxury. In a recent interview, he gave the game away when he said that he had to make sure he did not panic if his rhythm eluded him. Anderson, who has spent more of his England career panicking than playing well, is the new Mark Ram-prakash. Yesterday his panic extended to his fielding as he misjudged a catch off a skyer off Jacob Oram at deep mid-off.

As chance had it, Anderson finished with four of the seven wickets that fell to bowlers, but he was flattered by such a return. Had Anderson not cleaned up the tail, with three wickets in his last four overs, his figures would have fully betrayed his profligacy. He went at almost six runs an over, a scandalous rate given the bounce at his disposal, but Anderson rarely asserts the kind of control that a Glenn McGrath or Shaun Pollock would regard as a base requirement.