PY said:
I can honestly say I'm happy for the guy. 
Have W.I. given away their wickets again today or have England, even in the critics' eyes, bowled well today?
Can't get to a TV 
Gayle - sawn off by umpire
Ganga - sawn off, but had about four innings as it was.
Lara - classic late-period Botham dismissal: an over of complete tosh, one of which went to hand (quite brilliantly again by Collingwood, whose fielding surely has to be weighed when deciding whether to pick him)
Sarwan - poor shot to good ball
Chanderpaul - deceived by change of width and angle
Hinds - panicked into giving it away
Jacobs - fended off ball which got big on him
Best - gloved to fifth slip trying to evade
Collins - standard edge to first slip
Edwards - Bowled
The progress of the innings mostly reflected the bowling: Hoggard was excellent (runs came off false shots) and Harmison was awful in their first spells. Harmison improved later, but only to mediocre, a level at which he teamed up with the rest of the English bowling before tea.
Overall, it was the least convincing show the bowlers have put on so far - but at least they regrouped and upped their game after two sessions of rubbish instead of waiting until day two as has usually been the case in recent years.
Harmison had a bad spell, but then recovered, and he bowled some real snorters later on. He's entitled to have a bad spell in this series, after all.
Jones is definitely not the finished article. He may well have decided that he wants the role of terrorising the middle order with the old ball, and it would be very useful if he succeeds in his ambition, but as yet he seems to have little idea about how he's going to get his wickets: he just runs up and bowls, as far as I can see. Harmison was in the same position a year ago, and he's come on a bit, so it's perfectly possible that Jones will become a good bowler too when he gains a bit of savvy - by playing.
I hope that Troy Cooley and Freddy have a good look at how he got his wickets this evening, because it was when he started bowling a fuller length rather than the back-of-a-length stuff he'd been purveying up till then - even if it was a short one which got Hinds, it was the full-length balls before which made him play that awful shot to it. But this was an innings where he got slightly over-rewarded for his bowling, which is a change from being rather under-rewarded as per usual.
Giles was innocuous. No change there, then.
They can be pleased that they kept WI to 224, but they should all realise that this wasn't the best they could do.
Cheers,
Mike
