After the sublime, the ridiculous

10.55am So, that, I'm afraid, is that. There will be no more play on the first day in Antigua, and conceivably no more play in this match at all. What on earth do you make of this farce? Send us your feedback.

10.49am This is a sensation. Hurst has said that they will look into all options, maybe even the relocation of the match to another venue ... conceivably the venerable ARG in St John's. "I'm not sure what those options are, maybe extending the time for the Test and looking at another venue, maybe back-to-back Tests in Barbados. But for today, this ground is unfit for play."

10.48am Alan Hurst, the match referee, confirms that play has been abandoned for the day. "The bowlers have deemed the run-ups to be a safety hazard," says Hurst. "Everyone felt, including the umpires that it would be okay. It would have been jumping the gun to call it off before play."

10.47am For a moment it looked as those the batsmen were leaving the field ... and now, after stopping for a chat, the West Indians are joining them.

10.45am Andrew McGlashan in the press box confirms the suspicion we are getting from the TV pictures. "The feeling is growing that this could be called off," he says. "Extraordinary scenes as a mid-pitch discussion decides the future of this match." Meanwhile, up in the commentary booth, Sir Viv himself is talking animatedly about the farcical scenes. This ground does not deserve to bear his great name.

10.42am I am beginning to fear that we are about to have our second aborted Test match. Sabina Park lasted 10.1 overs before the game was called off. This one is in serious danger of setting a new record.

10.40am Slow hand-clapping now, as this delay extends into its fifth minute. Strauss and Gayle are in deep discussion, just as Atherton and Lara were in 1997-98, and now the match referee, Alan Hurst, is on his way to the middle to join the deliberations.

Yet another aborted run-up, and Edwards flings the ball away in disgust. This is becoming a very serious issue indeed ... Edwards and Gayle are now in discussion with the umpires.

Shades of Sabina Park 1997-98 are in the air here. That was dangerous to batsmen, this is just hopeless for bowlers. There's nothing that Edwards can do about it. He is an elite athlete, who expects, at the very least, to be able to sprint to the crease without fearing that the ground beneath his ankle is going to give way beneath him

--

Sabina Park, 1993-94: When that match was abandoned after 10.1 overs (oh, happy days when a Test lasted that long), they decided to play back-to-back Tests in Trinidad, where England lost the first and won the second. Will Barbados be hosting 10 days of Test cricket over the next fortnight? Will the Rec in St John's regain its Test status? Will Sir Allen Stanford take the chance to re-establish himself as the saviour of Caribbean cricket and offer up his own ground? You can't help feeling the ICC have reaped what they have sowed: they decided not to use the Rec for the World Cup, instead building this new stadium which has so far staged, ooh, one Test. Modernisation, eh?

What chances of play tomorrow? Hurst says options will be talked about. But he doesn't know what the options are. He then goes on to speculate about shifting the venue, possibly playing back-to-back matches in Barbados.

Hurst says there was a chance in advance that the conditions might have been OK. That's reassuring!

Alan Hurst, the match referee, confirms that the bowlers are having trouble with their footholds. He says the bowlers have deemed it "dangerous". The decision is that play has been abandoned for the day. Not for the next five days, note. But for the day. What. A. Farce.

Sand-gate latest: The players are leaving the field!

More farce: "Cricinfo's man on the spot reports that during the break the fire alarm in the press box went off. They couldn't turn it off because the instructions were all in Chinese," says Sunil X. Priceless.

The third Test starts in Barbados on February 26, so surely there would be time to reschedule this game. But we're jumping the gun. As things stand, this Test has not been called off. How much longer we can say that is another matter, and the slow handclaps from the England spectators who have spent several hundred of their increasingly unvaluable pounds to be here tell their own story.

This is utterly farcical. Out comes the match referee Alan Hurst to chat to the interested parties. I really don't see how they can resolve this situation. There is quite simply not enough grass on the outfield. That in itself is not necessarily a problem, but it becomes one when all the gaps are plugged with sand. I mean, what were they thinking? And if this Test is called off, will they replay it elsewhere? A mischievous thought: how about the Stanford Cricket Ground?

1.4 overs: England 7-0 (Strauss 6, Cook 1) I was about to say 'Edwards resumes the attack after a 25-minute break', only for Fidel to reach the end of his run-up and decide against it. He's at the sandier of the two ends, remember, as Cook deflects his first post-break ball to long leg for a single. And then Edwards pulls up again before turning to umpire Hill and shaking his head. The umpire strides over to the offending area and pats it with his foot. It's shocking, it really is. Every time a player lands a size 11 in it, it turns into a mini sandpit. And now Edwards pulls up again. We could be looking at a fiasco to rank with Sabina Park 1993-94 here. Both umpires and five or six West Indians, including the captain Chris Gayle, are crowded round the dodgy patch and wondering what to do. But what can they do? Grass takes time to grow. Now Harper and Hill are talking to Strauss, with Gayle in attendance. I'll keep you posted.

Drop Rohit Sharma

Sam, over at Arm Ball, makes a compelling argument.

A mistake

The Dhawal Kulkarni selection.

Too much. Too soon.

Harsha Bhogle

on the ICL

A good read.

On England.

So, Ian Bell is the designated #3. But is Ian Bell in the mold of Ricky Ponting, attacking the opposition to nullify the gains accrued from an early wicket or consolidating his team's ascendancy? Or is he in the Rahul Dravid mold, grinding the opposition to dust, thus negating the advantages of an early wicket or setting up the match for the rest of the strokemakers when the team is in a position of strength.

And if Bell does not satisfy either of thos criteria, why is he at #3? And statistically, Bell is most productive at 6. So, wont it make sense to move him down the order than moving him out of the team?

Owais Shah is the most likely candidate for #3. Given that neither Cook nor Strauss is capable of, or willing to, do a Trescothick and beat up the opposition, the impetus for the innings has to come at 3. The other candidate for the position is the best batsman in the side, a risk the English will be unwilling or disinclined to take.Even though the batsman is South African.

At 4 comes Pieterson.

At 5, Prior/Ambrose/whoever is the flavor of the season wicket keeper. Plenty of reasons mitigate against this - most importantly playing a wicket keeper that high is unprecedented.

But Prior has opened for England in one dayers. And he is not exactly temperamentally suited to playing at 7, sheparding the tail and working on consolidating the team position ( atleast he has not given any evidence of this in the matches I have seen him play). Prior bats, ups the tempo along with Pieterson or Shah or Bell. Or perishes in the process.

At 6, Bell.

At 7, Freddie Flintoff. Only because he is the best man for the job.

At 8, Broad. This kid is special. And he bats like a top order bat. And his bowling is not too shabby either.

At 8, Sidebottom. Variety. Swing. Obduracy.

At 9, Rashid/Swann. The spin option. The primary spin option.

At 10, Anderson/Tremlett/Hoggard. I would prefer Hoggard myself, but no one else seems to think he fits in the team.

At 11, Harmison/Panesar - the extra pace/spin option.

I think way too much focus has been on the numbers generated by the English top order ( Cook's conversion rate, Strauss' average, Bell's cute 30s), very little attention has been given to the totals England run up.

Since the first Test against the West Indies two summers ago, England have ( in 40 innings)

3 scores in excess of 500
2 scores in excess of 400
16 scores in excess of 300
12 scores in excess of 200
4 scores in excess of 100
3 scores below 100

Here is the list

My problem with this is that the team as a batting unit does not quite know how they want to approach an innings. If Cook and Strauss are opening, then their primary role is to blunt the attack, by playing out as many overs as possible, runs be damned. Rather than focus on getting 100 runs in the first session, if England can play to not losing a wicket in the first session, it is equally effective.

Blunt the new ball attack, soften the ball ( and the bowlers), set the platform for the strokemakers to come in. And middling scores of 300 dont suffice. While batting, the philosophy has to be to bat once and to bat big.

And 6 scores of 50 odd are way more acceptable than one big 100 and the rest making the odd 20.

And finally - Strauss needs to remember that he is not Trescothick. His two 100s at Chennai were instructive in their approach and the effect it had on the opposition ( and its supporters).

Play that way, and you will end up winning more than losing.

Self belief!

This was Pakistan at Sharjah. This was Australia anywhere in the last decade.This was India conjuring a win after being 115/7 in the 15th over, needing 172 to win.

Having spent a lifetime watching "Sachin out, India out", having seen Team India collapse after a bad start ( and seeing them conjure losses from winning positions), this win ( and the corresponding belief on view) is a shock to the system.

Who are these imposters masquerading as Team India?

Brothers day out!

The brothers Hussey did it for Australia.

The brothers Pathan do it for India.

Does Gamini Silva know the LBW rule?

There are marginal calls.Then there are plumb LBWs. And then there are LBWs for which the batsmen walk without waiting for the umpire.

8.4 YK Pathan to Mubarak, 1 leg bye, flights it up just outside the line of off stump, turns in and beats the bat, they all appeal aggressively but umpire Gamini de Silva reckons the ball would have missed leg stump

Replays on that appeal show the ball would have hit middle stump. Hmmm, India won't like that.

14.4 Jadeja to Silva, no run, flighted full on the stumps, Dilshan goes for the sweep and misses, Jadeja appeals, the arm ball hit him flush on the foot and looked, to the naked eye, to have been hitting middle stump, so thats a harsh call against the bowler .. replays also show it would have made contact, poor umpiring

There are decisions. Then there are bad decisions. And then there are preposterous decisions.

PS:- Mr Silva does not know what constitutes a wide ball either!

Not on!

49.6 I Sharma to Muralitharan, 1 no ball, a nasty beamer goes screeching towards Murali's face and Ishant can;t stop apologising, they shake hands mid-pitch, I tell that was scary, luckily Murali evaded it early enough

Why use the beamer when you can use the bouncer? Is it that hard to bang the damn ball into the damn ground?