Fast bowler Henry Olonga took four wickets in Zimbabwe's third one-day international against Sri Lanka. Here he talks to John Ward about the match.

This morning we felt we had a good chance of getting back into the series because the Sunday match in Bulawayo was a win we threw away. We managed to grab defeat from the jaws of victory, as many have said before, but we felt we were in the same league as the Sri Lankans. It wasn't a convincing win on their part, and we just felt we needed to sort out a few things and we thought we were in with a good shout of levelling the series today and taking it from there. But that optimism in the morning was fruitless, so to speak.

The toss was important, we felt, because we felt the ball was going to do a bit early doors; it was slowish and a very soft wicket. I remember the nail that was used to mark the thirty-yard circle was driven into the middle of the pitch, and it was so soft it sank without a trace! There was no resistance at all. So we knew it was going to be difficult to drive and it would be a good toss to win, which we did.

We then went on to do well for the first 45 overs. They were sitting on four an over until then, and it was just in the last five overs they got 48 runs. So it wasn't that we didn't use the facilities; we bowled well and restricted them to four runs an over for most of the time - until those last few 'slog' overs. It's not uncommon to see that happen in one-day games. So once again we did well up to a point; we contained up to a point, and even with the batting we had a very good start and were batting well until after the drinks break, when we had a bit of a mix-up and that run-out, which proved to be crucial.

John Rennie bowled the first over; he wanted this side [the clubhouse end] and says he likes to bowl from this end. The city end is not really my end, and I haven't generally bowled from that end, but I felt Johnny was just as much a strike bowler as I am and he could get a wicket as quickly as I could, so I had no problem bowling from that side, and the wind was going to assist me from that end. Having said that, I allowed him to pick the ball and to bowl the first over, so there was no plan or strategy behind that; I was quite happy for him to do that.

He did all right in the first over, though I can't remember what happened! And then I bowled a few long hops which got dispatched and it was nice to get that quick wicket of Sanath Jayasuriya's. I knew the pitch was going to be slowish; I generally bowl back of a length and I got it wrong twice and Kalu pulled me. He's a fairly short player, so getting back of a length to him is a bit tricky. Having done that I adjusted my length and started bowling a bit fuller to them because the ball was shaping away, and in my first five overs I went for 20 runs. After my next three, after the next short spell I bowled, I was on eight for 38, I think. Bowling up front I think I did a decent job; I could have kept the runs down more possibly and gone for less in the first five. Slog overs you're always going to go off, no matter who you are, so I think I could haven ended up with figures of four for 40, possibly, if I had cut out a few wides and bad balls.

Bowling to Jayasuriya, I figured that if I got the ball in a decent area, around about off stump, and moved the ball away from him, I figured I had a chance because he's nicked quite a few times on this tour. It came off; he managed to get enough bat on it and it was a great catch by Alistair Campbell. My heart skips a beat when I see the ball getting edged, because I haven't had too many catches held in the slips; I've had two dropped in the Test series, so it's nice to see one go to hand.

My next wicket was a long hop, a really bad ball, but I suppose I put more effort into it. It was short and wide, and Atapattu managed to get some bat on it and was caught by Andy Flower. My third wicket was Upul Chandana; by then it was the death overs and I was bowling full and straight. I didn't quite get the yorker length I was striving for, but he managed to spoon it very high up into the outfield, and it was capably caught by Gary Brent. Having had Russel Arnold dropped off my bowling by John Rennie, it was nice to see one getting caught.

My next wicket was Dilshan, who is quite a decent player. We certainly rate him. He just walked across his stumps and I bowled him the way I did in Bulawayo. He walked too far across to find the gap on the leg side because I had my fine leg up, and he got his off stump uprooted. Overall I was happy with my return, but more happy with the wickets than the runs - I think I could have kept it down to 40, as I said. But if you're going to bowl in the death overs then you have to be prepared to go for an extra ten or twenty more than you want. It's nice to be in the wickets again - I think I'm bowling better in one-dayers this season than I've bowled before, and my short run-up seems to be working. I've shortened my run-up nowadays and I'm still marking it out with my boots, as that's the most consistent way! It works, and cuts out the no-balls - hopefully!

We bowled a good length to Russel Arnold in this match, and he eventually hit two balls in the air in my last over, the over before drinks, and one of them was a dropped catch, and we figured that he was trying to work it through the leg side. The ball just wasn't coming on, as it was very difficult to drive on this wicket unless it was a genuine half-volley, and we figured that if we bowled a decent length to him he wouldn't be able to tuck it round the corner for easy singles, so he had to do something different, and he tried to go over the top, and holed out to me. Our plan was just to keep the ball away from his very powerful drive.

Our opening partnership of Grant Flower and Alistair Campbell has been looking very good for the last few matches. We've looked in commanding positions, and then just out of nowhere we've tended to self-destruct. Looking at it back to front and inside out, I don't know where the problem lies, but good positions are not enough to win you the match. Alistair is trying very hard to get his batting right and he's doing very well and we're very happy for him. But if you get 38 in a one-day game, it's indicative of the fact that you could have gone on. Much the same with Grant; once again he was unhappy he didn't get his half-century. Had he got his half-century, we feel that he would have pressed on, so it's a bit of a monkey on his back at the moment. I'm sure that when he does reach fifty, he will be back in the big runs again.

With that run-out, the run probably was not on at any stage; hitting just to the right or the left of the Sri Lankans in the thirty-yard circle is dicey because they are very quick on their feet and you have to be very careful. It was very noble of Alistair to sacrifice his wicket for Grant; I don't know who was at fault, but it's a pity when you lose a top-order batsman through a run-out.

So I'm happy for Alistair and Grant, but it's a pity one of them couldn't have gone on to make a hundred. I think if one of them had, it would have been a different result. We would have got much closer; perhaps we wouldn't have won, but we would certainly have had much more of a chance of winning. It wasn't a help losing those quick wickets in succession; we lost Andy [Flower] and Stuey [Carlisle] quite quickly, so that put us back quite a bit.

Our batsmen are struggling, but our bowlers are doing a decent job; we're not doing a fantastic job, bowling sides out for 180, but our batsmen are struggling, and I certainly hope that one or two of them can bat through in the next few games. That's all that's really needed; hopefully if they can do that then it'll be a relief for the side.

It's tough going for the whole side; we haven't won a game since the Kenya tournament and we hope we start winning some at some stage this year, hopefully before the end of the millenium.

[I tried to give Henry the encouraging news that they still have over a year to make good before the end of the millenium; as the first millenium began with the year 1, every subsequent decade, century and millenium therefore begins with a year ending in 1! - JW]