Alistair Campbell continues his talk with John Ward with his impressions on Zimbabwe's performances in Australia.

1ST MATCH, at Brisbane. ZIMBABWE 240/9 (A D R Campbell 81; N A M McLean 3/48) lost to WEST INDIES 241/9 (R L Powell 83*) by one wicket.

We knew it would be hard coming into Australia because it is the hardest place in the world to play cricket. We got a bit of a wake-up call in the warm-up game against Australia A. We were beaten very comprehensively, but we always knew that if we were going to make the finals it would be a two-horse race between us and the West Indies.

We were looking to start on a high note in the first game, as they had just been beaten comprehensively by Australia and they were down. If we batted first and made a decent score we could put them under huge pressure; if they batted first we knew that they were a bit vulnerable on the bouncy Australian pitches and tended to nick a lot of balls, so if we took a few early wickets we could also apply the pressure.

We started off really well, although we lost Trevor Madondo early and then Stuart Carlisle. But we were in a good position when Andy Flower and I were batting, and we were 154 for two at one stage and looking really good, aiming for a total of about 260. But then Andrew got out to Marlon Samuels and I got out shortly afterwards, so we lost two quick wickets. Then Guy Whittall was bowled and Dirk Viljoen was run out, so from a good position we were suddenly in all sorts of trouble at six down for 174. But Heath Streak, as he has done throughout this season, batted really well and we managed to get a respectable total of 240.

We fancied our chances of defending it, and we started off well when Travis Friend knocked over Wavell Hinds. We dropped Brian Lara a couple of times but finally managed to get him out, and they were three down for 70. But they were going at a good rate, and had obviously made a conscious decision after playing Australia that they were not going to go down meekly, but would play some shots and be aggressive. That's exactly what they did – all of them came in and scored at about a run a ball, Marlon Samuels with 34 off 33 balls and Jimmy Adams 24 off 24.

Then at six down for 155, although they had a good run rate, we began to feel we could now knock them over pretty smartly. But we hadn't counted on Ricardo Powell. Under some pressure he played really well, scoring 83 not out off 90 balls and winning them the game. He took the game away from us. Guy Whittall nipped Nixon McLean out at the end and they needed two runs with one wicket in hand, but Cameron Cuffy nudged one on the leg side and Powell got them there.

They did take it by the scruff of the neck and made a positive decision to play aggressively. They knew that, but we weren't good enough to come through at the end. There were a few occasions during the game where we could have won it, but we didn't take them, and if you are going to win games you have to take those opportunities. So it was a very disappointing start in that, firstly, we should have scored more than 240 with the start we had, and once we did recover we should have won the game after reducing them to six down for 155. It was not the start we wanted, knowing that we were basically playing against the West Indies for a place in the final.

2ND MATCH, at Melbourne. ZIMBABWE 223/8 (G W Flower 51; I J Harvey 4/28) lost to AUSTRALIA 226/2 (D S Lehmann 92*, R T Ponting 68) by eight wickets.

It was always going to be a tough game, but we decided we were going to go out there and play positively. We knew we would have to play above ourselves in all our games against Australia just to compete, let alone win. We had seen what had happened to the West Indies and it is quite humiliating to get beaten by that sort of margin. We wanted to make sure we could make a game of it.

Guy Whittall and I got off to a perfect start, going at six an over and playing really well. But then we played a few innocuous shots: Guy Whittall ran down to Harvey's first ball without having a look first, a mistake he shouldn't have made; Stuey Carlisle came in and struggled a bit, and we got behind the rate. Then I played a shocking shot to get out and from a very good start we were suddenly three down for 78. We have to learn to capitalize on good starts, which is what good players do. I, having reached 30, should have been good enough to bat through, the way I was striking the ball.

To be honest, they bowled really well and we got behind the black ball a bit, although Andy and Grant put on a bit of a partnership. But we were always struggling; at six for 160 we were behind again but Grant Flower, after a slow start, came back really well and got 51. Streaky at the end got some runs and we ended up getting 220. As you saw in the final, that's a good batting wicket, although I wouldn't say that 338 is a par score! We should have been up to 250 or more to make a decent contest of it.

220 was never going to be enough. Gilchrist came out and played all the shots in the book, getting 39 off 29 balls, and once Lehmann and Ponting got together they put on a big partnership. We managed to run Ponting out, and Bevan came in and finished the match with Lehmann. Eight wickets is a big margin of victory, but we have ourselves to blame in that we didn't capitalize on a good start, and secondly we didn't get enough balls in the right area, which has been a problem with our bowlers – lack of consistency, which is a problem with our batsmen as well.

We haven't been able to get all our departments right on the same day. Our fielding let us down – there were a lot of fumbles, so it wasn't a good result for us. But it showed that if we just made some adjustments and capitalized on some good things, then we would be able to compete.

3RD MATCH, at Sydney. ZIMBABWE 138 (H H Streak 45; C E Cuffy 4/24, L R Williams 3/24) beat WEST INDIES 91 (N A M McLean 40*; H H Streak 4/8, B C Strang 3/15, M L Nkala 3/12) by 47 runs.

This was a reused pitch; in last season's World Series a similar reused pitch hosted a match against India, who were bowled out for 101 and Australia won with five wickets down. This was a similar sort of pitch, which was very weird-looking and had a lot of bounce in it, off a length.

We just kept nicking balls: I nicked a ball, Guy Whittall did the same, as did Andy Flower, Grant Flower and Dirk Viljoen. They were not so much poor shots as good bowling, length balls that bounced a bit and gave the batsmen few options. We stumbled and stuttered out way to 138, Streaky again to the fore with 45 and doing really well at the end. We still thought that we should have scored 200, which we had anticipated as being a good score.

We did not think 138 would be enough, but we knew that if we got enough balls in the right area it would bounce for us. If we bowled well and caught our catches, then we might be able to put them under some pressure and take wickets early. If that happened, and we got Lara in early and then dismissed him, and we had them three down for 30, we could put some pressure on their middle order.

What transpired is mind-boggling. They were 16 for one, and next time we looked up at the scoreboard they were 31 for eight. Heath Streak bowled magnificently that day, we caught our catches and Strangy backed him up. We had an innovative field setting: we brought up fine leg into the off side, Strangy bowled a few to Lara outside off stump and then bowled a straight off-cutter. He walked right across his stumps and we got him lbw, so it's nice when a plan comes together like that.

From 31 for eight I thought we were in here, and then we did that usual Zimbabwean thing and let it slip a little, until suddenly at 91 for eight it looked as if they might get through. Then Nkala came back and got Jimmy Adams caught and bowled, and then two balls later Cameron Cuffy nicked to Stuart Carlisle and they were all out for 91 and we had won the game from nowhere.

That was another occasion where our bowling didn't fail but our batting did fail. We managed to sneak through, and now it was one-all against the West Indies. We knew we were going to Adelaide, and we were confident we had a very good chance of beating them there.

4TH MATCH, at Adelaide. WEST INDIES 235/6 (M N Samuels 68, B C Lara 70; H H Streak 3/27) beat ZIMBABWE 175 (A Flower 50; M V Nagamootoo 4/32) by 77 runs (Duckworth-Lewis method).

It was a really hot day in Adelaide, 40 degrees. It looked like a good batting pitch, but we lost the toss and had to field in the heat. But we had another great start, having them two down for 16, and we have only ourselves to blame after that for dropping chances again. Gavin Rennie dropped Lara when he had about 10, which would have made them 30 for three and we would have won the game, I reckon, if we had got him out then. Then I dropped him at slip off Murphy when he had about 30, so we had our chances; Stuart Carlisle dropped Samuels when he had 46.

You can never predict what would happen in the future if we took those catches, but we would have been able to put them under huge pressure. In the end they were allowed to score quite freely and they took the score to 235 in 47 overs. Samuels got 68 and Lara got 70. Ricardo Powell blazed 33 off 36 balls in the end and Nagamootoo 22 off 12 balls, so it wasn't ideal after a good start. By dropping our catches we didn't capitalize.

Then it started raining, so obviously Duckworth-Lewis came up, and we were given 253 to win off 47 overs which was always going to be a huge ask. Guy Whittall and myself got off to a reasonable start, 38 for no wicket, before Guy got out and I followed soon afterwards, getting a long hop from Nixon McLean and hitting it straight to point. I should have batted through after getting a start, and I was seeing the ball very well. Then when Stuart Carlisle was bowled we were three down for 47. Andy and Grant Flower had a good partnership but once Andy went we felt we were behind the black ball a bit. Then Grant followed shortly afterwards and the innings just petered out. We ended up 175 all out in 40 overs.

So that was very disappointing and we now knew that we were going to have to beat them in the final game to get into the finals and rely on run-rates – unless we could sneak a win against Australia, which at that stage looked highly unlikely because they were playing so well. It was very frustrating because we hadn't played well enough, but we had to put it behind us and go back to Sydney to play Australia.

5TH MATCH, at Sydney. AUSTRALIA 291/6 (A C Gilchrist 63, M G Bevan 74*; D P Viljoen 3/62) beat ZIMBABWE 205 (S V Carlisle 44) by 86 runs.

Australia played very well, as is their usual style, on a pitch that was good to bowl on early on with the new ball. We got a few wickets here, but they got 291, which was a huge score. We knew we wouldn't get that, but we set our sights on getting a reasonable score of around 240 or 250 if we batted properly.

I got out early, lbw to Fleming, which was not all that flash a decision, as it pitched outside leg. Stuart Carlisle got another one that I thought was pretty harsh, just when he was going really well. Andy Flower played well, so did Grant, but it was always going to be too much of an ask and we ended up with 205, which was disappointing. We could and should have done a bit better than that.

The way some of the guys batted was good – but again they got starts and should have gone on a bit, although Stuart was out through no fault of his own. We should have got a better score, but you are always under pressure against the Aussies and it was a hard game. We just had to put it under our belts and learn from it.

6TH MATCH, at Hobart. ZIMBABWE 279/6 (A D R Campbell 124, A Flower 51) lost to AUSTRALIA 282/4 (A Symonds 60, M E Waugh 102, S R Waugh 79; B A Murphy 3/52) by six wickets.

We had a practice in the afternoon as some of the guys had areas to work on. They won the toss and put us in on a pitch where the ball was seaming around a bit and bouncing. It was a good pitch to bowl on first, and Guy and I played really well, with a bit of luck – which was what we needed. We put the bad ball away, we defended the good ball, we ran well between wickets, and it was one of those starts where we did manage to capitalize. I ran Guy out at 94, and Stuey came in to play very well, scoring 36 off 40 balls, followed by Andy Flower with 51 off 44 balls.

All the time at the other end I was just trying to bat through, which is always the game plan, and we had them a bit flustered as we reached 279, which is always a good score no matter where you are playing. We felt we had half a chance if we bowled well and put them under some pressure.

In the end they came out and played really aggressively; we were very unlucky with Andrew Symonds who gloved Streaky first ball. He scored 60 off 47 balls, but if he had been given out we would have got Ponting in early with the ball bouncing and seaming, and who knows? If we had knocked a couple out then with the new ball, it would have been a very interesting game. Symonds rode his luck, played some shots and the run rate never got below six – Mark Waugh got 102 off 113, Steve Waugh 79 off 71, and then it was a real formality at the end as they got it very comfortably.

It was very disappointing as I thought we batted out of our boots, and again there was a bit of umpiring controversy. But, that aside, we didn't get enough balls in the right area or make them work hard enough for their runs. This was disappointing, but at least we had put a good score on the board and were able to give them a good run chase and see what they were made of. They proved that they are not world champions for nothing, that they are a very competent and composed side and we learned a lesson. Maybe in the future we can lift our standards; that is what we aspire to be.

7TH MATCH, at Perth. WEST INDIES 178 (B C Lara 83*) beat ZIMBABWE 134 (N A M McLean 3/21, M N Samuels 3/25) by 44 runs.

This match was like a final within a final: we knew we had to beat West Indies at the WACA. If we beat them, we were through; if they won, they were through.

We had a brilliant start, as both we and Australia have had against them all summer; they haven't had a start against anybody. Again there was a bit of controversy with Sherwin Campbell running into Heath Streak, but the bowler has just as much right to go and get the ball as the batsman has to get into his crease. I've seen that happen so many times and the batsman has to try and get in. The bowler is not obstructing the batsman from getting in, and by standing there he just made matters worse. As far as I'm concerned that was out.

It did not sour relationships between the teams unduly and it wasn't even mentioned after the game. I think he knew he should have made his ground; you can't just stand in the middle of the pitch when the bowler runs to get the ball. You often see the batsman barge into the bowler and shoulders are used, but you have to try to make your ground. He didn't do that. If he had tripped and fallen over or run into Streaky, then we would have had to stop and see what happened and what should be done about it.

But it's happened to us before: against West Indies at the World Cup in Hyderabad, Guy Whittall ran into Ian Bishop, who moved into his way, and was given run out. Then Sherwin Campbell was involved again in West Indies against Australia, when he was run out and the crowd threw bottles and there was a riot, and Steve Waugh had to reinstate him. So it has happened, but as far as I'm concerned he has to try and make his ground and the bowler has every right to go and get the ball. He should have run around him, and it was an easy single anyway. I think it was out, and so did most of the cricketing pundits there.

Then Daren Ganga was clearly caught by Heath Streak, referred to the third umpire and given not out. Ganga batted very slowly, and then Marlon Samuels came in and scored 10 off 34 balls before `Syke' Nkala got him to nick one to me. They were three down for 40 off about 20 overs, and we thought if we kept bowling balls in the right area we could keep them under pressure. But Lara played really well, scoring 83, backed up by Ricardo Powell, 37 off 36 balls which upped their rate a bit, but they were never really going to recover. We kept applying pressure and they had five run-outs, with some shocking running between wickets.

But in the end they got 178, which was quite good on that wicket. It bounced a bit early with the new ball, as it always does at the WACA, but if you saw off the new ball and got behind the ball there were still some boundaries to be had very quickly on the quick outfield, and we fancied our chances.

Then we had a disastrous start. I nicked one early – McLean moved the ball across me and I should have either left it or been right behind it - then Stuey played a back-foot drive which was not a percentage shot on that pitch. He had already nicked one over the slips, and then nicked the next one to second slip. Then Andy tried to leave a ball that nicked the underside of his bat and Grant hit one to mid-on. Suddenly we were four down for 25 and although Guy Whittall tried to hang around before getting another bad lbw decision, the damage had already been done.

There was brief hope at 104 for six, when Dirk Viljoen and Streaky were batting and it looked as if we might be able to do something there, but Dirk nicked one and Streaky was left on his own while Nkala, Strang and Murphy perished. McLean and Cuffy did not bowl any magic balls; they just put the ball in the right area and we just nicked them. On that pitch with the bounce we were going to play and miss occasionally, but Guy showed that if you get behind the ball and guts it out, you can get a start. That's what the rest of us should have done. If one of us could have stayed with him and got a 60- or 70-run partnership that would have won us the game.

So with the match went the World Series finals. It was like a morgue in the changing rooms. The guys realized that we had been our own worst enemies. We hadn't played well enough under pressure or shown any `bottle', and that was the most disappointing thing in everybody's minds. We knew it was a must-win game and we hadn't come up with the goods against a side that has no more than decent bowling. McLean and Cuffy have done some good things up front against West Indies but we should be able to score with Williams, Samuels, Nagamootoo and Adams bowling at us. We didn't of that well enough after our bowlers had done a really good job, so it was one of those games again when we got only two departments right.

8TH MATCH, at Perth. AUSTRALIA 302/5 (D R Martyn 144*) beat ZIMBABWE 301/6 (S V Carlisle 119, G W Flower 85) by one run.

It was very hard to motivate ourselves for the last game. We knew that it was a nothing game, and we were going home very disappointed. But there was a lot of personal pride, a lot of professionalism involved, and also we were playing against Australia. We wanted to leave Australia on a high note, showing the Australian public watching at home that we were competitive and we could play good cricket.

We bowled first and when they got 302 it didn't look likely that we would leave Australia on a high note. I think most people expected us to be bowled out for 180 in a total mismatch, and they go home and the Australian bandwagon rolls on. It did look that way for a while: Gavin Rennie edged McGrath early, Stuart Carlisle and I were given a life each, at gully and first slip, and McGrath was bowling really well.

Stuart and I played a few shots, and after being one for one we managed to get it up to 54 before I nicked Brett Lee. Andy came in, played aggressively as well, and all the while Stu was judging the line and length very nicely, piercing the gaps. It looked like we were never in with a chance to win but we might get a very respectable total on the board.

Then Grant Flower came in and played only as he can in that situation. He's done it before and it reminded me so much of his innings against West Indies at Chester-le-Street. From the go he was aggressive, but sensibly aggressive; he hit the gaps, he took the risks when he needed to, he ran hard. Stuey played the same way, putting the bad balls away, and suddenly from 91 for three these guys were creaming it at six runs an over and we were needing the same equation as we did against West Indies at Chester-le-Street. But with `death' bowlers like Harvey and McGrath, I thought we would fall 30 runs shy, but then they kept playing and we were suddenly 278.

It only took a good catch by Mark Waugh to get Stuey out; if that had been either side it would have been four runs, and that might have made a difference. But he did catch him, and again, catches win matches at vital times and the Aussies did that. Grant got out soon after that, a run-out due to a superb throw from Andrew Symonds, but we were still in the game. Then came that 48th over from McGrath that cost just two runs and took two wickets, including the run-out, and that was the telling blow.

Harvey bowled his over, and then we needed 15 off the last over, Marillier against McGrath, an unknown against probably the finest bowler in the world at the moment. Douggie had never faced him before, but he had been practising in the nets. He knew he wasn't going to play unless there was a serious injury, and so he innovated in the nets whenever he batted. It just goes to show that if you practise something hard enough and have the courage to carry it out on the field, you have a chance of it succeeding. So he walked across his stumps and scooped it over fine leg, hit a two out to point, then scooped another one, and suddenly we needed five off three balls. He got two runs off the next two balls, and two to tie, three or a boundary to win off the last.

I thought he made the wrong choice; he talked about it out there but I think charging a bowler is very dangerous. I don't think you have that much chance of it succeeding; I think it is better to stay still in your crease and move around your crease. I think that although fine leg was back and square leg back, he should have moved across his stumps again and tried to hit that gap, a shot he had been playing well. But that is hindsight; he ran down the pitch, got an inside edge, ran one and we lost by one run.

It was a great game of cricket and we got a lot of plaudits from many distinguished cricketing people. The public were right behind us and a lot of the public sentiment would have liked us to play in the finals; they had seen enough of the West Indies for that summer. We had some good games against Australia and we couldn't seem to get a run against West Indies – but, be that as it may, we weren't good enough to beat West Indies; we were given the opportunity to do so and didn't take it, not through anything great on their behalf but through inept batting on our behalf.

That shows the inconsistencies we have to iron out. We scored 134 one day and 301 the next day on the same pitch! It's one of those enigmas that has always puzzled me. But it shows how we can play, how we can bat, and we take something positive for that and hopefully put it into practice against our home crowds over the next six months.

We did discuss sending Gus Mackay in at the end of our innings against Australia, and in retrospect it may have worked. Then again, Gus, although he has been able to hit in the B side, hitting in the B side and against Glenn McGrath are two different things. I thought, although I can't speak on behalf of Streaky, running between the wickets also comes into it. Gus is not the quickest between wickets, so if it did come down to needing two off the last ball and you had Dirk Viljoen running, he would have a better chance with a tight run. There is the case of a big blow to win the game or the case of what Doug did. So there are two sides to look at. I think Dirk has a very cool head under pressure, and as he showed in Sharjah he can hit the ball if required as well as anybody. I think if I was the captain I would have sent in Dirk.

© Cricinfo