Plenty to read, certainly.

Whoosh. A four-run win by Australia. 11 and 17 from the last two overs.

So now England can afford to lose their match by about 50 runs, as long as they also win. Or they can win by taking 27 overs to get there. Either way, plenty to think about.

New way of England going through. 33 needed now from 12 balls.

Done. 110/6, Australia cannot now overtake England’s Nrrrrr (except by England losing, of course, which in itself makes the Nrrrrrrrr irrrrrrelevant).

So Sri Lanka now becomes Australia’s max favourite top team ever.

99 for 2, no 3, no wait, 4, hold on, 5.

Seven runs needed, six and a bit overs to get them. Can Australia restrict Afghanistan to under the magic total and so force England to win by a fraction more than the barest minimum? I’m trying, people, I am trying.

Back from my meeting, Afghanistan 66 for 2 in 9.2. So 40 needed in 10.4 overs, or just under 4 an over. That’s going to need to special bowling. It’s all looking set for England to go out by losing and not by net run rate.

Nine from the last over. Maxwell unable to fully unleash his silver hammer. So 168 for 8, which I think means a target of 106 for the Aussie bowlers to restrict Afghanistan to.

Australia 159 for 8 after 19 overs, leaving Afghanistan a round 100 plus whatever Australia score in the last over to stop Australia going through on Nrrrrrrr.

I hope this is the “through the morning match thread”, not that I’ll be around to use it. Some of us have to work today, you know.

Another thought is that the Aussie curators can have a say.

Based on the Bert theory, the Adelaide curator might be producing a belter while the Sydney curator is producing a whirling dervish of a Bunsen.