Liverpool are putting the final touches on signing PEC Zwolle's highly rated teenage defender Sepp van den Berg, sources have told ESPN FC.

PSV Eindhoven had been given permission to negotiate a deal for the 17-year-old, who has also been heavily monitored by Bayern Munich and Ajax, but the centre-back has opted for Anfield as his next destination.

- When does the transfer window close?

The fee is expected to be in the region of £2 million for a player, entering the final year of his contract, touted as one of the brightest talents in Dutch football.

His Liverpool medical is pencilled in for Wednesday and an official announcement from the club is expected before Friday.

Van den Berg made his first-team debut for Zwolle in 2017-18, featuring seven times in their Eredivisie campaign, before making 16 appearances last season. They had hoped to tie him to an extension, but could not compete with the clubs hoping to secure his services.

The Netherlands under-19 international would initially go into Liverpool's academy set-up, but like his countryman Ki-Jana Hoever, is expected to ultimately push for first-team involvement.

Van den Berg, strong in the tackle and comfortable in possession, but needing to develop his ability to dominate in the air, will become the Reds' first signing this summer.

As reported by ESPN FC, Liverpool will be patient during the summer transfer window, a policy which allows them to recruit game changers should they become available.

Barcelona midfielder Andre Gomes has joined Everton in a deal worth €25 million plus add ons, the Spanish champions have confirmed.

Gomes is set to be followed out the Camp Nou door by goalkeeper Jasper Cillessen, who passed a medical with Valencia on Tuesday ahead of a €30m transfer.

Barca also finalised the departure of Marc Cardona on Tuesday. The young forward has joined promoted La Liga side Osasuna for €2.5m after spending last season on loan at Eibar.

The sales edge the club towards the €60m they need to bring in before the end of the month to balance their accounts for the 2018-19 season.

Gomes, 25, spent last season on loan at Premier League side Everton having fallen out of favour at Barcelona, who he joined from Valencia in 2016 for €35 initially.

His performances in England drew interest from elsewhere -- notably West Ham United -- but the Portugal midfielder said it was always his desire to remain at Goodison Park.

"It wasn't hard to decide, it was an easy decision and I'm very happy to have made it," Gomes said.

- When does the transfer window close?
- Marcotti: What makes for a juicy transfer story?
- 30 Under 21: The best young stars in men's football

"Last year was a really good experience for me. I just wanted to feel part of something special and I found it here. It was good for me at that moment and right now, after signing for Everton, it's even better."

Gomes made 78 appearances for Barca and won four trophies, but was never able to win a regular place in the side. Criticism from fans led him to reveal that life in his second season at the club had become "a kind of hell."

Meanwhile, Cillessen is in Valencia to complete his move to the La Liga side. The deal will eventually see goalkeeper Neto move in the other direction. Barca will pay a fee in the region of €25m for the one-cap Brazil international.

However, the Catalan club must wait until July before finalising that part of the agreement due to their need to bring in money before the end of June to balance their accounts before starting afresh next month.

Barca signed Cillessen from Ajax in 2016 to provide competition for Marc-Andre ter Stegen following the sale of Claudio Bravo. The Dutch goalkeeper has done well when he's played -- mainly in the Copa del Rey -- but has failed to oust the German from between the posts.

Cillessen, 30, made 32 appearances for Barcelona in total and helped them win the Copa del Rey twice. He was also a runner-up in the same competition in May when the Blaugrana lost to his new club Valencia.

Before that final, he had already made it clear that he wanted to leave Barca this summer in search of regular first-team football ahead of next year's European Championships.

There was strong interest from Portuguese side Benfica but they were never willing to match the €30m Barcelona were asking for.

Liverpool have told ESPN FC that information suggesting they are in concrete talks with Lille over the transfer of Nicolas Pepe is "pure lies."

- When does the transfer window close?

The Premier League club insist no meetings or discussions of any sort have taken place for the 24-year-old, contrary to reports in France.

Earlier in June, Liverpool's sporting director Michael Edwards personally reached out to Lille manager Christophe Galtier, informing him the European champions have "zero interest" in the Ivory Coast international.

Liverpool feel they are being used to escalate interest in Pepe, whose valuation is already around £70 million.

The versatile attacker has been linked to Bayern Munich, Atletico Madrid and Inter Milan, among others, as Lille aim to generate maximum profit from a key asset they are resigned to losing.

Pepe is expected to provide clarity on his destination of choice following his participation in the Africa Cup of Nations.

The summer transfer window is in full swing, but there's plenty of work to be done given the flurry of international tournaments that have occupied the attention of some of this summer's biggest targets. Which players are likeliest to move before the 2019-20 campaign? David Amoyal rates the top rumours from around world football in the latest edition of our summer Rumour Rater.

Matthijs de Ligt to Juventus: 50 percent

Considering that the Serie A champions are confident they can sign Adrien Rabiot on a free transfer to further bolster their midfield, it's not entirely surprising to see them shift their attention from Paul Pogba to the Dutch centre-back. Juventus have a strong relationship with agent Mino Raiola and their pursuit of De Ligt dates back to 2018, when he visited their training facilities in Turin. It also didn't hurt that Cristiano Ronaldo asked him to join him after the Nations League match between Portugal and the Netherlands. While Juventus still face competition from Paris Saint-Germain, De Ligt is convinced playing alongside Giorgio Chiellini is the ideal next step in his development.

James Rodriguez to Napoli: 65 percent

The Partenopei are increasingly confident they can acquire the Colombia international on a loan-with-an-option-to-buy deal. James is intrigued by opportunity to rejoin his former coach Carlo Ancelotti, and Napoli are willing to make him their highest-paid player ever and waive their usual requirement of owning the image rights for their stars. Agent Jorge Mendes is working on completing a deal that would see Napoli pay Real Madrid a substantial fee for the loan, with an option to buy set at €30 million, which would become an obligation to buy should the Italian club win Serie A.

Dani Olmo to Barcelona: 40 percent

The 21-year-old Spaniard's excellent performances in the Croatian league and with Spain at the Under-21 European Championship have tuned the heads of many clubs, including Barcelona. The Blaugrana are in fact very keen on bringing Olmo back home, after he left the Catalan side for Dinamo Zagreb when he was 16, and are pondering an offer in the region of €30m to beat Bayer Leverkusen -- who have made him their top target to replace Borussia Dortmund-bound Julian Brandt -- in the race to secure the signature of the talented winger.

Junior Firpo to Liverpool: 35 percent

With backup left-back Alberto Moreno set to leave Anfield at the end of the month, Liverpool are on the lookout for a replacement who could provide adequate cover for Andrew Robertson. One of the players under the Reds' magnifying glass is Spain U21 international Junior Firpo. The Panama-born full-back playing at Real Betis could be acquired for €50m -- a sum that would trigger the release clause in his contract. Liverpool, however, are still considering whether it would be wise to spend such a significant amount of money on a potential backup, and will hence take their time to contemplate every option.

Daniele De Rossi to AC Milan: 30 percent

The former Roma captain had a change of heart and has decided to continue playing in Serie A rather than heading to MLS or join Boca Juniors. Milan are banking on his good relationship with Frederic Massara -- who after being Monchi's top assistant at Roma, became the Rossoneri's sporting director -- as well as new coach Marco Giampaolo. But Milan will face strong competition from Bologna, Fiorentina, Inter and especially Sampdoria, who just hired former Roma manager Eusebio Di Francesco and are looking to give Francesco Totti a significant role in their front office. A move there may be easier to stomach than Milan for Roma fans, a factor that may also weigh on De Rossi's mind.

- When does the transfer window close?
- Anatomy of a transfer: What's real and what's not
- Inside Liverpool's new transfer policy

Armando Izzo to Everton: 35 percent

The 27-year-old centre-back had a breakout season playing for Walter Mazzarri, which earned him a selection to the Italian national team as well as the interest of multiple Premier League clubs. Torino are however determined to hold on to Izzo and president Urbano Cairo is willing to reward him with a raise, but with both Everton and Arsenal ready to offer close to three times what the Italian club paid to acquire him last year from Genoa, a move to England could be in the cards for the defender this summer.

Gianluigi Buffon to Porto: 70 percent

The legendary Italian goalkeeper is looking for a new experience after spending a season at Paris Saint-Germain. While Buffon has received proposals from Fluminense and Leeds, and Atalanta offered him the chance to return to Serie A and play in the Champions League, his most likely destination is Porto, where he could replace close friend Iker Casillas.

Ivan Perisic to Manchester United: 25 percent

The Croatia international turned down a rich offer from the Chinese Super League, as his preference is an experience in the Premier League. Manchester United have been linked to him in the past and could work with Inter on a larger deal also involving Romelu Lukaku, who has already agreed to personal terms with the Italian club. Perisic has also been linked to Arsenal, who came close to signing him last January, as well as Leicester.

Yannick Carrasco to Bayern Munich: 35 percent

After little more than a year in China, Yannick Carrasco seems determined to return to Europe. The former Atletico Madrid player is showing clear signs of discontent and is trying to force a move out of Dalian Yifang. Among the teams scouring the market for a winger, Bayern Munich would be open to fulfill the Belgian's wish and take him back to the Old Continent, but at the moment they are considering this possibility only as a plan B. The reigning Bundesliga champions are focused on the negotiations for Leroy Sane and could decide to step up their interest in Carrasco only if their pursuit for the Manchester City winger turned out to be a wild goose chase.

Kieran Tierney to Arsenal: 45 percent

As odd as it may sound, Celtic's sale of Virgil van Dijk to Southampton in 2015 for the relatively cheap price of £13m could be a major problem for Arsenal in their chase for Scottish left-back Kieran Tierney. The deal for the Dutch defender caused a complete shift in Celtic's transfer policy, as the Glasgow-based club are unwilling to again take the risk of selling one of their best players for less than asking price only to regret it later. For this reason, Arsenal's initial offer for Tierney of £15m was turned down, as the Bhoys remain adamant they won't accept less than double that sum. For their part, the Gunners are not giving up just yet and they are preparing an improved offer in order to soften their counterparts' position.

The transfer window can be the best and worst time as a soccer fan: either your team is linked to every top player and they eventually make some signings, or they're left settling for some last-minute loan deals to remain competitive. There are rumors, whispers and endless paper talk. There's also a lot of jargon to keep you confused.

Who sets a transfer fee? Is a "free" transfer really free? How do clubs offset the costs of doing business? What does an intermediary do and why do teams need them, anyway?

ESPN FC senior writer Gab Marcotti shines a light on the transfer market and explains it all.

Q: All those transfer stories out there ... it's just made-up clickbait, isn't it?

A: Some of it, sure, and some of it may not be made up in the sense that there is a source, just perhaps not a credible source or a second-hand source. When you see stuff attributed to other publications, it means the publication you're reading hasn't been able to verify the story but there's some level of credibility to it, so they attribute it to somebody else.

Some stuff has a source, but it's an interested party. For example, a club or an agent may tell reporters on background that they had interest for Player X from Clubs Y and Z. It may or may not be true, and the reason it might not be true is that it could be an attempt to drum up interest in Player X. An educated reader needs to make up his own mind about the credibility of the publication and the individual reporting it.

- When does the transfer window close?
- Reddy: Inside Liverpool's new transfer policy
- 30 Under 21: The best young stars in men's soccer

Another situation that regularly occurs is that a story may appear in one country on Tuesday and then get picked up by a publication in another on Wednesday. And then, on Thursday, the story will reappear in the original country with the presumption that the other media outlet offered "confirmation" of the story when, in fact, all they did was repeat what had been originally published. That used to happen a lot in the past -- less so now thanks to the internet and the 24/7 news cycle.

But there are plenty of stories with solid reporting behind them too.

Q: Yeah? Well what are the sources?

A: People don't realize that in the transfer ecosystem, there are plenty of folks who know what's going on. Some have the full picture, others only part of it, but there are plenty who talk. Players have family members, friends and teammates who talk. There are directors of football, scouts and managers who talk. And, of course, there are agents and intermediaries who talk.

Q: Why would they? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep things confidential?

A: It depends on the situation. Many clubs have press officers whose job it is to provide information to media, a way of controlling the message. Sometimes they don't comment on certain subjects, sometimes (rarely, to be fair) they flat-out lie, sometimes they tell you what's going on. And even when press officers don't do that, others at the club will because it's immaterial to the deal.

Take Manchester United's reported interest in Aaron Wan-Bissaka: the story is out there whether they make another bid or not or, indeed, how much they bid isn't going to impact whether he joins or not. The same applies to agents. The clever ones know when to talk and when to stay quiet.

Sometimes a club may want to put information out there to keep the fans happy. It shows that they're trying to do something, it gets their brand in the headlines, and sometimes, it can accelerate a deal.

The best example I can think of involves Argentina striker Gabriel Batistuta. In the summer of 2000, Roma were looking for a center-forward but were quoted what the club thought was an insane price for Fiorentina's Batistuta: more than $40m for a 31-year-old striker. (It's a big number even today and back then, even more so.) Club owner Franco Sensi decided it was far too much so Fabio Capello, Roma's manager at the time, told a newspaper that the Batistuta deal was on the verge of going through even though Sensi had said "no." When it appeared in the paper the next day, Sensi's phone started to ring off the hook with well-wishers congratulating him on showing so much ambition. Fans sang his name in the streets. He was suddenly a hero for breaking the bank and, eventually, he agreed the deal. Roma won the title the next season.

That said, there are plenty of other occasions when at least one party in the deal wants to keep things under wraps. Fortunately, in any transaction, there are multiple parties and rarely is it in everyone's interest not to talk. In fact, very rarely is it in the interest of intermediaries not to talk.

Q: Run me through what these guys, intermediaries, do again? Why can't clubs just talk to each other?

A: Simply put, intermediaries do things clubs can't, like approach a player (via his agent) without his club's consent, which is technically illegal. Before you make an official approach and offer a hefty sum for a player, you want to know how much it will cost you in terms of wages and contract length. That's something the intermediary can do on your behalf: he or she can also make the initial approach with a club to get an idea of what the asking price might be.

- Transfer grades: Tracking every big summer move in Europe
- Transfer Talk Index

It works in reverse, too. If there's a player you might want to sell, whether to upgrade a position or to raise cash, you might employ an intermediary to get the word out. Or, sometimes, his agent will be doing the same. It helps a club maintain plausible deniability towards fans (who might not want to see a star player sold) and towards the player himself, since nobody likes to be told they're considered surplus to requirements or simply not good enough. Not to mention the fact that the minute you stick a "for sale" sign on somebody, his price drops.

Q: OK, so what determines a transfer price? It's a free market so it's whatever a club is willing to pay, right?

A: Not quite. In fact, terms like "going rate" or "market value" are pretty meaningless. There are forces you'd expect to determine a player's price: talent, age, nationality -- a guy with an EU passport or, better yet, who satisfies association-trained or home-grown requirements is worth that much more -- current wages and length of contract. But at the higher end of the market, these factors often get distorted. Top talent is rare and clubs often believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that only a certain player will do.

Take Eden Hazard. Real Madrid paid around $110 million plus bonuses. That doesn't mean they would have been just as happy with 11 guys costing $10m each (plus bonuses). Players aren't commodities in that sense.

Another example is that the price ends up being intrinsically linked to the urgency of the buying club. After Neymar left Barcelona and joined PSG for around a quarter of a billion dollars, the Catalan club found themselves sitting on a pile of money and desperately needing a winger. They spent some $120m of it on Ousmane Dembele from Borussia Dortmund. He's a fine player, but it's a safe bet that if they had tried to buy Dembele at the start of the transfer window rather than at the end, they would likely have spent half as much. Timing can make a difference.

It also matters which club is doing the buying. In the summer of 2016, Rennes sold central midfielder Abdoulaye Doucoure to Watford for around $12 million. A bigger, wealthier club were also interested and had offered $20m for the player, who was their second choice to fit in midfield. But because that bigger club got their first choice, Watford were able to secure Doucoure for 40 percent less. This sort of thing happens all the time. The lesson is simple: it's very difficult for wealthy clubs to acquire players without sellers jacking up the prices.

Q: What about release clauses? Why would a club ever put in a release clause?

A: Yeah, the release clause is another market-distorting factor. So first we need to distinguish between clauses in Spain, every player has one and they work more like a buyout clause, and standard release clauses where, for a certain fee, a player can move.

Typically a player will ask for one to be inserted in his contract in exchange for accepting a slightly lower contract than he would want. It's a way for a player to bet on himself, essentially saying: "OK, I'll leave some guaranteed money on the table now but if I do well, whoever buys me won't have a massive fee to pay so they'll be able to give me a better deal when I do move."

Q: OK, so it's a bit like free transfers writ small. There's a fee, but it's not enormous, so the player gets more...

A: Yes, though "free transfer" is increasingly becoming a misnomer. When Emre Can moved from Liverpool to Juventus on a "free" transfer, not only did he get a substantial raise but nearly $18 million went to agent's commissions. You'd expect something similar for Aaron Ramsey's people and, whichever club he joins, Adrien Rabiot's agent. (His agent is his mom.)

Some of it is paid by the club to negotiate the players' contract, which is an apparent conflict of interest -- but that's how the game works, and some of it is paid by the club to deliver the player. Is it still cheaper than paying a transfer fee? Of course, but the gap is diminishing.

Q: What's the biggest misconception out there in the way we talk about the transfer market?

A: Many still don't seem to understand how most clubs think about what a player costs them. When clubs buy players, they amortize (write off the initial cost) the fee over the life of the contract. So if Player X (him again) joins for $50m and signs a five-year deal worth $5m a season, he's costing the club $15m a year ($10m in amortisation and $5m in wages). If Player Y joins on a free transfer (yes, I know it's not quite "free" so let's leave that to one side a minute) and signs a five-year deal worth $20m a season, he's costing the club more than Player X.

But there's a twist. Let's say both play pretty poorly and after two years, the club wants to get rid of them. In Player X's case, as long as they sell for $30m or more, they get their money back (in accounting terms) because that's the value left on the contract. In Player Y's case, he cost nothing, so any transfer fee means they've turned a profit on him. (Remember though: because he signed the bigger $20m contract, it will likely be harder to find a buyer who can take on that expense in addition to paying a transfer fee.)

Incidentally, amortization is also why clubs are incentivised to offer longer contracts, and even raises, in some situations. Take Player X. If, after two years, he signs another five-year deal worth, say, $6m a season, he's happy because he gets a 20 percent raise, right? But the club is also happy because they can spread the residual value of his fee ($30m) over another five years, which means it is now costing them $12m a season ($6m in amortisation plus $6m in wages).

So they've managed to pay him 20 percent more, while saving themselves 20 percent. Everybody wins.

Warwickshire 230 and 148 for 3 (Sibley 52*) trail Surrey 194 and 325 (Stoneman 71, Elgar 53, Curran 52, Miles 5-91) by 141 runs

Tight fourth-innings chases place stressful responsibility on the fielding captain, and Rory Burns will have an extra calculation to make as he tries to perm a way to deny Warwickshire the 142 still needed to secure what would be a terrific win for the visitors. When does he turn to Sam Curran?

This is Curran's first-team comeback for Surrey following the hamstring injury he suffered last month. As a centrally contracted player, he falls under England's control and he was made available on the condition that he bowls a maximum 30 overs across the two innings. He has only six left.

Surrey pre-empted difficulties by leaving Curran out of their initial squad. They wanted him to play a full, unrationed role, or not at all. Then Matt Dunn turned an ankle on the eve of the fixture and Curran, though presumably less than 100 percent, was still the fittest replacement available.

Burns employed him for 17 overs in the Warwickshire first innings. As head coach Michael di Venuto told a Members' Forum during the lunch break: "Hopefully Sam will be a genius in the second." Well, the all-rounder has bowled like a mortal so far, Warwickshire have chipped away tenaciously at their target and Dominic Sibley appears as solid as the gasholders outside.

Once again, Surrey could only lament some of their own dismissals. Di Venuto had used strong words to describe their careless first-innings display, and bear in mind that the Australian vernacular can be very strong indeed. Although the second-innings total of 325 represented a significant improvement on 194, it still featured moments of culpability.

This is to take nothing away from Craig Miles, whose perseverance and improvement through the innings brought figures of 5 for 91. He had been expensive on Monday night and wayward again on Tuesday morning, flattered, by a first ball that Ben Foakes carved to backward point. With Toby Lester also profligate, and plenty of time remaining, Surrey were on top until Miles fought back.

Dean Elgar mis-hooked a well-directed bouncer, completing his helicopter-like pirouette and still finding time to scythe his bat through the air in frustration before the ball arrived to long leg. Curran, too, had just passed fifty when he fell in similar style, the ungainly Oliver Hannon-Dalby taking a roundabout route towards the ball before holding on while sprawled on the ground.

Hannon-Dalby has become vital to Warwickshire as the injuries mount. He is a player John Arlott would have loved: a yeoman bowler neither aesthetically pleasing nor blindingly fast, but who does the basics undemonstratively well. His big feet kiss the turf as he runs in, like a man living in a top floor flat trying not to rattle the ceiling below with a heavy tread.

He deserved more than his two wickets, but would not have begrudged Miles the five-fer completed with thin edges, inside and out, from Jordan Clark and Morne Morkel. The manner of Surrey's final wicket said much for the effort as Rikki Clarke contrived to screw a full toss from Jeetan Patel into the off side. Clarke at least had held together the late-innings.

Burns opted to use some of Curran's overs with the new ball as Warwickshire set off towards the 290 required. Given the limited opportunity he might have better waited for evidence of swing, which did not arrive until after the early overs. Indeed, Curran did more with the ball when he returned for a second spell. Clarke, too, generated enough movement to threaten.

The game became all the more compelling for Surrey's failure to make an early breakthrough. Sibley and Will Rhodes were not an obvious opening pair when they came together last season, but they are increasingly ranking among the best in the first division. Sibley, resolute, showed why Surrey were so upset at losing him, while the left-handed Rhodes played a more forcing role.

Appeals went unheard, edges fell short or wide. With the floodlights shining it felt like a time to bowl and every ball seemed significant. Then, with the stand on 70, Gareth Batty hit Rhodes on the back foot to win an lbw decision. Rob Yates soon followed, but Sibley and Sam Hain showed their adhesive qualities against Nottinghamshire recently and were content to reprise that obstinate display.

How crucial, then, that the perennially competitive Batty should strike four overs before close. Hain pushed forward anticipating turn that did not materialise and Foakes completed a stumping despite pain in his right fingers that needed treatment a few minutes earlier when a rising ball from Morkel slipped through his gloves.

Not for the first time over the past three days, Foakes had demonstrated his style and skill. But talent comes in different forms, and while batting seems much more of an effort to Sibley, he is also a formidable customer. He will resume on 52 from 111 balls, and his wicket is the one Surrey need most in the morning.

Sussex231 for 9 (Rawlins 56*, Wiese 56, Carse 4-42) trail Durham 384 (Bancroft 158, Eckersley 118, Jordan 4-58) by 153 runs

Early on the second morning of this game Stiaan van Zyl dived to stop a ball on the fine leg boundary. He failed but managed to cake himself in mud, a legacy of Monday night's heavy rain. Van Zyl's embarrassment greatly amused Ben Brown and Chris Jordan but they would have chuckled less freely had they been told it was a portent of Sussex's day. Or rather, of much of their day.

Sussex supporters will tell you that one of the frustrations of following the county has been its occasional tendency to lose matches when simple victory beckons and win them when undertakers are parked outside the ground. They do not quite mean what they say. Sussex's inconsistency also gives their supporters a frisson of excitement. That emotion was felt by some on the second evening of this game when the batting of Delray Rawlins took a day Durham had dominated and gave his own county's supporters something to cheer after a grim couple of sessions.

Had it not been for Rawlins' unbeaten 56 and his eighth-wicket partnership of 109 with David Wiese, the day's honours would have been claimed by Brydon Carse, whose four wickets were a just reward for 14 accurate overs. Perhaps they still should be; after all, Sussex have not yet saved the follow-on and the visitors are in the ascendant. But after watching Rawlins strike the ball clean and long through a perfect Hove evening Sussex supporters may have gazed into the gull-strewn sky and not known whether to curse or bless their loyalty.

When Rawlins joined Wiese twenty minutes after tea Sussex were 110 for 7 and 284 runs in arrears. Gradually the 21-year-old adjusted to his task and began to hit the ball with more assurance. His second four, an on-drive off Ben Raine, was as sweet as anything we saw. Two balls later he stroked Raine easily for six in the same direction and followed that in the next over with a straight drive off James Weighell. Rawlins was beginning to enjoy himself and Wiese, too, batted with greater certainty, sweeping Liam Trevaskis for six and reaching his own fifty before falling leg before when attempting a reverse sweep. Aaron Thomason became Carse's fourth victim a couple of overs later but by then Rawlins had reached his fifty off 88 balls with a huge six over long-on.

It was intriguing as Rawlins was applauded to recall Sussex's travails earlier in the day. The morning's cricket, for example was divided into two very unequal parts. In the first Cameron Bancroft and Ned Eckersley extended their overnight partnership to 282, a sixth-wicket record for Durham in first-class cricket; in the second Durham lost their last five wickets for 12 runs in 32 balls, three of the wickets falling to the left-arm spin of Rawlins, a bowler who had never previously taken more than one wicket in a first-team game.

Bancroft and Eckersley batted competently but needed to do little more. Thomason seemed to require more evidence Bancroft can play the pull shot; the evidence was duly provided and the ball smacked into the advertising hoarding. The session continued in similar fashion for nearly two hours. The collapse began when Eckersley, having registered his maiden century for Durham, drove too early at a ball from Luke Wells and was caught and bowled for 118. Two balls later Bancroft was lbw for 158 when sweeping a full toss from Rawlins. One wonders why long partnerships are so often the prelude to both partners getting out in quick succession. Is it a form of trivial bereavement, the second batsman being unable to carry on without his long-time colleague? Simple destabilisation is probably a better explanation. Either way, it never seemed to unsettle Bradman.

Such thoughts did not trouble Rawlins. He carried on giving it a tweak and had picked up two more wickets and a career-best 3 for 19 before Will Beer wrapped up an untidy session on the stroke of tiffin. All the same, 384 seemed a decent score and an even better one when Sussex were 3 for 2 twenty minutes into the afternoon session.

Their favourites' rapid decline did not surprise the regulars in the Sharks stand. One declared he had never seen anything like it. (He probably had.) Another that: "We'll be batting again by tea."(They weren't.) But Sussex, whose top-order batting is flaky at the moment, were five down at tea, two of their early wickets having been taken by Chris Rushworth, who struck with the fourth ball of the innings when Wells' weak defensive push only edged a catch to Alex Lees at first slip. Will Beer, whose place as opener indicates a willingness to help rather than unsuspected competence, was then leg before to a full length ball from Carse, and Harry Finch was then trapped in front by one from Rushworth which nipped back down the hill.

Subsequent recoveries beguiled supporters in the Spen Cama Pavilion but ultimately deceived them. Laurie Evans made 20 before being caught down the leg side off Weighell. Van Zyl batted carefully for 34 but played down the wrong line to Gareth Harte's fourth ball of the day. That wicket fell a few minutes before tea; two balls after the resumption Brown made to whip Carse through midwicket but only gave a catch off the leading edge to Rushworth at mid-on. By now Wiese was at the crease and four overs later he was joined by Rawlins. Sussex supporters could have given up the day as a bad job but instead they opted to stay where they were and watch this young lad Rawlins for a while.

Zimbabwe 152 all out (Taylor 40, van der Merwe 4-35) tied with Netherlands 152 for 8 (O'Dowd 56, Williams 2-28)

Zimbabwe 18 for 0 beat Netherlands 9 for 1 in the Super Over

The second T20I in Rotterdam seesawed wildly into a dramatic tie and a Super Over finish in which Zimbabwe scored 18 thanks to Brendan Taylor and Elton Chigumbura, before Tendai Chatara held his nerve to keep Netherlands to just 9 for 1 in response. Chatara's mettle helped Zimbabwe secure their first win of the tour - and a 1-1 series draw - but it was Roelof van der Merwe who almost stole the show as he snatched a tie out of an almost hopeless situation to set up the Super Over decider.

Zimbabwe needed 13 off the final over and Chigumbura took them the brink with consecutive, mighty leg-side hits that levelled the scores. But in a blazing display of bravura, van der Merwe conjured up a dot ball followed by three wickets - a team hat-trick - to keep them from going past. Chigumbura was yorked by a quicker one, Chris Mpofu heaved and was bowled first ball, and with one needed from the last ball, Chatara's swipe was stopped at short midwicket, and the ball was hurled back for van der Merwe to seal a run out.

Van der Merwe, who finished with 4 for 34, had also been crucial in helping his team overcome Taylor's electric start in the chase. With Netherlands having put up 152 for 8, thanks mainly to Max O'Dowd's third fifty of the tour, Taylor was shunted up to open the batting in international cricket for the first time in seven years.

He launched the pursuit with an array of attacking strokes against pace and spin alike. Fred Klaasen was driven and ramped and van der Merwe swept before Taylor jumped down the crease to play what was possibly the shot of the match - an inside-out checked loft over extra cover.

Weathering the early loss of Hamilton Masakadza without skipping a beat, Taylor raised Zimbabwe's fifty inside the Powerplay with a hopping uppercut off Paul van Meekeren. Zimbabwe's rapid start had put them ahead of the asking rate, but Brandon Glover struck with the vital wicket, the fall of Taylor, Zimbabwe's best batsman, sparking a collapse as 69 for 1 became 97 for 6.

Taylor edged an attempted ramp to depart for 40, and van Meekeren then struck twice in his next over to see the back of Sean Williams and Craig Ervine. After tapping the ball around for an over or two amid asphyxiating spells from Glover and van der Merwe, the scoreboard pressure got to Sikandar Raza and Peter Moor, who both fell to catches in the deep off van der Merwe's left-arm spin.

The required rate quickly moved above ten, and Zimbabwe required 47 from the last four. Ryan Burl backed away to hack van Meekeren through cover, and then took ten runs off the first two balls of Pieter Seelaar's comeback over - the 18th - before slapping a high catch out to long-off to leave Zimbabwe needing an unlikely 23 from the last 12 balls.

Chigumbura took his time playing himself in in his first match of the tour, but once he found his range he quickly threatened to turn the match around once more. Klaasen was carted for six over midwicket in the penultimate over, setting up the showdown between a strutting Chigumbura and a combative van der Merwe. The left-arm spinner continued to attack the stumps, even after his first two balls had been deposited over the boundary, and Zimbabwe almost fluffed what should have been a simple finish when one run was needed from the last four balls.

Zimbabwe made a better fist of their second go at victory in the Super Over, Chigumbura slugging one over the leg-side before Taylor scooped ten runs off two balls on either side of wicketkeeper Scott Edwards to lift their team to a total that Chatara made sure was out of Netherlands' reach with a nerveless six balls.

Their efforts meant a bruising fifty from O'Dowd went in vain. Even as wickets fell at the other end, he helped Netherlands chug through the Powerplay at 55 for 3. A back-foot thump out to wide long-on brought O'Dowd to a 36-ball half-century at the end of the 11th over, but he was one of four Dutch batsmen to fall to spin as Zimbabwe's slow bowlers took control of the middle overs.

Netherlands slipped to 120 for 7 before captain Seelaar chipped in with 29 not out to push them to a total that very nearly proved out of Zimbabwe's reach.

The last time Australia opened the bowling with two left-arm quicks it was all about the Mitches. Australia were facing Sri Lanka in the 2015 World Cup, Mitchell Starc and Mitchell Johnson took two wickets apiece and Australia won by 64 runs. Four years later, on the other side of the world in another World Cup, Starc and Jason Behrendorff conjured some left-arm wizardry, took nine wickets between them and Australia won by 64 runs. Cricket is funny, sometimes.

Behrendorff is a very different bowler to Johnson but the decisions to select him and hand him the new ball proved to be masterstrokes against England. Bowling up the slope from the Nursery End and generating troublesome swing, Behrendorff took just two deliveries to strike the first blow for Australia, shattering the stumps of James Vince and evoking memories of Starc's wicket-taking fireworks against Brendon McCullum and New Zealand in the 2015 World Cup Final. Cricket is funny, sometimes.

Watch on Hotstar (India only): Highlights of Behrendorff's five-wicket haul

But it hasn't always been a barrel full of chuckles for Behrendorff. At 29 years of age, he has had a frustrating international career, a wealth of promise curtailed by a series of debilitating back injuries. Coming into this tournament he seemed to be down the pecking order, behind Nathan Coulter-Nile as the main contender for the third seamer role, or perhaps a back-up for Starc. Now his name will be etched on the honours board at the Home of Cricket; something that seemed far off during his many extensive rehabilitations.

"Some days, especially during all the rehab periods, you think, am I going to get back; am I going to be able to get out there and play for my country," said Behrendorff. "It's one of those things you dream of as a kid to play cricket for Australia; and then to come here and play at Lord's my first time here, I trained here the other day and my first game here, so yeah, it was something special.

"It's something I'll treasure for sure. It's something that you don't play cricket for, the accolades, but to play at Lord's and to take five today was really special."

It was Aaron Finch's call to open the bowling with Behrendorff rather than Pat Cummins and he was repaid handsomely, with the wicket of Jonny Bairstow following that of Vince. Behrendorff saw Finch's decision as an enormous vote of confidence.

"Yeah, it was huge," said Behrendorff. "That's where I guess one of my primary strengths lies, bowling up front, swinging with the new ball. So it was great to be given that opportunity to be able to get, as well, the wicket early doors. That was really important, as well, so I was happy with that."

Starc and Behrendorff made the most of Finch losing the toss and spent the first innings assessing the wicket and lengths England were bowling, particularly early on. Their observations paid dividends and the pair did the most important damage with the swinging new ball, bowling a fuller length and leaving England 4 for 53 and very much on the back foot.

"That's something we were assessing as they were bowling," said Behrendorff. "They didn't hit the stumps, or the balls were going to hit the stumps too often, so we made a conscious effort to try to pitch up and we hit the stumps as much as we could early doors.

"I think we executed that quite well on the whole, which was really positive, and we were able to get off to a excellent start with, I think it was maybe three wickets in the first ten overs, which is always really important.

"I guess as a bowling team, whenever you get off to a good start, you get your foot on the throat, and you don't want to let it off. It's something that we -- I think the best way to determine, like we really want to play aggressive cricket and set the tone up front. So it was really positive that we were able to do that and continue that throughout the innings."

The presence of Starc and Johnson in the same attack wasn't exactly a rarity but it still remains a talking point when two-left arm quicks take the field together. While the chances of that happening may well depend on particular match-ups, Behrendorff is naturally hopeful his performance against England will increase the likelihood of another day out with Starc.

"We don't often see it, but yeah, I don't see why we can't," said Behrendorff. "Sometimes you play three right-armers, so why can't we play two lefties? Mitch and I do different roles throughout the team, so it's really good that we could partner together.

"And then, yeah, second part of it, key match-up. That's something we thought was going to work well and I think Mitch and I picked up nine wickets between the two of us, so potentially worked quite well there."

Behrendorff has a polite and unassuming demeanour when he talks to the media, and Starc paints a similar picture of him in the dressing room.

"He's fairly quiet," said Starc. "But when he speaks it's all sense. He's come into the group really nicely. He hasn't played a heap of cricket for Australia but when he has he's bowled those good balls and come up with those good spells. He's continuing to learn and develop as a bowler and he's done a good job again today.

"He bowled us a fantastic starting over to get us along and start the tone. It was awesome. For someone in their second World Cup game, he bowled beautifully for his five today."

Australia are now assured of a semi-final berth and, should they face England again - something that is now far from guaranteed - Behrendorff said their two defeats of England - in the warm-up match and at Lord's - gave them enormous confidence they could be successful again, and take that success through to the final.

"It's huge," said Behrendorff. "Every game that we can win is massive. Especially in a tournament like this - they talk a lot about momentum, and that's something that's really important.

"So to continue winning, to continue playing good cricket, we're still trying to play a perfect game, but we're slowly getting better and better each time and today was another really good result for us."