sportychic33
State 12th Man
Gillespie seems to be getting close. That guy needs some decent exercise.I fear (hope?) it shall be quite a while before we unearth someone with the looks to follow in Jesse's bloated footsteps...
Gillespie seems to be getting close. That guy needs some decent exercise.I fear (hope?) it shall be quite a while before we unearth someone with the looks to follow in Jesse's bloated footsteps...
Think I'm becoming more keen on the idea than he TBH. Wish I'd thought of this ages ago.Goughy paying you for all this advertising?
Haha, y'think?Think I'm becoming more keen on the idea than he TBH..
TBH I can't see New Zealand batting for two days no matter what the pitch so they may as well play positively, which for Oram, Taylor, McCullum, Vettori in particular shouldn't be an issue.How was positive in the interview after play, he gave the impression NZ batsmen will play for a win, he basically said NZ want to have a series win.
Not surprised you posted that.Have to say, that's pretty wishful thinking. And rather sadly, being New Zealand does seem to involve a collapse, if not all the time, then at least most of the time. Regardless of how difficult it is to bat in South Africa, our top order has been a shambles ever since Mark Richardson retired. Since the start of 2005, the average amount of runs we make for the loss of our first five wickets is just 141.2, with only one truly excellent effort, against Australia (5 for 355) at the very start of the period in question. Of the players in the top six from that match, only Stephen Fleming remains. To put that into context, in the same period, Bangladesh have averaged 121.9, with a similar top effort again against Australia (351). On average, our top six are just over 3 runs better than the Bangladeshi's. And people in New Zealand wonder why we aren't given any test matches these days.
I think, in the best case scenario, New Zealand will be chasing something around 350 in the last innings though I'm gonna stick my neck out and say that we'll be chasing 500. Either way, given the limitations of our top order, I just can't see us chasing anything over 200, no matter how dead the wicket is.
That's the whole thing though... it's not a flat wicket. The ball (especially when it's new) is still doing plenty off the seam, and with the early cloud that's likely to be around tomorrow morning, all hell could break loss. I'm not saying that there's no chance that we could win, as we've already managed to post 400+ in this series, though on a much more benign pitch. But the simple fact is that it should be too many runs (indeed, it's been too many runs for every other 4th innings chase in history). And no this isn't just 90's inspired pessimism running rampant, and if the situation was reversed, I'd back us to win...as unbelievable as that sounds. Indeed, had we held our catches and dismissed England for 200, I would've given us an outside chance. Bloody Gillespie...If Hoggard was out there with Sidebottom, I woudn't be confident but as much as I love the awesomeness of Sidebottom I think if we keep him out on a flat wicket then we're halfway there. England might be amazing like we were at Hamilton but the chances aren't great. We're not i nthe box seat by any means but people seem to be inflating the direness of the situation. 10 wickets in hand, flat pitch, two days, 400 odd. As Rigor said, if this was day 1 you'd bat first for two days and set 400. The way this series has panned out, we're in for a ripper.
Bahnz, as good a poster as he is, would still be backing an English victory he's been through too much of the 90's NZ direness one feels, poor bloke.
More knee jerks from Phlegm. How's had one good summer - to call him the best opener we've had since Richardson is a little bit premature. Bell and Sinclair do have the goods to score runs as well. The difference is mainly down to the form the players are in, but if Bell or Sinclair get in, they'll score the runs we require. Now, I don't think this will happen but I'm on knee-jerk watch.TBH, this si a new batting order, bar Fleming. Now I know whenever we have an era change everyone assumes we're ****ed but really, How looks the best opener we've had since Richardson. Bell and Sinclair ain't much but Fleming and Taylor are good batsmen and How, Fleming, Taylor, McCullum, Vettori should not be troubled by Anderson and Broad. .
Name me one test opener since Richardson that is better than How? None. They were all ****.More knee jerks from Phlegm. How's had one good summer - to call him the best opener we've had since Richardson is a little bit premature. Bell and Sinclair do have the goods to score runs as well. The difference is mainly down to the form the players are in, but if Bell or Sinclair get in, they'll score the runs we require. Now, I don't think this will happen but I'm on knee-jerk watch.
Lou VincentName me one test opener since Richardson that is better than How? None. They were all ****.