Yeah that happens in almost every series.I mean, this is true, but there's a reason you pick six specialist batsmen, not four.
Be glad you live in a country with a good leader.Daz Mitchell for prime minister?
But you would still expect that those other 4 would be half decent at some stage on the tour... even if they don't dominate.I mean, this is true, but there's a reason you pick six specialist batsmen, not four.
You're cutting too much slack imo.Yeah that happens in almost every series.
I just think that when you set this England team chases of 280 and 300 you don't expect to lose both tests. Jamieson going down injured mid-test was a major blow, maybe we're not cutting them enough slack for that.
Yeah exactly. You don't build series wins on the lower middle order bailing you out. I'm sure there's exceptions but guys bat top 4 for a reason. They're usually the best batsmen in the team.But you would still expect that those other 4 would be half decent at some stage on the tour... even if they don't dominate.
That's a fair call for sure, but as usual with politics that's very debatable.Be glad you live in a country with a good leader.
2nd innings?Damn. Won't get the 500 for the series.
Good catch.
nah Latham will score a double hundred2nd innings?
Bowl England out twice for less than 3502nd innings?
From 123/5 it would be pretty decent.If we get 350+ it won't look too bad. Good fight back by the lads.
The clear exception to the 'but NZ still made a good score even if the top order failed' is the first innings of the first test where we were bowled out for 132. Only kept the match alive due to bowling plus England imploding.You're cutting too much slack imo.
England might still have won because they've played really well but the first ports of call for NZ should be the top 4, dozy bowling plans and bizarre selection rather than bad luck or anything.