BeeGee
International Captain
Here's my logic for bowling first:We're picking a batting heavy side with Vettori and Van Wyk at 7 & 8 - to me that screams that our tactic is to bat first. If we're going to bat badly in first innings we're going to lose anyway, whether that's batting first or second.
Would only consider not batting first if there's something to suggest the pitch will be easiest to bat on on days 2 and 3 rather than day 1. Obviously I didn't see the warmup match but I'm picturing the test pitch with no grass and just steadily degrading and getting slower and more difficult to bat on (possibly more difficult to take wickets on too though - for our attack anyway). Might be wrong though - interested to hear Beegee's logic - if our batting is a Tragedy, is bowling first just about Stayin' Alive?
1) By all accounts the wicket is going to be a difficult one to bat on. So why put your batsmen under pressure from ball one when you could do that to the opposition instead?
2) Even though we're playing an extra batsman, I still think our bowling is our strength, not our batting. The extra batsman is there to try to compensate for our weakness, and doesn't make it a strength.
3) NZ is traditionally bad at batting first. The only time NZ should bat first is if the pitch is a road.
4) Cricket is a mental game. The best chance our (weak) batsmen have for posting a competitive total is if the opposition have just been rolled for a low total.
Basically what I want is the warm-up game in reverse. Roll the WI for a low score. Our batsmen bat with little pressure on them and get a first innings lead. The WI bat with a ton of pressure on them and we roll them cheaply again.
Wagner, Martin, Bracewell and Vettori are our strength, imo, and we should lead with our strength.
Last edited:
