If it doesn't rain, we're hot favourites. If it does, without doing math I imagine we'd have had to score at 7-8 an over then run through SA in 40-50 overs. So yeah, I haven't seen a single bemoaning of how slow we scored, in a situation where we felt we had 2 days v a very good attack who weren't exactly in attack mode field-set wise.So those people who were happy with NZ going at a shade over 2 an over in the morning session yesterday, still happy with it?
Even scoring at 4s rather than 2.9 would have given us an extra 16 overs at South Africa last night tbf. There are a lot of other variables that go into it obviously. The extra fatigue for South Africa's batsmen, scoring quicker increases risk which might have caused a collapse and we don't even get the extra 168, ****ing de Kock and Faf, etc. There's a case to be made here, though.If it doesn't rain, we're hot favourites. If it does, without doing math I imagine we'd have had to score at 7-8 an over then run through SA in 40-50 overs. So yeah, I haven't seen a single bemoaning of how slow we scored, in a situation where we felt we had 2 days v a very good attack who weren't exactly in attack mode field-set wise.
Was about to mention that one.To be fair, we were saved by rain against SA in both the 1st and 3rd tests in 2012, against India in the 3rd test in 2009 and in the 2nd test against England in 2013. Obviously the lost wins sit in the memory more because of the sting.
henry should only ever play if he gets the new ball. direct swap for southee imo.Incidentally, it was the best I've seen Henry bowl in Tests. Bowled much better Test lengths overall.
Have we found our permanent 3rd seamer to partner Boult and Wagner moving fwd. with Southee next cab off the rank & CDG if it's NZ seaming tracks?
Funnily enough this is true of Wagner and Henry, but not Southee.but let's be honest CDG had a better average in the games they played together IIRC.