NZ v Pakistan 2022/23
-
-
@MajorRage said in NZ v Pakistan:
Double edged sword these last wicket partnerships. Also shows that it's not that difficult to bat on.
Why did Boult make himself unavailable anybody know? Disappointing to see him bowling in the BBL.
Technically, he is available but choose to accept a contract in the UAE over an NZC contract (Big Bash contract came after that) so he is less likely to get selected for the national team. He is still keen to play in the world cup later this year and there is a good chance he will get selected in that squad.
-
@Chris said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 We've yet to assess his bowling.
He needs five runs to exceed his batting vs SA!
Henry with his Action is more likely to get any reverse swing,where Wags was average last test he looks a bit under cooked.
Worth a punt it has already paid off with the bat.Yeah - I think that as well.
Wags had an anonymous test and Matt has a bit more pace and might get some reverse swing.
I thought that was the most likely change given my suspicion that Bracewell is a slightly more effective spinner than Phillips and that's what they're picking on.
-
-
@Damo said in NZ v Pakistan:
Good score in the end, but not a match defining one.
Be interesting to see how our quicks go.
It is match defining as in we are set up for a win or draw. The loss option is currently off the table.
It could come back but odds are in our favour. -
-
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Bovidae I doubt we'll see Southee, Boult, Wagner and Jamieson all play together again.
Be nice to be wrong!!!
I think Boult is done with tests, unless it's a home series outside of the big money T20 tourney schedule. Probably better to move on from him and try to find a proper solution
-
@canefan He's probably still our number 1, so I hope we try to make things work as much as possible.
I think Wags will be eased out and Jamo might be bit injury prone given his height.
I hope someone is analyzing the reasons behind our success in the past decade and working out how to replicate it.
I wouldn't leave it to David White given his record in telecomms. Mainly, he's resulted in me not being able to watch cricket that I was quite willing to pay the market price for.
-
@Crucial said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Damo said in NZ v Pakistan:
Good score in the end, but not a match defining one.
Be interesting to see how our quicks go.
It is match defining as in we are set up for a win or draw. The loss option is currently off the table.
It could come back but odds are in our favour.It doesn't take a loss out at all.
What if Pakistan score say 625 and end up 175 runs ahead? From that position we would need to bat well in the third innings to hold on.
A match defining innings is 550+ I reckon. Very hard to lose if you score 550.
-
-
-
-
@Damo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Crucial said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Damo said in NZ v Pakistan:
Good score in the end, but not a match defining one.
Be interesting to see how our quicks go.
It is match defining as in we are set up for a win or draw. The loss option is currently off the table.
It could come back but odds are in our favour.It doesn't take a loss out at all.
What if Pakistan score say 625 and end up 175 runs ahead? From that position we would need to bat well in the third innings to hold on.
A match defining innings is 550+ I reckon. Very hard to lose if you score 550.
As I said “currently off the table “. If it takes a huge rare score to come back into calculations then odds are we are safe.
From a quick look a team getting 449 plus in first innings has only been beaten 15 times in test history. -
@Crucial said in NZ v Pakistan:
@canefan said in NZ v Pakistan:
A short ball does the business. Maybe Wagner will have some luck with his bouncer game
Bit had when you aren’t playing.
Boooo
-
@Crucial said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Damo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Crucial said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Damo said in NZ v Pakistan:
Good score in the end, but not a match defining one.
Be interesting to see how our quicks go.
It is match defining as in we are set up for a win or draw. The loss option is currently off the table.
It could come back but odds are in our favour.It doesn't take a loss out at all.
What if Pakistan score say 625 and end up 175 runs ahead? From that position we would need to bat well in the third innings to hold on.
A match defining innings is 550+ I reckon. Very hard to lose if you score 550.
As I said “currently off the table “. If it takes a huge rare score to come back into calculations then odds are we are safe.
From a quick look a team getting 449 plus in first innings has only been beaten 15 times in test history.How many were us?
Giving said that, how many times have we got 449+ in the first innings?
-
Lol Imam just ran out his captain and then had a go at him over it. He'll be dropped next match.
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ v Pakistan:
Lol Imam just ran out his captain and then had a go at him over it. He'll be dropped next match.
Unless he gets a double century
-
@Crucial said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Damo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Crucial said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Damo said in NZ v Pakistan:
Good score in the end, but not a match defining one.
Be interesting to see how our quicks go.
It is match defining as in we are set up for a win or draw. The loss option is currently off the table.
It could come back but odds are in our favour.It doesn't take a loss out at all.
What if Pakistan score say 625 and end up 175 runs ahead? From that position we would need to bat well in the third innings to hold on.
A match defining innings is 550+ I reckon. Very hard to lose if you score 550.
As I said “currently off the table “. If it takes a huge rare score to come back into calculations then odds are we are safe.
From a quick look a team getting 449 plus in first innings has only been beaten 15 times in test history.Sure. But rare is relative.
My scenario is virtually exactly what happened in the last test between the same countries on the same ground less than a week earlier.
I guess you are right, but another 75-100 would make me feel a bit more confident in rubbing out a loss.
