NZ v Pakistan 2022/23
-
@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. -
@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.
@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
-
@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:
@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.
-
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
-
@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:
@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.
-
Bracewell get into the rough boy it will spin and bounce out of that rough the bounce makes it really tough to play the spinners.
You are bowling to straight Bracewell. -
@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.
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@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.
Is Bracewell more effective I don’t think he is.
He does nothing in tests too short or full and can not settle on a length.
Phillios actually gives the ball a real rip he just doesn’t get the overs he should,
Bracewell is just not a test quality off spinner he has no real variation just the offie.
No carrom ball ,no top spinner and no Doosra -
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@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.
Is Bracewell more effective I don’t think he is.
He does nothing in tests too short or full and can not settle on a length.
Phillios actually gives the ball a real rip he just doesn’t get the overs he should,
Bracewell is just not a test quality off spinner he has no real variation just the offie.
No carrom ball ,no top spinner and no Doosra@Chris said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@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.
Is Bracewell more effective I don’t think he is.
He does nothing in tests too short or full and can not settle on a length.
Phillios actually gives the ball a real rip he just doesn’t get the overs he should,
Bracewell is just not a test quality off spinner he has no real variation just the offie.
No carrom ball ,no top spinner and no DooseraJust a nothing player in his tests so far
-
@Chris said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@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.
Is Bracewell more effective I don’t think he is.
He does nothing in tests too short or full and can not settle on a length.
Phillios actually gives the ball a real rip he just doesn’t get the overs he should,
Bracewell is just not a test quality off spinner he has no real variation just the offie.
No carrom ball ,no top spinner and no DooseraJust a nothing player in his tests so far
@canefan said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@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.
Is Bracewell more effective I don’t think he is.
He does nothing in tests too short or full and can not settle on a length.
Phillios actually gives the ball a real rip he just doesn’t get the overs he should,
Bracewell is just not a test quality off spinner he has no real variation just the offie.
No carrom ball ,no top spinner and no DooseraJust a nothing player in his tests so far
Yep waste of a position.
-
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@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.
Is Bracewell more effective I don’t think he is.
He does nothing in tests too short or full and can not settle on a length.
Phillios actually gives the ball a real rip he just doesn’t get the overs he should,
Bracewell is just not a test quality off spinner he has no real variation just the offie.
No carrom ball ,no top spinner and no Doosra@Chris Not going to argue too strongly - because neither has much of a bowling record across the various formats.
But, Bracewell has had some success for Stead in T20s and ODIs so I'm not particularly surprised he's getting first go here.
If they were picking primarily on batting I think they'd pick Phillips.
