**Official** New Zealand in South Africa

[jcas0167]

On a ground where a side scored 47 only 14 months ago (and the other side made 96) against the identical bowling line-up that caused that destruction, on a pitch that mirrors his side's greenness in terms of batting, choosing to bat first ranks as one of the most inexcusable decisions in living memory.

If you can smell the hops in Cape Town you bowl first...Brendon must've been drunk on the fumes.

I'm as disappointed in our effort as the next guy but if we were inserted on that and fell over for 45, fair enough. But we organised our own slaughter. This management group is making mistake after mistake. Any wonder with a rookie coach at the helm

Exactly - I was not overly surprised to wake up and find out we had been rolled for a low score. If it can happen to Australia it can happen to us. But to find out we chose to bat first really rankles. As Hendrix pointed out, our bowling is our strength and the best chance of maximising the conditions was to bowl first. Also, SA's strength is their fast bowling so the toss decision seems reckless.

I was also hoping that they might go with Wagner (or maybe McLenaghan after his impressive T20 debut). I suspect he'd be fired up to perform on home soil (like Pietersen when he debuted for England the ODI's in SA). Strangely, McCullum and Hesson are willing to take a huge punt in batting first but ultra conservative when it comes to team selection - going with Martin.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Honestly, I think bowling first in Tests should be considered an aggressive decision, given that you're going after the 20 wickets as early as possible and backing your batsmen in the fourth innings.

 

[BeeGee]

Honestly, I think bowling first in Tests should be considered an aggressive decision, given that you're going after the 20 wickets as early as possible and backing your batsmen in the fourth innings.

Totally agree. The problem is most captains are top order batsmen.

If McCullum was a specialist bowler, I'd have bet NZ would have bowled first.

 

[Hurricane]

This game isn't over for NZ. They can't win. But it is not impossible to draw.
And even if we lose but do score 300 in the next dig that would go along way to saving face for New Zealand. You don't want to be completely blown out here. They can't lose heart.

 

[straw man]

I struggle to see us passing 180 in an innings with the bat this series tbh.

 

[morgieb]

The only way NZ draws is if it pours the next 3 days or something.

 

[SilentOne]

I would like to see SA declare and finish it tonight.

 

[otagoman]

To be fair on the bat first decision...

Most pitches seam for the first session and then flatten out to be a good batting track

252/3 indicates the pitch has flattened out...so if we just had some bottle to get through the first session something like 60/2 then it would open up for us

South Africa bat right down with Morkel at 11, I think they will be 600 for 6 or 7 at stumps on day 2

 

[Furball]

The only way NZ draws is if it pours the next 3 days or something.

Or if Smith forgets to declare and South Africa bat into day 5.

 

[SeamUp]

There has been a shower but its still overcast. Set to clear up by midday.

 

[SteveNZ]

Honestly, I think bowling first in Tests should be considered an aggressive decision, given that you're going after the 20 wickets as early as possible and backing your batsmen in the fourth innings.

Couldn't agree more. Whether it's because I'm a bowler or not I'm not sure but that's exactly how I see it. You're going out there to take 10 wickets on the first day

 

[benchmark00]

There's a difference between positive and aggressive.

It's a positive move to bat first because it shows your batsmen that you have faith in them to bat through the toughest part of the match in terms of seam bowling (first session or two) and then cash in on the easiest time to bat (day two/three).

It's an aggressive move to bowl first because you think you can get 7 or so wickets on day one.

The problem with the decision that McCullum and NZ made was that they had confidence in the NZ batting line up when they had no reason to be confident.

 

[benchmark00]

It's interesting to note that the test between Australia and SA in 2011 in Cape Town that all the carnage happened on day 2, but I think that was partly down to an ATG knock from Clarke on day one.

 

[Hurricane]

Just a comment on Amla's back foot cover drives. Some of them he had no right to hit to the boundary as they were too close to off stump. But somehow he jumped as he played it and smoked them anyway.

 

[ch00baka]

Just a comment on Amla's back foot cover drives. Some of them he had no right to hit to the boundary as they were too close to off stump. But somehow he jumped as he played it and smoked them anyway.

I believe he has earned the right.

 

[Hurricane]

I believe he has earned the right.

Haha

 

[BeeGee]

I believe he has earned the right.

And then some.

He is a cricketing god, descended from on high to live amongst us mere mortals.

 

[SteveNZ]

The problem with the decision that McCullum and NZ made was that they had confidence in the NZ batting line up when they had no reason to be confident.

Bingo.

 

[Hurricane]

Very ambitious NZ team. Bond said they were still hoping to win the game. I would be all about the draw at this stage.

 

[Flem274*]

Bond's a champion tbf. If he were out there yesterday he would be targeting a first innings lead (before his inevitable injury).

Hopefully he's got our bowlers heads in the right place after probably their worst day out under his tutelage.