Daily reminder that Santner > Wade.
I feel as if the fragile 1-6 is based a lot around their own games, but also it's hard to commit fully to the cause when Santner is at 7 when he's an 8 probably at best, and 8-11 can collapse in a heap as they did on Tuesday. Part of human nature would be knowing if you go hard too early, there's a long tail exposed. England, for example, don't have that issue - hence they won the World Cup. Giving Mitchell the #3 spot and having an extra batsman at seven, which you can achieve by having Macewell there and contributing a bowling option, would go some way to fix that. Plus quite possibly dropping Neesham and having a more well-rounded finisher, or again someone who bowls, or something other than the one-dimension approach Jimmy currently brings.Fair point about our fragile 1-6 though in T20Is, which is why I think having Macewell at 7 & Santner at 8 give us enough batting depth for them all to feel a bit more freed up.
We end up talking a lot about the batting shortcomings and a lot of it does stem from this choice of five bowlers (with Santner a little high at 7) vs four bowlers plus allrounders. I don't have a general preference either way in T20s - it depends on the makeup of the players available for each particular side. It's just notable that NZ have made the choice to go with five bowlers, which we accept weakens the batting, and yet it was still the bowlers that let us down vs Pakistan. Certainly the difference between Pakistan's bowling and ours was very large.Fair point about our fragile 1-6 though in T20Is, which is why I think having Macewell at 7 & Santner at 8 give us enough batting depth for them all to feel a bit more freed up.