WEBVTT - "Where Have All TheHundreds Gone?" 0:00:04.840 --> 0:00:07.280 Welcome to the B Y and C Podcast, brought to 0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:12.120 you by Max Rath Premium insulated concrete slabs, and sadly 0:00:12.200 --> 0:00:15.960 we find ourselves reflecting on a somewhat baffling performance from 0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:19.160 the black Caps. After the obvious highs of the tour 0:00:19.239 --> 0:00:22.360 to India, there were hopes to form would continue through 0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:26.159 to the English series. Instead, we found ourselves with a 0:00:26.200 --> 0:00:30.360 bad case of the dropsies. There is no logical explanation 0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:33.680 as to why this would manifest. We know this side 0:00:33.760 --> 0:00:37.320 is infinitely capable in the field, as evidenced by our 0:00:37.400 --> 0:00:40.200 stunning performance in the first innings of the first Test 0:00:40.240 --> 0:00:43.680 against India. The reality is you can't give the likes 0:00:43.720 --> 0:00:47.639 of Harry Brooks four chances and not expect to be punished. 0:00:48.080 --> 0:00:51.159 What's clear is the black Caps need to be at 0:00:51.159 --> 0:00:53.640 the top of their game if they have any chance 0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:57.400 of complete out competing against the English and Dylan Cleaver, 0:00:59.320 --> 0:01:02.279 I know you've heard the phrase the yips, yeah, and 0:01:02.360 --> 0:01:09.200 usually that refers to golfs an individual who suddenly gets 0:01:09.240 --> 0:01:13.280 the yips? Is there such a thing as the collective yips? 0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:19.520 Where teams start dropping catches and like a virus, it 0:01:19.640 --> 0:01:23.920 infects everyone and people start tensing up. Is there such 0:01:23.920 --> 0:01:26.680 a thing, because it's weird how that happens, isn't it 0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:29.120 How a few catches a mess and all of a 0:01:29.160 --> 0:01:31.119 sudden it becomes a plague. Almost. 0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:33.440 Yeah, you wouldn't think so, would you, Because some of 0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:37.559 the guys dropping those catches are our most reliable fielders exactly. 0:01:37.680 --> 0:01:41.479 Tom Latham is an excellent fielder. But there is one 0:01:42.000 --> 0:01:45.680 thing that really bugs me about this. And just allow 0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:47.080 me a little rent for a second. 0:01:47.120 --> 0:01:49.520 But we were anticipating it, Paul. 0:01:49.680 --> 0:01:52.360 I cannot I cannot stand this thought. 0:01:52.440 --> 0:01:54.480 I actually thought Dylan might be quite happy with that performance, 0:01:54.520 --> 0:01:56.360 So I'm actually intrigued to hear what he might have 0:01:56.360 --> 0:01:56.680 to say. 0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:01.400 I cannot stand the narrative that has a merged from 0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:06.080 Scary Head and Tom Latham that things could have been 0:02:06.160 --> 0:02:09.680 so different if we just held those catches. Well, they 0:02:09.680 --> 0:02:12.560 didn't hold those catches correct. Things could have been so 0:02:12.639 --> 0:02:15.079 different if Tom Latham had turned US forty seven into 0:02:15.080 --> 0:02:17.600 two hundred and forty seven, but he didn't do that either. 0:02:17.919 --> 0:02:20.440 Things could have been so different if the plane carrying 0:02:20.480 --> 0:02:23.480 England to New Zealand clipped the remarkables instead of landing 0:02:23.520 --> 0:02:27.440 next to John Davies Oval, but it didn't like, it's 0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:31.079 not bad luck that you drop catches. It's bad cricket. 0:02:31.560 --> 0:02:34.320 And everything seems to have been washed away from Hagley Oval. 0:02:34.360 --> 0:02:37.720 But oh you know, if those catches had stuck, things 0:02:37.760 --> 0:02:39.639 would have been so different. Yeah, they might have been, 0:02:39.760 --> 0:02:44.160 but you didn't. I own it, own your mistakes. 0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:48.160 Thank you, Dylan. I wholeheartedly agree with you. And you know, 0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:51.440 it's almost interesting, wasn't it, Paul, That the lead that 0:02:51.480 --> 0:02:54.960 they got over us, which in the end was crucial, 0:02:56.639 --> 0:03:03.160 was almost directly connected to drop catchers. And and Dylan's right, 0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:05.480 you can't say, oh, you know, we didn't hold our catchers. 0:03:05.520 --> 0:03:07.560 If that hadn't happened, it would have been a close 0:03:07.600 --> 0:03:11.240 test match. He's exactly right. You didn't hold those catches, 0:03:11.680 --> 0:03:14.600 you drop them, and so that's the game. And if 0:03:14.639 --> 0:03:17.840 you don't, you know, take your chances, you lose. 0:03:19.240 --> 0:03:20.560 Yeah, And I think it is that point. You know, 0:03:20.600 --> 0:03:22.120 it's sort of unlucky. You know, it's not like you 0:03:22.280 --> 0:03:25.280 lost the toss or it rained when you were when 0:03:25.440 --> 0:03:27.440 you were about to catch the ball. It wasn't it 0:03:27.480 --> 0:03:29.880 wasn't luck. It wasn't about luck. It was it was 0:03:29.880 --> 0:03:33.800 a skill based balls up. So yeah, look it was 0:03:33.880 --> 0:03:35.920 really really frustrating, and I said it on the a 0:03:35.960 --> 0:03:37.760 SEC commentary over the weekend, but it just feels like 0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:39.800 this is what this game is going to be remembered for. 0:03:39.880 --> 0:03:42.560 Not Brooks runs or cast As wickets. 0:03:42.240 --> 0:03:45.600 Or you know, the the emergence of the of the 0:03:45.640 --> 0:03:50.600 prodigy Jacob Ethel or Nathan Smith's debut or whatever. You know, 0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:52.840 all of these sort of things around that game. It's 0:03:52.880 --> 0:03:55.120 going to be remembered for, Oh, that was that bloody 0:03:55.200 --> 0:03:58.600 terrible game when you Dealan dropped eight catchers and I 0:03:58.600 --> 0:04:03.120 guess the guy I felt sorry for were Smith three 0:04:03.120 --> 0:04:05.880 times three catches dropped off his bowling, Willow Rourke three 0:04:05.920 --> 0:04:08.320 catches dropped off his bowling, plus Matt Henry and Glenn 0:04:08.320 --> 0:04:13.920 Phillips eight exactly eight chances. And we absolutely let England 0:04:13.920 --> 0:04:15.800 off the hook from one hundred and you know we 0:04:15.800 --> 0:04:17.160 did it when we were betting, which we can talk 0:04:17.160 --> 0:04:18.440 about in a minute. I'm sure you know we were 0:04:18.440 --> 0:04:20.239 one hundred and ninety nine for three in that first 0:04:20.240 --> 0:04:23.200 innings and we absolutely did it, you know with the 0:04:23.200 --> 0:04:25.520 betting when sorry with the bowling and the fielding off 0:04:25.520 --> 0:04:28.160 it when England was seventy one for four in their 0:04:28.160 --> 0:04:31.159 first innings. Yeah, just a really, really frustrating game. 0:04:31.800 --> 0:04:35.680 It's inexplicable in a way because as I mentioned, you know, 0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:38.960 you think about that first innings against India, Well, we 0:04:38.960 --> 0:04:41.440 were utterly magnificent in the field, so we know we 0:04:41.480 --> 0:04:43.839 can do it. And we know, as you mentioned, Dylan, 0:04:44.080 --> 0:04:46.039 these are good players that are dropping the catchers. So 0:04:46.120 --> 0:04:48.839 what the hell is it? But you know, when the 0:04:48.880 --> 0:04:52.039 Test match started off, I thought England bowl poorly. I 0:04:52.080 --> 0:04:54.440 thought they were too short, they weren't getting it up there, 0:04:54.440 --> 0:04:57.479 and they weren't making the New Zealanders pay. And you know, 0:04:57.560 --> 0:04:59.800 we took sort of full advantage and we got ourselves 0:04:59.800 --> 0:05:01.400 in premium sort of situation. 0:05:01.600 --> 0:05:05.520 Well wait, not full advantage, not full advantage, some advantage. 0:05:05.040 --> 0:05:09.760 Some advantage, and then we blew it. And you know, 0:05:09.839 --> 0:05:12.000 it's my feeling that England has the ward on us. 0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:14.320 I think of that series in England where we were 0:05:14.400 --> 0:05:17.840 competitive and every single Test match and lost every single 0:05:17.920 --> 0:05:21.760 Test match. They came here, did us again apart from 0:05:21.760 --> 0:05:25.200 that final Test where we kind of stole it, miracled it, Yeah, 0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:29.040 miracled it. So we have to be at our absolute 0:05:29.080 --> 0:05:31.960 best to compete with these guys and we simply weren't. 0:05:32.320 --> 0:05:34.960 Yeah, that's five out of six tests England have beatn 0:05:35.040 --> 0:05:39.280 New Zealand and pretty much convincingly. Like, yes, you did 0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:41.320 mention we were in those Tests in England, but it 0:05:41.360 --> 0:05:44.160 was still five wickets, five wickets, seven wickets. Yes on 0:05:44.279 --> 0:05:47.160 the scorecard. That's a bit of a thumbing to be honest, 0:05:47.240 --> 0:05:51.479 but yeah, Look, I like the fact you brought up 0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:53.720 that first innings England when the task that's meant to 0:05:53.720 --> 0:05:55.920 be a massive advantage at Hegley. They did in bowl 0:05:56.000 --> 0:05:59.120 particularly well. I thought Chris Wolkes was worse than average, 0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:03.200 he was very Tom Latham battered like a dream and 0:06:04.200 --> 0:06:07.320 I guess my disappointment with that is that forty seven 0:06:09.520 --> 0:06:11.720 could have, should have might have been one hundred and 0:06:11.800 --> 0:06:14.200 forty seven. He was batting that well and he went 0:06:14.240 --> 0:06:17.200 out to that frustrating thing that he does where he 0:06:17.200 --> 0:06:20.000 looks to work the ball wider mid on through midwicket, 0:06:20.120 --> 0:06:22.520 when you know the maker's name back past the bowler, 0:06:23.720 --> 0:06:25.080 you know who knows what he could have done. He 0:06:25.120 --> 0:06:27.880 loves batting. It had be able. That's a critical factor 0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:31.000 for me is that there hasn't got enough attention. I 0:06:31.000 --> 0:06:34.760 don't think granted, India was a bowler series, but that 0:06:34.880 --> 0:06:37.680 is now eight tests New Zealand have gone and they've 0:06:37.680 --> 0:06:42.280 scored one century and that eight Test span that's fifteen 0:06:42.279 --> 0:06:44.680 completed innings. I'm not counting the one where they chased 0:06:44.680 --> 0:06:47.480 down one hundred, yeah, because you don't get a chance 0:06:47.520 --> 0:06:50.920 to get a century obviously, but fifteen completed innings where 0:06:51.000 --> 0:06:56.200 only ratcheans hundred at Bengalou is the only three figure score. 0:06:57.400 --> 0:07:02.680 Tom Latham has gone thirty three Test innings without a 0:07:02.720 --> 0:07:06.080 Test century. Yeah, that's an enormous amount of innings. You'd 0:07:06.120 --> 0:07:10.040 never last in Australia with that sort of number. Conway's 0:07:10.080 --> 0:07:13.360 gone twenty eight. That's your two openers, the bedrock of 0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:17.080 your team. You add those numbers up as extraordinary. Really. 0:07:17.400 --> 0:07:20.800 Williamson ten innings, which is not many, but it's still 0:07:20.960 --> 0:07:23.880 blow path for him. Revenge is the only one who 0:07:23.880 --> 0:07:26.800 can be excused. He got that one in Benglaru. He's 0:07:26.800 --> 0:07:30.480 gone six innings. Mitchell's gone twenty two completed innings without 0:07:30.480 --> 0:07:34.960 a ton. Tom Blundell, we'll get to him soon, twenty 0:07:35.000 --> 0:07:38.880 six innings. Ben Phillips hasn't scored a Test century yet. 0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:42.240 I mean, he's limited opportunities. And if we think Will 0:07:42.280 --> 0:07:44.600 Young's the savior. As much as I love Will Young, 0:07:45.440 --> 0:07:47.960 he's had thirty two innings himself without a test century. 0:07:48.040 --> 0:07:52.320 So there's a real lack of theft in that top seven. 0:07:52.400 --> 0:07:55.240 Well, you mentioned that last week where they said, you. 0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:56.239 Know, am I repeating myself? 0:07:56.320 --> 0:07:58.960 No? No, But you made the point. I think it was 0:07:59.000 --> 0:08:02.480 in reference to an artist call, which was this is 0:08:02.480 --> 0:08:06.080 because of the batting depth in New Zealand cricket, and 0:08:06.120 --> 0:08:10.400 you went, well, no, hang on, And I've been thinking 0:08:10.440 --> 0:08:13.200 and pondering this to Paul Forward and I want to 0:08:13.280 --> 0:08:21.000 draw your attention to it. And that is Conway. You know, he, 0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:24.880 I guess had a few knocks in India. He was 0:08:24.960 --> 0:08:28.640 under a lot of pressure. I'm not convict, and he 0:08:28.720 --> 0:08:31.480 looked all at sea, let's be honest, in India. But 0:08:31.560 --> 0:08:35.680 he did get some runs. But I'm not convinced that 0:08:35.760 --> 0:08:39.440 he's an Emmy kind of form and he still has 0:08:39.480 --> 0:08:43.720 that inclination, that little inside edge, that back coming just 0:08:43.800 --> 0:08:46.120 outside the off stump and leaving that gap between the 0:08:46.160 --> 0:08:49.560 bat and the pad. I'm not convinced about Conway still, 0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:51.440 and I still don't know that he's in great neck. 0:08:55.160 --> 0:08:59.560 They pissed off and him there and he looks increasingly 0:08:59.720 --> 0:09:00.439 frosh straighted. 0:09:00.559 --> 0:09:01.960 I mean I had a quick look. 0:09:02.000 --> 0:09:05.560 I think he's last twelve months, I think nine bats 0:09:06.440 --> 0:09:09.160 averaging twenty one against the sort of overall average of 0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:13.800 thirty eight thirty nine, rapidly declining overall average. Yeah, he 0:09:14.000 --> 0:09:18.319 is really really battling, and frankly he was. You know, 0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:20.280 he didn't get out to a particularly good ball. He 0:09:20.320 --> 0:09:22.559 got out to a good court and bold opportunity in 0:09:22.600 --> 0:09:24.559 that first innings, but it was one of a number 0:09:24.559 --> 0:09:27.800 of I don't know, just lack of daisical wickets, you know, 0:09:28.320 --> 0:09:29.079 ratch and hitting a. 0:09:29.000 --> 0:09:30.120 Full toss to midwicket. 0:09:30.280 --> 0:09:34.600 Mitchell got a leading edge, blundle, lazy slap to point 0:09:35.240 --> 0:09:38.520 Smith Henry Southy show or whatever they do what they do. 0:09:38.559 --> 0:09:42.560 But yeah, it's that frustration of the guys that are 0:09:42.600 --> 0:09:44.880 good getting in and they're not going on to score 0:09:44.920 --> 0:09:47.000 the big scores. And then, yes, I agree, it does 0:09:47.040 --> 0:09:50.360 feel like Conway's been worked out by good international bowlers. 0:09:50.679 --> 0:09:53.840 Yeah, and it's interesting, you know what do we end 0:09:53.920 --> 0:09:56.480 up with in the end in that first innings three 0:09:56.559 --> 0:09:59.800 forty eight. You know, for it it should have been 0:09:59.800 --> 0:10:02.640 been but I was like, okay, it's there or thereabouts. 0:10:02.720 --> 0:10:06.280 I think Henry sal the O'Rourke and Psmith are going 0:10:06.320 --> 0:10:08.360 to bowl well and better than this England did on 0:10:08.400 --> 0:10:12.880 this wicket. We had them in trouble, but you simply 0:10:12.960 --> 0:10:17.040 can't give a player of Harry Brook's class that many chances. 0:10:17.360 --> 0:10:20.240 Yeah, I got to the point where I was even 0:10:20.800 --> 0:10:25.280 I was asking the question, is he actually even betting? Well? Sure, 0:10:25.480 --> 0:10:27.760 I didn't actually even think he was betting particularly well. 0:10:27.800 --> 0:10:33.200 He was thumping the ball quite effectively, but thumping it 0:10:33.240 --> 0:10:35.200 in the air to field is quite often as well. 0:10:35.400 --> 0:10:37.200 So you know, it was a weird It was a 0:10:37.200 --> 0:10:40.160 weird test, and even feels weird talking about this now, 0:10:40.240 --> 0:10:44.520 because you know, we've just come off the greatest series 0:10:44.559 --> 0:10:47.680 in New Zealand history, American series, and it feels like 0:10:47.679 --> 0:10:51.079 we've gone from boom to bust very quickly. And I'm 0:10:51.080 --> 0:10:54.840 wondering if we're overreacting to this, if if the drop 0:10:54.960 --> 0:10:59.600 catches such a visceral feeling of frustration that it kind 0:10:59.600 --> 0:11:04.280 of leaks or leeches into all your thinking about the 0:11:04.320 --> 0:11:07.520 game because we bet it. Okay, you win the you 0:11:07.559 --> 0:11:10.280 lose the toss, and you first straight back into it, 0:11:10.360 --> 0:11:13.719 it's okay. And even the second innings, Paul's dead right. 0:11:13.760 --> 0:11:15.760 Some of the wickets were almost comical. How does show 0:11:15.840 --> 0:11:18.319 upsher get four wickets in that first and on the 0:11:18.400 --> 0:11:19.800 first is at Oval? 0:11:19.920 --> 0:11:20.120 Yes? 0:11:20.760 --> 0:11:23.199 And another point, did we make a mistake not playing 0:11:23.200 --> 0:11:24.240 a spinner? 0:11:24.480 --> 0:11:25.760 Yeah? Well I was wondering that too. 0:11:26.120 --> 0:11:27.760 Looking very samey same, weren't we? 0:11:27.880 --> 0:11:30.960 Yes, I you know, in terms of we look at 0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:33.920 that performance against India took everyone by surprised. It was stunning. 0:11:34.160 --> 0:11:36.360 I've kind of felt like we're back in the place 0:11:36.400 --> 0:11:39.160 we were before that Test series where we were all going, well, 0:11:39.200 --> 0:11:41.600 it's a bit gloomy, it's a bit sort of, you know, 0:11:42.320 --> 0:11:46.120 not great. I want to get your thoughts Paul Ford 0:11:46.600 --> 0:11:49.640 on Smith. I like the cut of his jib. I 0:11:49.679 --> 0:11:51.880 think he's going to bring something to the game. I've 0:11:51.960 --> 0:11:55.280 never seen him play before. He looks a very handy 0:11:55.320 --> 0:11:57.760 bowler and he looks a very handy batsman to me. 0:11:57.840 --> 0:12:00.200 And I like the look of him, but of an 0:12:00.200 --> 0:12:02.520 issue with no balls and so forth, But I think 0:12:02.520 --> 0:12:03.559 he's got something to offer. 0:12:05.160 --> 0:12:06.360 Yeah, I agree, I agree. 0:12:06.400 --> 0:12:08.680 He looked he looked busy, looked full of a VENGEI 0:12:08.720 --> 0:12:10.400 looked pumped up. He looked like Ian, both of them 0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:12.120 as well, with his mullet and his mustache, and you 0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:15.400 know credit for that as well. Yeah, I don't think 0:12:15.440 --> 0:12:17.120 he did a lot wrong. As I say, created a 0:12:17.240 --> 0:12:19.240 bunch of opportunities. For get Joe Route out for a 0:12:19.320 --> 0:12:22.160 duck in your first spell in test cricket, you're probably 0:12:22.160 --> 0:12:25.360 doing something right. Bettered nicely in the second innings. Looks 0:12:25.440 --> 0:12:27.920 very comfortable. I think Dylan's mentioned the fact that he's 0:12:27.960 --> 0:12:29.360 a he's a bloody good athlete. You know, he's a 0:12:29.720 --> 0:12:32.840 he's fit as a fiddle. Yeah, it looks looks like 0:12:32.880 --> 0:12:35.160 they've picked the right guy. And the interesting thing maybe 0:12:35.160 --> 0:12:36.839 we'll talk about it in a sec is is he 0:12:36.880 --> 0:12:37.960 even going to be there at the base? 0:12:38.840 --> 0:12:39.320 Probably not. 0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:45.280 Yeah, well that's the other thing. Brighton cass Yep, he 0:12:45.360 --> 0:12:53.240 will the cast blaster he reminded me of it's bloody 0:12:53.240 --> 0:12:57.959 gone out of my head now. Hammerson, Harmerson, he has 0:12:58.000 --> 0:13:00.400 that same kind of He looked the most threatening of 0:13:00.440 --> 0:13:02.679 their bowlers. I agree with you. I thought Whites was 0:13:02.760 --> 0:13:05.440 woeful in that first innings, but I looked at this guy. 0:13:05.480 --> 0:13:07.960 He's got height, he hits the deer card, looks a 0:13:07.960 --> 0:13:10.640 good bowler. And he proved problematic for us. 0:13:11.040 --> 0:13:12.760 He kind of looks like he could be a roadie 0:13:12.760 --> 0:13:15.720 your guitar check. Sure for a hard rock band too, 0:13:15.760 --> 0:13:19.880 doesn't He's got that kind of look about him. But yeah, awkward. 0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:23.160 And the same with Gus Akinson, who wasn't particularly good 0:13:23.160 --> 0:13:25.240 on that first innings either because he kept on having 0:13:25.240 --> 0:13:28.600 no ball problems and his Him and Stokes were beside 0:13:28.640 --> 0:13:32.400 themselves with their front foot slipping on that front front line. Yes, 0:13:32.880 --> 0:13:36.760 but Atkinson and cast together I think, you know, it's 0:13:36.760 --> 0:13:40.160 always you've always got to have a caveat there with 0:13:40.240 --> 0:13:43.360 fast bowling attacks. A lot depends on injuries, but those 0:13:43.400 --> 0:13:48.360 two did look quite menacing and awkward. Guess still we 0:13:48.400 --> 0:13:48.959 had our chances. 0:13:49.040 --> 0:13:52.680 Stunning statistic stunning statistic about Casts. I don't know if 0:13:52.720 --> 0:13:56.000 you saw this that he's the first England baseballer to 0:13:56.000 --> 0:13:59.200 take ten wickets away from England in sixteen years. 0:13:59.320 --> 0:14:00.000 Wow, unreal. 0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:04.480 He's got nineteen wickets and three Tests, and nine of 0:14:04.520 --> 0:14:07.920 those wickets were in Pakistan, hardly a mecca. 0:14:07.679 --> 0:14:09.520 For bowling of his style. You would have. 0:14:09.520 --> 0:14:13.600 Thought absolutely there was a lot of chat about the 0:14:13.679 --> 0:14:18.920 young fellow Jacob Bethel. Yeah, I think absolutely, and I 0:14:19.400 --> 0:14:22.520 also it was a situation in that second innings where 0:14:22.520 --> 0:14:25.920 it was like I almost felt like they sort of said, 0:14:26.040 --> 0:14:28.480 all right, young was a freebie. You've got nothing to 0:14:28.560 --> 0:14:30.720 lose here, just have a crack. And so he had 0:14:30.720 --> 0:14:33.200 that freedom, you know what I mean. But he does 0:14:33.240 --> 0:14:33.920 look at prospect. 0:14:34.160 --> 0:14:36.920 Yeah, they've gone to town on that second innings in England, Yes, 0:14:37.160 --> 0:14:43.000 if they've just uncovered lost Leonardo. I didn't think it 0:14:43.040 --> 0:14:44.920 was that good. I think the first innings was probably 0:14:44.920 --> 0:14:47.960 a little bit more instructive where he actually battled pretty hard, yes, 0:14:48.480 --> 0:14:50.920 but then went out to a good nut. Yeah. I 0:14:50.920 --> 0:14:54.720 mean like it was a decent game for the number three's, 0:14:54.840 --> 0:14:58.440 wasn't it. Our own one was pretty handy too. 0:14:58.760 --> 0:15:01.560 Yes, well, you know, and let's talk about Caine. Williamson 0:15:01.600 --> 0:15:03.600 just slided right back in ninety odd in that first 0:15:03.640 --> 0:15:08.440 ninety three I think it was nine thousand test runs 0:15:08.440 --> 0:15:11.840 clearly our best and Paul forward he showed it. Just 0:15:11.880 --> 0:15:14.880 to just shame he didn't go on with it in 0:15:14.880 --> 0:15:16.720 that first innings. 0:15:17.560 --> 0:15:19.880 Yes, scratched around a little bit at the start of 0:15:19.920 --> 0:15:21.920 the innings, as caanees want to do, but then he 0:15:22.040 --> 0:15:25.440 just started to look increasingly assured. It's like he's just 0:15:25.520 --> 0:15:28.240 going through a net session and warming into his work. 0:15:28.280 --> 0:15:30.760 And yeah, just say first, keeping it to nine thousand runs. 0:15:30.760 --> 0:15:33.800 And I don't really care about nine thousand because ten 0:15:33.840 --> 0:15:37.520 thousands just seems so much cooler. So hopefully, hopefully he's 0:15:37.560 --> 0:15:40.240 still around, you know, just to me, thousands a bit 0:15:40.240 --> 0:15:42.479 like one hundred and fifty. It's not really worth celebrating. 0:15:42.520 --> 0:15:45.680 But gee, he's what's he now, thirteen hundred runs ahead 0:15:45.680 --> 0:15:46.520 of Ross Taylor. 0:15:46.280 --> 0:15:46.880 Something like that. 0:15:47.080 --> 0:15:49.680 Yes, almost starting to mow down, starting to mow down 0:15:49.760 --> 0:15:51.920 some of the big dogs of world cricket. 0:15:52.000 --> 0:15:54.400 That's the sort of thing I would have expected Cleaver 0:15:54.560 --> 0:15:56.400 to say. Not you, Paul Ford. I thought you would 0:15:56.400 --> 0:15:58.320 have been frothing at the mouth about the fact that 0:15:58.360 --> 0:16:00.480 he got nine thousand tests runs. I would have thought 0:16:00.520 --> 0:16:02.240 Cleaver was the one that went on. He had nine 0:16:02.240 --> 0:16:08.080 thousand cares. All right, So there we are. Let's look 0:16:08.080 --> 0:16:10.240 ahead to the second Test. Have been an audio for 0:16:10.280 --> 0:16:12.160 many Oh yes, okay, let's go to it. 0:16:12.440 --> 0:16:14.640 We're up for media today, which would suggest that you're playing. 0:16:14.680 --> 0:16:17.000 Have you been given the nord No? 0:16:17.240 --> 0:16:19.280 I was a look at the pitch. Looks pretty green 0:16:19.360 --> 0:16:19.840 to me, But. 0:16:19.960 --> 0:16:22.680 It seems the spins mate, you know, I love that shameworn. 0:16:23.960 --> 0:16:26.920 No, obviously we'll wait and see. You know, obviously a 0:16:26.920 --> 0:16:28.400 few days out looks pretty green at the moment. 0:16:28.480 --> 0:16:31.160 So but yeah, well, last time your ball with the 0:16:31.160 --> 0:16:33.000 reborn Test matches, you've got thirteen wickets. 0:16:33.560 --> 0:16:35.960 How much of a rosy glowe you carry into your 0:16:35.960 --> 0:16:38.000 next test potentially on Friday. 0:16:38.040 --> 0:16:39.840 Wow, it could be a lot different conditions, I'd imagine. 0:16:39.840 --> 0:16:42.200 I think if it was like would be pretty happy. 0:16:42.240 --> 0:16:45.040 But yeah, obviously, I guess it was just great to 0:16:45.080 --> 0:16:48.240 be part of that series. You know, all three games 0:16:48.640 --> 0:16:51.840 were pretty different and everyone chipping at different times, which 0:16:52.160 --> 0:16:53.800 you know is good, good for the squad and it's 0:16:53.840 --> 0:16:56.480 good for I guess for us to go forward and yeah, 0:16:56.480 --> 0:16:58.920 obviously look to turn around the last pretick. 0:17:00.080 --> 0:17:03.160 Yeah. So the gossip is then that Santana may be 0:17:03.200 --> 0:17:04.119 coming in for Smith. 0:17:05.119 --> 0:17:10.160 Yeah, it seems likely. I mean, if you're just going 0:17:10.320 --> 0:17:13.600 purely on what they brought to the table at Hagley, 0:17:13.600 --> 0:17:17.159 I'd be more tempted to drop Suvie than yeah Smith, 0:17:17.359 --> 0:17:19.399 But I just don't think they're going to. 0:17:20.440 --> 0:17:22.960 I can I just touch on that, And I think 0:17:23.000 --> 0:17:28.720 it was from some correspondence we got Paul Ford regarding 0:17:28.800 --> 0:17:32.160 Salvie in his record where he was averaging twenty eight 0:17:32.240 --> 0:17:35.800 for the first godd eighty odd Test matches and for 0:17:35.840 --> 0:17:38.920 the last twenty odd he's averaged sort of forty three 0:17:39.160 --> 0:17:41.840 or something horrendously, you know, So there's been a real 0:17:42.000 --> 0:17:43.040 drop off with Salvey. 0:17:44.480 --> 0:17:47.159 Yeah, that is absolutely right, VISTI all center. 0:17:47.359 --> 0:17:52.040 I think terrible, terrible poker face from him, well poker 0:17:52.080 --> 0:17:54.000 audio at least going out there and starting to talk 0:17:54.000 --> 0:17:57.439 about the green pitch. Jason Pine brilliantly all over him 0:17:57.440 --> 0:17:59.679 on that one. Santa has three for one hundred and 0:17:59.680 --> 0:18:03.000 twenty three in three innings at the base and so 0:18:03.080 --> 0:18:08.240 averaging forty one. Hardly frightening statistics. But you know, if 0:18:08.840 --> 0:18:12.000 Bisher can get wickets then he definitely can. Yes, the 0:18:12.080 --> 0:18:14.719 Saudi drop off. I had a quick look the last 0:18:14.760 --> 0:18:21.119 twelve months. His bowling average has gone from a career 0:18:21.119 --> 0:18:25.600 average of thirty ticked over to thirty. It has been 0:18:25.760 --> 0:18:30.160 fifty four across ten matches, so you know, a massive, 0:18:30.520 --> 0:18:33.000 massive drop off in form for him. 0:18:33.480 --> 0:18:34.520 Yeah, it's problematic. 0:18:34.520 --> 0:18:37.120 And as I mentioned before, you know these are who 0:18:37.160 --> 0:18:40.440 the chances were off, Henry Smith, Phillips and Willow Rourke. 0:18:40.480 --> 0:18:43.439 So there were eight drop catches zero off Tim SOUVII, 0:18:43.640 --> 0:18:46.520 so not really getting the wickets and not actually creating 0:18:46.520 --> 0:18:47.080 the chances. 0:18:47.160 --> 0:18:48.360 I think it's a pretty. 0:18:48.080 --> 0:18:52.800 Difficult like it does feel like it is a hope 0:18:52.840 --> 0:18:56.359 based selection based on historical performance rather than who we 0:18:56.400 --> 0:18:58.359 think is going to be most effective. I think England 0:18:58.359 --> 0:19:01.560 will be relatively pleased that Smith it's going to be 0:19:01.720 --> 0:19:02.720 stood down for this game. 0:19:03.760 --> 0:19:07.040 I agree, And you know he's announced his retirement and 0:19:07.520 --> 0:19:10.160 Jesus what a legend of the game he's been, no question, 0:19:10.240 --> 0:19:12.800 and he's been such a great servant for New Zealand cricket. 0:19:13.040 --> 0:19:15.119 But we can't be pissing around with this sort of stuff, 0:19:15.160 --> 0:19:18.480 Dylan Cleve. And my whole view is we pick the 0:19:18.480 --> 0:19:20.159 best side in the side that we think is going 0:19:20.200 --> 0:19:23.480 to win the next Test match. And you've just, to 0:19:23.640 --> 0:19:26.359 my mind, you've got to give Smith another run over 0:19:26.480 --> 0:19:30.639 sent Now, as much as I respect sent Over, Salvie, sorry, 0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:34.360 as much as I respect Salvie, you've got to make 0:19:34.440 --> 0:19:36.080 hard calls like that. Surely. 0:19:36.640 --> 0:19:38.360 Yeah, I would tend to agree. And I think one 0:19:38.359 --> 0:19:41.320 of the underrated factors on Southey's decline as well is 0:19:41.320 --> 0:19:42.880 he hasn't got to sit and follow up the other 0:19:43.000 --> 0:19:47.200 end bowling left arm swinging it into the pads, which 0:19:47.240 --> 0:19:49.679 means that his right arm swinging away from the outside 0:19:49.760 --> 0:19:53.399 edge becomes even more effective. I think that that not 0:19:53.600 --> 0:19:57.080 enough people have sort of credited that for the drop off. 0:19:57.119 --> 0:19:59.199 I think it's got to play a huge partner and 0:19:59.560 --> 0:20:03.920 then Wagoner coming in bowling the short stuff, which unfortunately 0:20:03.920 --> 0:20:07.439 I think they're kind of they're giving that role to 0:20:07.560 --> 0:20:10.720 Smith and O'Rourke a bit now, and it's a bit 0:20:10.720 --> 0:20:13.679 of a shame. I wouldn't I noticed when England do 0:20:13.720 --> 0:20:16.560 the short ball attack, it's principally Ben Stokes that leads 0:20:16.600 --> 0:20:19.879 it with the old ball. I would not like to 0:20:19.920 --> 0:20:24.560 see Smith and O'Rourke in particular hit down that route 0:20:24.560 --> 0:20:27.119 that early. But you know, these are the cards that 0:20:27.200 --> 0:20:28.280 I guess they're playing with now. 0:20:28.560 --> 0:20:31.119 Yeah, you know one of the you know, there's a 0:20:31.160 --> 0:20:33.720 few players under pressure Latham as you know all the 0:20:33.760 --> 0:20:39.080 batsmen really is, as stated a Latham Conway. There's a 0:20:39.119 --> 0:20:42.880 lot of questions being asked about Blundle and his lack 0:20:42.960 --> 0:20:48.800