thierry henry
Well-known member
tbh I don't think it'd be too much of an outrageous claim to suggest that Mills/Bond>Nannes/Tait. I appreciate that Tait and Nannes are T20 specialists but I just think it's so early in the history of international T20 that I'm still not quite comfortable with saying that certain players who are comparatively crap in other forms are guns at T20 or vice versa- obviously there are players who are more or less suited to T20, I just find it difficult to identify them with any certainty just yet. I mean, if we were discussing ODIs I think Mills/Bond>>>>>>Nannes/Tait, and I'm not totally convinced that their respective T20 abilities are so different to their ODI abilities.
tbf we don't really have a settled third seamer in T20 yet, but Vettori is really our 3rd bowler, and better than Johnson for sure, and I don't think there's that much between the support bowling of the two sides.
NZ's T20 batting also looks like it should be good on paper, but the performances are not quite there yet....which is kinda like our batting in all forms I guess. Guptill basically sucks of late unfortunately, and Taylor just hasn't quite got it going in T20Is yet.
tbf we don't really have a settled third seamer in T20 yet, but Vettori is really our 3rd bowler, and better than Johnson for sure, and I don't think there's that much between the support bowling of the two sides.
NZ's T20 batting also looks like it should be good on paper, but the performances are not quite there yet....which is kinda like our batting in all forms I guess. Guptill basically sucks of late unfortunately, and Taylor just hasn't quite got it going in T20Is yet.