Yes I'm predicting that they won't be completely shit, which is precisely why it would have been a bad idea to bat for 3 years. It's all simple logic.
Simple for me that is, but I'm on a whole other level you can't even comprehend. It's like I'm Charlie Sheen and you're one of the trolls he spoke of. I'm on another universe with my thinking.
Their top 6 can potentially put up a fight. Therefore we shouldn't have batted into day 4 (if we had the option) because if they did put up a fight, didn't bat like complete tards, they could have batted into day 5 and potentially gotten a draw (Monday forecasts possible showers).
I'm not taking the opposition too lightly, I'm not sure we have a bowling attack than can quickly get through them, and the weather is uncertain. All reasons why it would have been a bad idea to bat any longer than absolutely necessary.
We don't have Warne and Mcgrath anymore. Our bowling is our weak link now (at least until the kids get expierience), getting 20 wickets isn't the easy feat it once was. We have to give them as much time as possible to get those wickets.
5 sessions, like some were suggesting wasn't enough in a worst case scenario. Not with them batting within themselves, not with possible rain, not with the stupid "bad light" rule.