Some of you fools fail at logic. To say "we needed more runs, he should have done X" is a classic example of hindsight being 20/20. What if he'd tried to go earlier, and got out and triggered a collapse? You'd all be on here bagging him for it. It's completely ridiculous, going by your logic after any loss we can now single out any player, no matter how good the performance, and say he should have done more. If Pakistan lose, Afridi should have got his hundred in 18 balls instead of 36. If Australia lose, McGrath should have taken 8-15 off 10 instead of a pathetic 4-30.
He did far more than what was asked of him. Why don't you look up how many scores in excess of 150 have been made in the last few seasons, and how many have been scored at greater than a run a ball? Setting a target is a different matter from a chase. You cant play with as great a freedom because you dont know in the end what number of runs will be necessary - at the same time you dont want to take too many risks for fear of selling the team short. Most sides would consider 346 to be a defendable total on any ground in the world and on any surface - aside from the New Zealand matches scores like that are pretty uncommon.The chasing team has the equation laid out for them , and they can plan based on that. They can afford to take more risks because they have less to lose, especially with a target of that magnitude that noone expects them to chase.
Anyway the truth is that it was the bowling that lost the game. Far too many 4-balls to relieve the pressure before it could build on the batsmen.
