the only thing would be is before the rain if they had batted out the overs they would've likely won as there were so many left. That is why you bat on for a little bit longer to take that possibility out of the game. I think NZ figured that rain was coming when they declared. It is also why in SOME situations the stats are a bit skewed as when chasing 400+ there generally isn't enough time left to make the runs.
I certainly would never say that I backed England to get the runs (_as you did JV). Now would I back NZ to do the same (or anyone).
Nor would I use the reasoning "teams get 500 in first innings so why couldn't they do the same in the second innings" as that is blatantly ignoring all other factors which make batting in the 4th innings of a match significantly more difficult.
You're on a hiding to nothing here JV, you surely must know that.
As to the matter as to whether I thought they could do it, well it's absolutely fair to say they were against it, however, McCullums team can do it but England can't according to to the logic above from Buffy. That's just blinkered eye patch talking. The potential was there for it given the factors of time, overs and runs per overs required. Rain came in and removed that potential.
As to whether I am on a hiding to nothing, again, test cricket can no longer be judged by what has happen historically but you seem to do so. NZ average nearly 5 an over the full game. 3 years ago, no one was talking that way and averaging 4 an over was considered very good. The old models do not necessarily apply any longer so by that rationale, why is chasing 450 not possible in the changing of today's game?