Brendon McCullum
-
@akan004 said in Brendon McCullum:
And people like you failing to be critical just because he is one of NZ's sporting darlings. FYI, I am not the only one who feels this way. He got a lot of flak at the time from cricket lovers all around the world. You just need to learn to be objective.
So what? there's a lot of people in NZ who don't like rugby, or in world rugby who think Ritchie McCaw is a cheat. If public opinion is part of learning to be objective, count me out...
-
@Donsteppa said in Brendon McCullum:
@akan004 said in Brendon McCullum:
And people like you failing to be critical just because he is one of NZ's sporting darlings. FYI, I am not the only one who feels this way. He got a lot of flak at the time from cricket lovers all around the world. You just need to learn to be objective.
So what? there's a lot of people in NZ who don't like rugby, or in world rugby who think Ritchie McCaw is a cheat. If public opinion is part of learning to be objective, count me out...
Difference being Brendon was well liked by most of the cricketing world and most neutrals were desperate to see Australia lose that final.
-
@akan004 said in Brendon McCullum:
@Donsteppa said in Brendon McCullum:
@akan004 said in Brendon McCullum:
And people like you failing to be critical just because he is one of NZ's sporting darlings. FYI, I am not the only one who feels this way. He got a lot of flak at the time from cricket lovers all around the world. You just need to learn to be objective.
So what? there's a lot of people in NZ who don't like rugby, or in world rugby who think Ritchie McCaw is a cheat. If public opinion is part of learning to be objective, count me out...
Difference being Brendon was well liked by most of the cricketing world and most neutrals were desperate to see Australia lose that final.
And I'd refer them to the post by @KiwiMurph
-
-
-
@Hooroo said in Brendon McCullum:
@taniwharugby That's it. He always played like that but people whine and whine when it doesn't come off but enjoy the spoils of victory when it doesn't.
Some people are just a bit sad with that sort of thing
I think my issue was with McCullum is you can't play the "I'm just doing the role I was asked" card when you dish out the roles.
Talent wise he was a top 3 batsman in an order that lacked genuinely talented batsman relative to the other nations. We needed him to play in a constructive way that allowed him the possibility to score big runs - look at Guppy's efforts in the QF - a circumspect first few overs does not preclude you from scoring BIG runs very quickly.
If he thought an indiscriminate skirmish was required at the top of the order he should have promoted Ronchi and shouldered a bigger role down the order himself.
Lead from the front is not a term that comes to mind when looking at his efforts that CWC - especially when contrasting with Crowe, Waugh, de Silva, even Ponting etc
-
starc was in great form and the ball was moving around a lot. my personal preference would have been for baz to pad up thinking i'll hit this fella out of the attack - but then to see it doing so much and be a bit more circumspect. but he never, ever had the ability to adjust his game to the conditions.
oh actually that's right he did. once. and he scored 3 fucking hundred. -
@Donsteppa said in Brendon McCullum:
@NTA said in Brendon McCullum:
Look, about the CWC final: it wasn't that McCullum was shit. Its just that Starc was so much better than him.
And most other batsmen that day, and throughout much of the tournament.
Boult had much similar statistics heading into the game however a semblance of technique saw him off in the final.
Grant Elliot scored 83 on that deck - it was not a greentop.
-
the problem with just focusing on Starc is you ignore the fact that Johnson and Hazlewood were right on the money that game as well. Their opening 3 bowlers were fast, right on point with their line and length, and moving it about. Just playing them out was going to cost us about 15 unproductive overs in a comp where 300 wasn't enough.
Their bowlers were too good that day. And their relentless pressure was why we lost cheap wickets to shit bowlers as we tried to play catch up (fucking Maxwell getting a wicket in his first over was so predictable given the opening spells).
We were actually decently placed after 30, but mentally under the pump.
-
Um.
CWC final. Baz played like a complete numpty first few balls and could have got out. Third ball or whenever he was dismissed he actually played an orthodoxish but tentative prod.
So maybe he did asses the situation and change his game, just that it lasted one delivery.
Starc too good.
-
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
@Donsteppa said in Brendon McCullum:
@NTA said in Brendon McCullum:
Look, about the CWC final: it wasn't that McCullum was shit. Its just that Starc was so much better than him.
And most other batsmen that day, and throughout much of the tournament.
Boult had much similar statistics heading into the game however a semblance of technique saw him off in the final.
Grant Elliot scored 83 on that deck - it was not a greentop.
And outside of Elliot, was it only McCullum who didn't score big runs that day? http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/engine/current/match/656495.html
-
-
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
Then why did we choose to bat up against such a formidable, unplayable bowling attack? We had only bent them over a few weeks earlier bowling first.
Maybe the coach and captain looked at the pitch in both instances?
Somewhat ironically we scored more runs in the final than in the pool game (if chasing a lower total, but 9 down at the end of it).
-
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
Then why did we choose to bat up against such a formidable, unplayable bowling attack? We had only bent them over a few weeks earlier bowling first.
haha bitter hindsight much?
-
@mariner4life said in Brendon McCullum:
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
Then why did we choose to bat up against such a formidable, unplayable bowling attack? We had only bent them over a few weeks earlier bowling first.
haha bitter hindsight much?
Not at all, but if you are going to argue we were so outgunned by their bowlers that our only hope was to blindly attack - then you have to consider why we chose to bat first to begin with.
Batting second with a total set is generally a better approach if you have a more fragile batting order. The odds of an Aussie collapse batting first (ala Eden Park) was surely more likely than a 50 over assault on the biggest ground in cricket.
It's a bit of a rabbit hole - but I walked away from the final thinking we didn't play the percentages well at all.
-
Could have it been becasue the Final was in Oz and when we beat them it was in NZ? Gernally Oz have better batting tracks?
I don't know the answer, just speculating
-
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
@mariner4life said in Brendon McCullum:
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
Then why did we choose to bat up against such a formidable, unplayable bowling attack? We had only bent them over a few weeks earlier bowling first.
haha bitter hindsight much?
Not at all, but if you are going to argue we were so outgunned by their bowlers that our only hope was to blindly attack - then you have to consider why we chose to bat first to begin with.
Batting second with a total set is generally a better approach if you have a more fragile batting order.
The argument (with my bitter hindsight) is that Starc was just too bloody good on the day. All the plans you like don't count for much when in a split second you're missing one at 140kmph plus... Had McCullum (Or Guptill, Taylor, Williamson, Ronchi, or Anderson) pulled out a 150, the Aussies might have been saying similar things. .
It's also a stretch to say that we'd "bent them over" a few weeks earlier by one whole wicket too...
-
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
@mariner4life said in Brendon McCullum:
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
Then why did we choose to bat up against such a formidable, unplayable bowling attack? We had only bent them over a few weeks earlier bowling first.
haha bitter hindsight much?
Not at all, but if you are going to argue we were so outgunned by their bowlers that our only hope was to blindly attack - then you have to consider why we chose to bat first to begin with.
Batting second with a total set is generally a better approach if you have a more fragile batting order.
why do you keep saying "so outgunned" and shit about their attack? They were all on that day, but rarely happens.
I thought batting first and posting 300 was the go, as i thought the pressure would get to the Aussie batsmen. But they had a good day, we had a bad day, and their batsmen were under no pressure when they came out. That's sport.
