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.
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.
-
@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.
-
@Donsteppa said in Brendon McCullum:
It's also a stretch to say that we'd "bent them over" a few weeks earlier by one whole wicket too...
We bent them over bowling first.
@mariner4life said in Brendon McCullum:
@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.
I'm saying that because the argument for McCullum's blind attack is basically "our only path to victory was getting off to a quick start and bludgeoning them out of the attack".
If getting off to a quick start was important I would have given Ronchi the McCullum role much in the tradition of Greatbatch and McMillan who were struggling attacking batsmen - who offered a lower risk.
I honestly felt like Aussie would've gone into that game bowling first thinking big scores from Taylor, McCullum and Williamson could sink them. Even if McCullum "came off" like he did with his 50 in the semi - we still basically needed a century and only had two guys capable of getting them and our largely out of form and longish tail exposed (god bless Guppy's efforts in the QF and Elliots in the semi and final).
Even
Each to their own - Baz wanted to go out on the front foot or whatever, I would have rather gone out playing the percentages.
-
Sitting up in the Ponsford stand that day I really wished we had bowled first..... :(. They got out of the gate so fast, Starc was awesome but in fact the whole attack was brilliant. There seemed no hope of waiting it out to profit off the weaker change bowlers because they all bowled well
-
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
Each to their own - Baz wanted to go out on the front foot or whatever, I would have rather gone out playing the percentages.Playing the percentages by changing the way he plays? That doesn't sound like playing the percentages,
-
-
@Hooroo said in Brendon McCullum:
@rotated said in Brendon McCullum:
Each to their own - Baz wanted to go out on the front foot or whatever, I would have rather gone out playing the percentages.Playing the percentages by changing the way he plays? That doesn't sound like playing the percentages,
As a captain. McCullum wanted to win by smashing them or not at all.
In terms of his batting I think he did change the way he batted for the final. Be it the moment, be it the opposition, be it the game plan he was overly aggressive. I've seen plenty of Baz innings and I've never seen him come out of the gate LIKE THAT. In fact I've seen him shoulder arms to a majority of the first over to get the pitch before going batty the next over.
-
@rotated "We bent them over bowling first."
And then the second innings was hardly glorious in-between the 50 by McCullum and the last hit by Williamson. A one wicket win at Eden Park was not a given sure-fire formula for the MCG in a World Cup Final beyond bitter hindsight (mine as much as anyone's)
-
He's just moved to Matamata which is great. Loves his golf as well.
I can forgive everytime he got out, made a wrong decison and annoyed me, as thats part of sport, I really have nothing but respect for him on that front.
But moving to Matamata?
SMH.
-
@MajorRage said in Brendon McCullum:
He's just moved to Matamata which is great. Loves his golf as well.
I can forgive everytime he got out, made a wrong decison and annoyed me, as thats part of sport, I really have nothing but respect for him on that front.
But moving to Matamata?
SMH.
Vermair Racing which he started has centralised itself there being the Throughbred hub of NZ
