McCullum Gives Up Keeping in Tests

[Hurricane]

And on dropping stats against Bangladesh, should we then drop these stats because McCullum only made 27 runs in 2 innings in this game and NZ got bowled out for 171 in the first innings?

1st Test: Bangladesh v New Zealand at Chittagong, Oct 17-21, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

I find it a bit rough to drop stats against any country because in essence I am comparing him to other NZ batsman - guys who have played the same opposition.

If we are going to pick and choose who he averages what against in the last couple of years...

4 tests vs Aus - 309 runs at 44.14.

I think the best comparison to make is against the averages of other NZ batsmen in that period...

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

In over the last 20 tests NZ have played, he compares very well. Tuffey (thanks to his mint 80*) tops the averages, then Ryder, Taylor, Vettori, then McCullum. I would say that
over that period he would definitely be in our top 6 test batsmen. So why drop him before he gives you a reason to? Unless you count losing the gloves as a reason. If he was averaging less than 30, and dropped the gloves, yes. Over 40? No.

It is debatable about whether you should drop games against Bangers - because if you want to win the game you still have to have your batsman turn up to the game and perform against them. However - lots of people on this forum drop games against Bangers as a standard practice. Even if the innings were under pressure and helped their country out of a tight situation. Basically they only have 1 consistent established test quality bowler who shows up in every game. A good example is Guptil - he averages 35 over the same time period - but when you take out the Bangers games it is just 23.7.

I clicked on your link to the ranking of the new zealand players by average over the last 20 games. McCullum is not beating any player of note. He is ahead of Guptil and Oram both of who have had questionable performances over this time period.

I HOPE that McCullum does well. But all I have is hope and not faith. I don't fancy his chances at number 3. I have the feeling that he will fail opening the batting by trying to be sensible. After reflection I do think he can probably make a good fist of number 6 for NZ.

Jezroy - I don't think he will get dropped. But I hope they don't put him in the top 5. I don't think we should use Guptil as a benchmark for the level of acceptability in the top 5.

 

[DingDong]

who would u pick ahead of mccullum as a batsman hurricane?

 

[Hurricane]

Hi DingDong

My top 5 would be

Watling
Mcintosh
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder

I realise that Kane is young and untested. But it is not like we will be sending him in against the West Indies of the 1980s. If they give him experience against the Bangers first he should be ok to try against India. I realise that Flem says we should use the additional experience of McCullum at 3 and ease Williamson into the line up at 6. But I just see McCullum being a fail at 3. Successful number 3s in world cricket are measured, technically correct, classy players with solid defensive systems. McCullum does not meet enough of these criteria. And picking him because there is nobody else to try at 3 is not a recipe for success for NZ or McCullum's career.
If McCullum must play in the top order by royal edict come hell or high water then let him open but tell him to have a go.

Alternative line up if forced

Mcintosh
McCullum
Watling
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, I think the whole "McCullum only needs to be one of the six best batsmen in the country and he clearly is" line of thinking is a bit off, because it's not quite that simple. He has to be one of the best two openers, the best number three, or one of the best three (or two even, if the five bowler policy is continued with) middle order batsmen.

Now, he's definitely not better than Taylor or Ryder or mine; those guys should be occupying four and five. McCullum could easily slot in at six (and I think he should, personally) but if the five-bowler policy is going to be continued with then Vettori's going to bat six with Hopkins at seven and, as much as I disagree with that, it could happen. If it does then it means McCullum has to bat in the top three and I really don't have much faith in him there at all.

 

[NZ Guy]

Hi DingDong

My top 5 would be

Watling
Mcintosh
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder

I realise that Kane is young and untested. But it is not like we will be sending him in against the West Indies of the 1980s. If they give him experience against the Bangers first he should be ok to try against India. I realise that Flem says we should use the additional experience of McCullum at 3 and ease Williamson into the line up at 6. But I just see McCullum being a fail at 3. Successful number 3s in world cricket are measured, technically correct, classy players with solid defensive systems. McCullum does not meet enough of these criteria. And picking him because there is nobody else to try at 3 is not a recipe for success for NZ or McCullum's career.
If McCullum must play in the top order by royal edict come hell or high water then let him open but tell him to have a go.

Alternative line up if forced

Mcintosh
McCullum
Watling
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson

If we are afraid to be different, how can we make a difference in the world?

 

[Polo23]

1. Williamson is untried - and I hope he succeeds. I really do. But look at guys like Vincent, Marshall, How, Flynn, Fulton, Ingram, Sinclair etc etc who also had talent (maybe not as much as Kane) and they failed at the highest level.

2. I may be completely wrong, and McCullum may suck as a specialist bat. But he has never been a specialist test batsman for us, so let's see how he goes. My point is on his numbers in his last 20 tests, he would have been good enough to be in the test team as a batsman (if the likes of McIntosh, Guptill are), so you wouldn't drop him. Just feel as though a lot of people see the "I'm dropping the gloves" thing as a big negative and some form of copping out, but if it keeps him in the game for longer, and he succeeds as a test batsman because of it, I don't see what the big deal is.

I think it's safe to say Williamson is technically a mile ahead of all those players listed and that does count at the highest level (as shown by pretty much all of those players, who generally failed due to poor technique, bar maybe Sinclair who had a mental block at test level).

I think you're missing the point. McIntosh opens and Guptill has batted at 3 the majority of his test career. McCullum I don't think has ever opened in test cricket (or if he has it's been 1 or 2 innings here or there) and he's batted at 3 rarely. His game is not suited to test match opening or 3 with his dodgy defensive technique and obsession with throwing his hands at the ball. The lower middle order is where he'd likely fare best but who would you drop?

 

[AaronK]

if only Kamran Akmal follows the same path and retire from test.. because seeing him drop catches make the whole pakistan cricket look bad...

 

[slowfinger]

if only Kamran Akmal follows the same path and retire from test.. because seeing him drop catches make the whole pakistan cricket look bad...

True but not from tests, we don't have enough class for anyone else.

 

[Jezroy]

Yeah, I think the whole "McCullum only needs to be one of the six best batsmen in the country and he clearly is" line of thinking is a bit off, because it's not quite that simple. He has to be one of the best two openers, the best number three, or one of the best three (or two even, if the five bowler policy is continued with) middle order batsmen.

Now, he's definitely not better than Taylor or Ryder or mine; those guys should be occupying four and five. McCullum could easily slot in at six (and I think he should, personally) but if the five-bowler policy is going to be continued with then Vettori's going to bat six with Hopkins at seven and, as much as I disagree with that, it could happen. If it does then it means McCullum has to bat in the top three and I really don't have much faith in him there at all.

Agree with this - don't think McCullum should bat in the top 3, and wish that we could pick 6 batsmen, one keeper, 4 bowlers. Hopefully, with Williamson and Ryder in the side, we should be able to do this more. Then room for McCullum at 5 or 6. Would love to see Guptill force his way back in as an opener. LOVE.

 

[NZ Guy]

McCullum scored 96 at Lords against England in 2004 thats about the only recollection I have of him at 3 perhaps also during the Hamilton crater debacle when they didnt want to send lefties in.

 

[Jono]

Personally I think that risk is worth the reward. McCullum the wicket keeper batsman is a good player by any standards. McCullum the Test batsman though is pretty over-rated IMO and the risk of losing such a player is worth the potential reward of such a good keeper/bat. As far as I see it, you're retiring a very good player immediately (McCullum the wicket keeper) to prolong the life of a mediocre player who may not even justify his place in a few months (McCullum the batsman).

I suppose one's opinion of this really comes down to one's opinion of McCullum the batsman. Many rate him higher than I do in that regard so they may think his batsmanship is something worth preserving but I don't think he's good enough as a specialist bat to try and protect and prolong at the expense of what he's actually good at.

Woah, hang on a sec.

If (big if obviously) the injury risks are so high that McCullum would possibly have to retire in 12-24 months if he continued to keep in tests... his decision is absolutely justified since this is HIS career.

If the team doesn't believe he is worthy of a top 6 batsman spot, they drop him. But a player's career should never be cut short to such an extent, even if it benefits the team in the short term. The guy is earning a living here.

 

[Prince EWS]

Woah, hang on a sec.

If (big if obviously) the injury risks are so high that McCullum would possibly have to retire in 12-24 months if he continued to keep in tests... his decision is absolutely justified since this is HIS career.

If the team doesn't believe he is worthy of a top 6 batsman spot, they drop him. But a player's career should never be cut short to such an extent, even if it benefits the team in the short term. The guy is earning a living here.

I wasn't commenting on whether I thought it was good for him on a personal level, I really couldn't give a **** about that. I was commenting on whether I thought it'd be good for New Zealand cricket and whether it was a good idea from a purely cricketing perspective.

 

[Jezroy]

I wasn't commenting on whether I thought it was good for him on a personal level, I really couldn't give a **** about that. I was commenting on whether I thought it'd be good for New Zealand cricket and whether it was a good idea from a purely cricketing perspective.

Still think that if he can average around 40 from here on in for the next 5 years or so for NZ (IF), than that has to be a better thing for NZ than him retiring sooner because his body can't handle keeping in tests.

Fact of the matter is that if he isn't good enough as a test batsman in whatever position he settles on, he won't last in the team.

 

[DingDong]

Hi DingDong

My top 5 would be

Watling
Mcintosh
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder

I realise that Kane is young and untested. But it is not like we will be sending him in against the West Indies of the 1980s. If they give him experience against the Bangers first he should be ok to try against India. I realise that Flem says we should use the additional experience of McCullum at 3 and ease Williamson into the line up at 6. But I just see McCullum being a fail at 3. Successful number 3s in world cricket are measured, technically correct, classy players with solid defensive systems. McCullum does not meet enough of these criteria. And picking him because there is nobody else to try at 3 is not a recipe for success for NZ or McCullum's career.
If McCullum must play in the top order by royal edict come hell or high water then let him open but tell him to have a go.

Alternative line up if forced

Mcintosh
McCullum
Watling
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson

makes sense hurricane but i would like to give mccullum one go as a batsman beffore we drop him.

 

[NZTailender]

New Zealand number 3s since the start of the 2000s.

McCullum doesn't rank too badly, and when you consider we don't have many gifted batsmen knocking down the door I think giving him a run as pure batsmen at 3 isn't a bad thing. Williamson to debut down the order and eventually shift up.

Or Neil Broom.

 

[_Ed_]

New Zealand number 3s since the start of the 2000s.

Gasped audibly at Fleming's stats. Any way we can tempt him back?

 

[NZTailender]

Gasped audibly at Fleming's stats. Any way we can tempt him back?

Maybe if we bankrupt Fujitsu so he'd need to get a new paying gig.

 

[Jezroy]

Gasped audibly at Fleming's stats. Any way we can tempt him back?

Forget Flem. Check out The Pig. Oink oink.

Seriously though, Not really putting too much faith on McCullums performance at number 3. A. Because he wasn't actually the number 3 in the team in those games - circumstances dictated that he bat there.
B. I would like him to bat 5 or 6. But probably 5.

 

[Jezroy]

I know it probably won't happen, but what thoughts on Taylor at 3?

He effectively does the job anyway most of the time. Then you could have Ryder at 4, McCullum 5, and someone else (hopefully Williamson) at 6.

Then all we would need is 2 openers and a mean keeper batsman, and you have quite an effective top 8 (with Dan at 7) in the making.

Oh for those 2 openers.

 

[NZTailender]

I know it probably won't happen, but what thoughts on Taylor at 3?

He effectively does the job anyway most of the time. Then you could have Ryder at 4, McCullum 5, and someone else (hopefully Williamson) at 6.

Then all we would need is 2 openers and a mean keeper batsman, and you have quite an effective top 8 (with Dan at 7) in the making.

Oh for those 2 openers.

Taylors doing perfectly well at four as is Ryder at 5. Not sure how Taylor would go at 3, especially if he finds himself in in the first few overs, given how our openers fare...