*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Howsie]

Another player that's suffered the wrath of Howsie based on their geographical entering of the world?

Before I go on, I should say that a) you're entitled to your opinion and b) I don't think Brendon is our greatest captain necessarily either. But he's way better than you're giving him credit for.

The first Test was lost by far less than ruthless first innings batting when we should've forged a bigger lead, and not drawn because of poor batting again in the second, the tail especially. Brendon can take some of that wrath because his shot in the first innings was woeful. If you're saying he shouldn't always be balls to the wall, swing from the hip, I agree. That was the same to know when to rein it in.

Ross won a one-off Test in Australia where it seamed round corners, then an admittedly strong performance in Sri Lanka. Hats off to him, he scored vital runs in both. But the overall performances were up and down like nothing you've seen before. It's churlish to suggest Brendon's leadership hasn't instilled a much stronger belief, consistency of performance and desire to win Tests, not simply to not be beaten.

Yes he goes too far sometimes. You know what? Blame John Wright. Brendon should've been captain from the day Dan stepped down, and he could've knocked the edges off his leadership style by now. But by the time he gets to that point, he'll be retired. Ross' appointment was wrong from the day it happened, a conservative call from a conservative coach who couldn't afford to be with a languishing side. Ross deserves his place as one of NZ's great batsmen but his body language, willingness to take a game on and general communication were terrible, and all things Baz does very, very well. Don't underestimate the continued rise in the likes of Boult, Anderson, Craig, Henry etc (not so much Williamson and Southee) and what part Brendon's backing of them did. You and I both know we wouldn't have got to where we did in the World Cup under Ross, as well.

I know Kane is your golden boy and you'll see a marked difference in the two of them, I'll tell you now. I'm not saying Kane won't be a successful captain but he's never left anything to chance in his life. Then you might get a better appreciation of who Baz was as a leader as a whole and as an on-field tactician.

He's a good captain, just not excellent and you seem to argee with that. I just don't like that he persoanlly has been given what seems to be 99 percent of the credit for New Zealand's turnaround over the last 24 months. He's the captain, he's a decent one, he's played his part. But without Kane Williamson, without Trent Boult, without Tim Southee, without BJ Watling there is no great turnaround of this New Zealand team. That is what irks me, he gets all the ink in the papers, he gets all the kudos in the media, I'm just over it. Those players turned that team around, not just McCullum. As I said if you didn't know any better those guys were just some scrubs before McCullum got his hands on them and we all know that isn't true.

btw, to simply state the results under Ross Taylor were far too up and down is a little unfair. He took over when, 2011? All these young guys had barely played a dozen games between them. The ability was there hence why were saw games like Hobart, Sri Lanka etc. But none of them were exactly consistant and who could blame them, guys in their early 20's vary rarely are in test cricket. They've all matured now, gotten better etc and now McCullum is reaping the rewards.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If BMac has retired from ODIs (his worst form of the game anyway) like to see this side:

Latham or Watling (wk) -sorry Ronchi but I want us to play the 3 young all-rounders from 6-8
Guptill
KW (capt)
Taylor
Elliot (2 more years)
Anderson
Santner
Neesham
Wheeler
Henry
Milne

(Don't want Southee and Boult getting injured but will obviously still play a few odis). When Elliot retires move everyone up one and pick another bowler.

 

[Hurricane]

I agree with Howsie.

Albi also has an interesting point that with a conservative captain at the helm the score in the test series would have been 0-0.

I personally hold McCullum largely to blame for losing the first test. No flames for that please and we debated it at the time, but that is my view.

I also think we may not have won the 2nd test without his tactics. Everything he touched in that test turned to gold. I think most of that was luck by the way. Nonetheless his tactics worked.

Overall despite that second test, he is an average captain tactically. Probably below average to be perfectly frank. But he is in the top 10% for leadership skills and motivational skills. And perhaps that is more important than tactical nous. Because as long as your other players are tonning up and taking 4-fers then you don't have to be Mike Brearley.

Where am I going with this post. I started by agreeing with Howsie that he was in the right place at the right time only, but now after typing all of this I do think he deserves a lot of credit. The very fact that Kane and BJ are playing well is a reflection on him for providing a stable environment and for motivating them. BJ in particular has no business playing as well as he is. He simply isn't that good a player. So someone needs to take credit for his mental state. Maybe that is BJ that gets the credit, I personally think Brendon deserves some applause. The NZ blackcaps could have gone right into the toilet after Ross-Gate - and he personally led them out of it. I was 90% certain that Ross Taylor was going to be "frozen" out and not spoken to and not included in social activities, and laughed at and honestly deliberately made to feel unwelcome. I have seen it happen in group dynamic situations, and it takes leadership to make sure it doesn't turn to custard like that. Maybe you guys take the positive atmosphere in the blackcaps camp for granted but I certainly don't. Especially with mindless imps like David White at the top, because values tend to drift down from leadership positions.

My final verdict - Brendon McCullum is 20% responsible for the success, the team 80% responsible. But 20% is a big deal and something that he deserves a pat on the back for.

Don't ask me to say that about Hesson. #Neverforget.

 

[Flem274*]

BJ in particular has no business playing as well as he is. He simply isn't that good a player.

Rubbish

 

[Hurricane]

Rubbish

I retort to your rubbish by saying rubbish back to you.

A quick look at cricinfo says he is averaging 51 over the past two years. He is not that good.

 

[Flem274*]

Why?

 

[hendrix]

I though BJ was a bit limited as a batsman for a long time but there's no way you can watch those slog sweeps he's been playing recently and pretend like he doesn't have a lot of ability.

He's bloody good.

 

[Flem274*]

Arguably the most improved player on the planet.

 

[OverratedSanity]

A quick look at cricinfo says he is averaging 51 over the past two years. He is not that good.

Fairly narrow way of judging a batsman.

 

[Hurricane]

Why?

Because he looks like he is struggling out there to make runs and has a limited array of shots - this recent tour where he scored at a good clip was out of the ordinary. If you have less shots and have to work harder for your runs then over the long haul you will not do as well as other players.

Do you want me to elaborate on that? Don't mean that to sound pushy - I just mean do you want a longer answer as I am happy to spin that out further but am not sure that I need to.

Certainly with his array of shot making options he shouldn't be averaging over 50. Over 50 is very very high.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Because he looks like he is struggling out there to make runs and has a limited array of shots - this recent tour where he scored at a good clip was out of the ordinary. If you have less shots and have to work harder for your runs then over the long haul you will not do as well as other players.

Do you want me to elaborate on that? Don't mean that to sound pushy - I just mean do you want a longer answer as I am happy to spin that out further but am not sure that I need to.

Certainly with his array of shot making options he shouldn't be averaging over 50. Over 50 is very very high.

He's probably looking like struggling because so many times now, he's come in with the team in dire straits and has had to dig deep and pull them out of a hole. And the few times he's had to score runs quickly, he's done that too. I see no reason to complain. He's adjusted to the match situation absolutely perfectly with great consistency.

 

[OverratedSanity]

By, the way, averaging over 50 for a couple of years doesn't mean you now judge BJ by the standards of a 50 career avg batsman. I doubt any of the NZers think he'll average 50 by the end of his career. Good players go through great runs of form and have spikes in performance. That doesn't mean the guy isn't awesome though.

 

[hendrix]

Because he looks like he is struggling out there to make runs and has a limited array of shots - this recent tour where he scored at a good clip was out of the ordinary. If you have less shots and have to work harder for your runs then over the long haul you will not do as well as other players.

Do you want me to elaborate on that? Don't mean that to sound pushy - I just mean do you want a longer answer as I am happy to spin that out further but am not sure that I need to.

Certainly with his array of shot making options he shouldn't be averaging over 50. Over 50 is very very high.

Look I would have agreed with you based on this, but if you've watched him bat over the last couple of years you'd realise he actually has a much vaster range of shots than I initially thought. Obviously his cuts and pulls are his strong point but he also drives decently, sweeps well, and can even biff a few over long on.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Because he looks like he is struggling out there to make runs and has a limited array of shots - this recent tour where he scored at a good clip was out of the ordinary. If you have less shots and have to work harder for your runs then over the long haul you will not do as well as other players.

Do you want me to elaborate on that? Don't mean that to sound pushy - I just mean do you want a longer answer as I am happy to spin that out further but am not sure that I need to.

Certainly with his array of shot making options he shouldn't be averaging over 50. Over 50 is very very high.

I disagree with the notion that a limited shot array is a disadvantage in tests. The most important thing in the long form is having a few basic shots and executing them exceptionally well and consistently - which is exactly what Watling does. Block good balls, cut short and wide ****, and nurdle stuff off the pads, sorted. BJ does all those things and actually expands his shot array quite well depending on the situation.

 

[hendrix]

I disagree with the notion that a limited shot array is a disadvantage in tests. The most important thing in the long form is having a few basic shots and executing them exceptionally well and consistently - which is exactly what Watling does. Block good balls, cut short and wide ****, and nurdle stuff off the pads, sorted. BJ does all those things and actually expands his shot array quite well depending on the situation.

Nah I agree with Hurricanes premise, it just doesn't apply in this case.
Now I know we get the Mark Richardson type to come along every once in a while...so there's certainly the exception. Graeme Smith etc etc.

I just think that it's it's better to have more shots than be more limited.

It's what I like about Latham vs Rutherford. It actually has very little to do with technique and a lot to do with not forcing shots because they're your only scoring areas.

 

[Hurricane]

By, the way, averaging over 50 for a couple of years doesn't mean you now judge BJ by the standards of a 50 career avg batsman. I doubt any of the NZers think he'll average 50 by the end of his career. Good players go through great runs of form and have spikes in performance. That doesn't mean the guy isn't awesome though.

You are all over the shop.

 

[Hurricane]

Nah I agree with Hurricanes premise, it just doesn't apply in this case.
Now I know we get the Mark Richardson type to come along every once in a while...so there's certainly the exception. Graeme Smith etc etc.

I just think that it's it's better to have more shots than be more limited.

It's what I like about Latham vs Rutherford. It actually has very little to do with technique and a lot to do with not forcing shots because they're your only scoring areas.

Love this post.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You are all over the shop.

No. You seem to be pointing to BJ averaging 50 in recent times "not that good", as in he's not a 50 career avg batsman. Well, of course he's not that good, hardly see anyone saying that.

 

[Hurricane]

No. You seem to be pointing to BJ averaging 50 in recent times "not that good", as in he's not a 50 career avg batsman. Well, of course he's not that good, hardly see anyone saying that.

No comment.

 

[Bahnz]

I agree with Howsie.

Albi also has an interesting point that with a conservative captain at the helm the score in the test series would have been 0-0.

I personally hold McCullum largely to blame for losing the first test. No flames for that please and we debated it at the time, but that is my view.

I also think we may not have won the 2nd test without his tactics. Everything he touched in that test turned to gold. I think most of that was luck by the way. Nonetheless his tactics worked.

BJ in particular has no business playing as well as he is. He simply isn't that good a player. So someone needs to take credit for his mental state.

My final verdict - Brendon McCullum is 20% responsible for the success, the team 80% responsible. But 20% is a big deal and something that he deserves a pat on the back for.

Don't ask me to say that about Hesson. #Neverforget.

Disagree on this. Yeah you can quibble with McCullum keeping his field placements up for too long. But from my point of view, the two things that were most responsible for us losing the Lord's test were:

a) the fact that England played brilliant cricket, especially on days 4 and 5; and
b) New Zealand's bowlers - Boult aside - were poor. Southee looked every inch like a bowler who'd just hopped off a plane from the IPL, Henry was all over the shop with his lengths, and Craig had one of his Mr. Hyde matches. You can say that McCullum should've dropped his field back more quickly - but it's hard to protect boundaries when the bowlers keep serving up half trackers.