thundaboult
International Debutant
Chasing 190 in 50 overs and trying to take it deep gtfo here with that s**t lmao
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* New Zealand in Australia 2022
- Thread starter straw man
- Start date
Yeah, that's not a great mindset.
I think you're talking about his innings at Lord's in 2015, which you're right - was awful. We should've won that game from something like 450-4 responding to 300 and something. Completely exemplified by Boult being caught at deep third man in the final session when he should have been stonewalling. I hated that approach, the gung ho at all costs way. I don't remember him making 80 off 80 in a loss that could've been avoided, however.
In my own opinion, the Hesson era had a legacy that lasted beyond his tenure and I believe McCullum's captaincy did, too. In a positive way. The cracks have started to appear in Stead's leadership in particular, and Kane I guess can be attributed to fatigue. But they both benefitted, in my opinion, significantly from the guys who went before them. If that style and mindset doesn't work for them, they need(ed) to change it.
I'm a Baz-o-phile (hey look, I can make cringey Baz-related words, too!!!) but I can see how people don't like his approach. It's polarising. However, from where we were in 2012 - and let's be honest, Baz contributed to it in a negative sense with how he held himself in the 2000s - I find it near impossible to say that where we found ourselves 9 years later, and all the accolades and enjoyment as a fan in between, didn't have Baz's fingerprints all over it. I believe those are now gone, and we need to find a new way.
TheBrand
First Class Debutant
Baz's contract is only 2 years with England right? Let's just steal him back after.
Athlai
Not Terrible
Nah they can keep him
thierry henry
International Coach
See this is just rewriting history imo.
What is true, is that the BMac era and the KW era, seen from a distance, amounted to one prolonged era of relative success (approx 2013-2021). However to say that Kane managed to live off BMac's afterglow for far longer than BMac was even captain in the first place is just not true at all.
Are we all forgetting that way back in 2016 there were already criticisms of Kane's more defensive captaincy style? He actually started out a bit roughly; losing a home test series to South Africa in 16/17 and a dire performance in the 2017 Champions Trophy come to mind. Our ODI form leading into, and even during, the 2019 WC was patchy. And of course our WTC campaign started off horribly with the disastrous Australia tour.
All I'm saying is KW has been captain for a LONG time, generally with a pretty consistent, conservative style. He has had his own ups and downs and downs and ups and mini-eras many times over during this time. BMac's captaincy is absolutely ancient history, his style went out the door pretty much back in 2016. The only reason there's any sort of narrative thread from BMac to the current team is that there's been a similar set of very good players around throughout, which of course is the most fundamental reason for the sustained relative success we've had. The idea that BMac style tactics or captaincy have had anything to do with whatever success we've had since KW took over just isn't historically correct though.....imo imho.
Flem274*
123/5
McCullum succeeded where Taylor failed because he purged the "senior" (I use this term because they were but ****in how?) players after Cape Town, the same players who desperately wanted the coup lol.
One of the few areas where the stories match between autobiographies is those players were pure ****in' cancer. McCullum doesn't name as many names or dish it out as brutally as I've just said but it is pretty apparent Jacob Oram, Kyle Mills, James Franklin, Jeetan Patel and one or two more I've forgotten were, and I'm paraphrasing a McCullum quote "not on board with the team ethos Hess and I wanted moving forward". In the ODI series he brought in a lot of new blood including Neesham, Anderson and McClenaghan.
McCullum was also partly helped by those guys being close to retirement otherwise after a couple of years trying to lift the team to be more than it was like Taylor did, he would have been out on his arse like Taylor. The senior players didn't want McCullum captain because he was better per se (though his people skills with young jocks seem top class), they wanted him because they thought he was one of their boys and would enable them to continue taking the mick instead of the Taylor/Wright/Buchanan (and prior to them Vettori) group constantly demanding more and Taylor specifically wanting to bring in more young talent, which triggered the named Jacob Oram back of the bus wahhhhhh.
The other thing which made some improvement inevitable was under Taylor's reign, the new talent his group brought in was quite good. Boult, Williamson, Watling, Bracewell etc combined with Taylor, Vettori, McCullum, improving Southee and sober Ryder to make the core of a decent team.
McCullum might have accelerated it through his personality but his best decision was political and it was the correct one. Purge the people mentally holding the side back.
One of the few areas where the stories match between autobiographies is those players were pure ****in' cancer. McCullum doesn't name as many names or dish it out as brutally as I've just said but it is pretty apparent Jacob Oram, Kyle Mills, James Franklin, Jeetan Patel and one or two more I've forgotten were, and I'm paraphrasing a McCullum quote "not on board with the team ethos Hess and I wanted moving forward". In the ODI series he brought in a lot of new blood including Neesham, Anderson and McClenaghan.
McCullum was also partly helped by those guys being close to retirement otherwise after a couple of years trying to lift the team to be more than it was like Taylor did, he would have been out on his arse like Taylor. The senior players didn't want McCullum captain because he was better per se (though his people skills with young jocks seem top class), they wanted him because they thought he was one of their boys and would enable them to continue taking the mick instead of the Taylor/Wright/Buchanan (and prior to them Vettori) group constantly demanding more and Taylor specifically wanting to bring in more young talent, which triggered the named Jacob Oram back of the bus wahhhhhh.
The other thing which made some improvement inevitable was under Taylor's reign, the new talent his group brought in was quite good. Boult, Williamson, Watling, Bracewell etc combined with Taylor, Vettori, McCullum, improving Southee and sober Ryder to make the core of a decent team.
McCullum might have accelerated it through his personality but his best decision was political and it was the correct one. Purge the people mentally holding the side back.
thierry henry
International Coach
McCullum was like a million years ago bros he hasn't had anything to do with our successes or failures for years
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Was literally coaching the last team you just lost a Test series to
Athlai
Not Terrible
Ireland?
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
It was a year ago alright Flem274*, Let It Go
thierry henry
International Coach
That's a different guy, some English coach whose crazy ideas we could choose to follow (if we were idiots)
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Think this is neglecting the role of Hesson carrying over into the early years of Williamson's coaching tenure, as opposed to just McCullum's influence. McCullum gave way to Williamson Feb 2016, Hesson didn't finish up until mid 2018. You'd expect that Hesson would have continued in a similar mold to how he did with McCullum as captain for a while.
So I agree with SteveNZ's general point that there's an afterglow from the previous regime each time something changes, and for a while Kane's caution and Hesson presumably more bullish approach seemed to hit the right balance. But after Hesson left and the cautious Stead came in, and some time elapsed, the culture/approach settled at it's current level at the ultra-cautious end of the spectrum.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah this is my number one memory from those early Chappell-Hadlee ODIs. Why even talk about the quality of the 1st/2nd choice Australian bowling attack when they had no chance vs the might of the edge of Mark Gillespie's bat.
thierry henry
International Coach
I don't think this is how it actually panned out though? Was 2016 - 2018 more successful than 2018 - 2021? I'd argue the Williamson/Hesson partnership had mixed results and the Williamson/Stead pairing had better results.
All of the winning and making tournament finals occurred with the current pairing which was miles removed in time and approach from McHess
thierry henry
International Coach
Y'all would really have me believe that we stuttered initially under Williamson/Hesson, then had a famous run of results under Williamson/Stead....because of the influence of McCullum/Hesson. Straight up making up stories my guys. It's been forever since we had an aggressive McHess approach. We achieved our greatest successes playing BlockBall.
Now we've got too BlockBally and we suck, that doesn't mean we were good in 2021 because we played BazBall 8 years ago.
Now we've got too BlockBally and we suck, that doesn't mean we were good in 2021 because we played BazBall 8 years ago.
I know your opinions are as black and white as your profile photo, and I respect that. No one's ever unsure of where you're coming from.
However, to say things are 'not true at all' and I'm 'rewriting history' is, ironically, not true either. It's my opinion, as is yours - again, respected. Mine's not scientifically proven...no one's is. But I enjoy the back and forth on it.
Part of my reasoning is actually encapsulated in your last paragraph. Those very good players came through under Brendon's captaincy and some thrived under his leadership. The style in which a lot of them played, was developed from 2012 onwards. I believe the confidence and the instilling of the belief we could win, and the becoming that we knew how to win, was borne during those years, too. I haven't been in the inner sanctum but I would imagine a lot of the systems, training philosophies, all those sort of things came from that time too (they sure as **** didn't come from before 2012). And yep, part of that is Mike Hesson, too, who obviously carried through to Kane's leadership.
I guess the essence of my argument is McCullum and Hesson laid foundations upon which Kane and Stead were fortunate enough to build upon Foundations which until this year, were still evident. The 'revolution' in 2012 had to happen for 2019-21 to happen. If Kane and Stead come in back in 2012, we go nowhere. They'd be building on sand.
So I get where you're coming from - it was never still Baz's team in 2019 and I may have erroneously inferred so. But just as the guy who poured the concrete and built the frames left long ago, the legacy left in the strength of the structure lingered on until recently.
thierry henry
International Coach
Yeah all I'm trying to do really is recap the history as opposed to trying to establish who fundamentally changed things. If we take 2013-2021ish as pretty much a good era overall then it's a matter of fact that McCullum and Hesson kickstarted that whole era.
However, it hasn't been entirely plain sailing throughout that whole period, and it's not the case that we just got worse the further removed we got from McHess. A more accurate history is that we had a bit of a lull and then built again, culminating in 2019 World Cup final/WTC win/2021 T20 World Cup final.
I won't even try to explain why, but the reality is we actually got better, not worse, the further away from McHess we got and the more entrenched in Kane/Stead we got. That is of course until we reached the top of the mountain and then fell off it.
Mostly I just find it weird/fascinating/annoying that after years and years of tremendous success under KW, the KW years still seem to get glossed over in favour of reminiscing about a couple of years under Baz.
Last edited: