McCullum Gives Up Keeping in Tests

[BoyBrumby]

Mildly odd call for me.

After Vettori's comments during the world T20 (when asked if there was any chance of McCullum retaking the gauntlets, he rather pointedly said Brendan sees himself as a batsman now, suggesting the selectors might not share this view) I'd assumed he was still viewed primarily as a keeper/batsman by the NZ authorities.

Any improvment in his batting figures when he hasn't kept?

 

[Hurricane]

Imo, the team should look something like:

T Mac
Watling/McCullum
Watling/McCullum
Taylor
Ryder
Ingram/Williamson/Franklin/Broom/have I included all the fringe players yet?
Vettori
Hopkins (next best keeper and he can bat at eight)
Southee
McKay
Arnel/Tuffey/Martin/Pickandmix.

Yeah like your post. If he goes 3 he had better score some runs. They could simply say keep or don't play. I guess with our weak stocks of players in reserve this wasn't much of an option though. No McCullum would **** up the batting strength of our ODI team. He may only be a number 7 test match batsman but he is a legit top order player in ODIs of international quality - and he has star power in 20/20s (although he didn't show it in the recent 20/20 world cup)

I quoted your batting order above because you have given up on Guptil. This is an interesting call. Most people figure he is an up and coming talent. I guess you have grown tired of waiting for him to develop.

Also with your order I would have McCullum at 6 and Williamson at 3. I think McCullum will be like OMG I am number 3 I had better bat with a SR of 33 like Macincock does - and will get himself out.

IF we ever have to choose out of Watling and Mcintosh at the top of the order to make way for McCullum - I am sorry to say that the big man has done more - more often than Watling.

@boybrumby McCullum in the ODI series against Aussie with Hopkins in the side

45 (43)
24(16)
23(25)
61(75)
1(13)

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah like your post. If he goes 3 he had better score some runs. They could simply say keep or don't play. I guess with our weak stocks of players in reserve this wasn't much of an option though. No McCullum would **** up the batting strength of our ODI team. He may only be a number 7 test match batsman but he is a legit top order player in ODIs of international quality - and he has star power in 20/20s (although he didn't show it in the recent 20/20 world cup)

I quoted your batting order above because you have given up on Guptil. This is an interesting call. Most people figure he is an up and coming talent. I guess you have grown tired of waiting for him to develop.

Also with your order I would have McCullum at 6 and Williamson at 3. I think McCullum will be like OMG I am number 3 I had better bat with a SR of 33 like Macincock does - and will get himself out.

IF we ever have to choose out of Watling and Mcintosh at the top of the order to make way for McCullum - I am sorry to say that the big man has done more - more often than Watling.

@boybrumby McCullum in the ODI series against Aussie with Hopkins in the side

45 (43)
24(16)
23(25)
61(75)
1(13)

I'd keep Guptill for ODIs, but he isn't adjusting to tests. It's not so much a technical weakness as playing silly shots. Imo that says to me he needs to learn how to construct innings. He can learn that faster for Auckland before having another go for NZ.

I'd rather let McCullum have his crack at number three than Williamson. Why should we make it harder on a young prodigy to keep a senior who says he is a batsman safe?

McCullum has more test runs and is a senior player. I'd prefer him to bat three.

 

[straw man]

Only just saw this announcement. What a load of ****.

Tests is where we most need him to wicketkeep, rather than the shorter versions. And no Brendon, you've already given up the gloves in T20s so I don't see how you are 'retaining' them there. IMO he can go to the back of the queue for the opener/ number 3 spot and should have to bat there and prove himself in domestic cricket first. Will be fuming if he gets to bat 6 - that should be reserved for Williamson and other good new players coming through.

As for the new keeper in tests, I'm going to stick with my tried and tested opinion which is Anyone But Hopkins.

 

[Craig]

It's a big call by McCullum for mine. From going from a certainty (so to speak) in the Test XI, he now has to be considered like everybody else, and there should be no question for him to be dropped if his form doesn't suggest he is good enough for the team. He better start knocking up the runs for Otago.

 

[Jarquis]

In the same boat as TH and PEWS.

 

[Somerset]

Mildly odd call for me.

After Vettori's comments during the world T20 (when asked if there was any chance of McCullum retaking the gauntlets, he rather pointedly said Brendan sees himself as a batsman now, suggesting the selectors might not share this view) I'd assumed he was still viewed primarily as a keeper/batsman by the NZ authorities.

Any improvment in his batting figures when he hasn't kept?

Given hes only ever played one test match where he's played but not wicket-kept (excluding replacements mid-test) its a bit tricky to say that there would or wouldn't be an improvement in his batting figures in the longer form when he hasn't wicket kept. I guess we'll soon see. I'll get some figures up from Cricinfo for ODIs and T20 matches:
ODIs: 635 runs @ 35.27 compared to a combined total of 3,569 runs @ 29.01 BUT the 635 is bumped up with 166 against Ireland. Exclude that and the average is 27.59; therefore worse than with the gloves.
T20s: 462 runs @ 28.87 compared to a combined total 1,100 runs @ 33.33 - so again hes got better statistics overall...ITSTL.

I do wonder on your point about the NZ authorities, should the selectors hold the view that he still is required to play the role of a wicket-keeper/batsman and select him for the test team on the proviso that he wicket keeps for the balance of the side - offering the alternative of just selecting Young/Hopkins, etc. instead. I doubt it'll happen but if his batting form is that bad...just raising the point.

 

[Riggins]

Have become a bit of a fan of McIntosh tbh.

i ****ing love timmy mac!

 

[Andre]

Can't see what all the big fuss is about to be honest.

I reckon McCullum has come along in good strides as a Test batsman in the last 12-18 months - was pretty good in his last series with the bat. Seems to reserve his recklessness for the ODIs/T20's.

Can see the advantages, to be honest - adds depth to the batting pool and allows for a potentially better gloveman to come into the side.

Can see him averaging 40+ with the bat for the next few years in Test cricket, wondering if he will bat at 3 or 5 though. Have noticed that Ryder batted 3 in his first handful of Tests, wondering if he would go back to there and McCullum would bat 5? Or vice versa?

Can't see why McCullum would be automatically pushed into the top 3 simply because he gave up the gloves - short and long form cricket are two completely different beasts.

 

[Smudge]

I can't figure out why people can't get the fact that he has had knee and back injuries for a while. Clearly keeping for 50 overs is much less of a strain than 100 overs in the field up to twice in five days.

Not surprised with his decision and have no issue with it, as long as he puts the numbers up to get selected.

 

[DingDong]

I
Imo, the team should look something like:

T Mac
Watling/McCullum
Watling/McCullum
Taylor
Ryder
Ingram/Williamson/Franklin/Broom/have I included all the fringe players yet?
Vettori
Hopkins (next best keeper and he can bat at eight)
Southee
McKay
Arnel/Tuffey/Martin/Pickandmix.

that is a good team flem.

kane williamson

 

[Howsie]

Fantastic, exactly what I wanted him to do if he was to ever give up the gloves. It's been pretty obvious over the past year or so he's not been 100 percent (well not really but he's been making noises). It would make no sense IMO to continue wicket keeping in test cricket but not in the shorter forms of the game, plus it would weaken our one day team a lot more IMO.

He's already said he wants to bat at three for New Zealand in test cricket so I'm guessing we'll see him bat there right away.

1.McIntosh
2.Watling
3.McCullum
4.Taylor
5.Ryder
6.Williamson
7.Vettori
8.Hopkins


We'll see that batting line-up IMO in the next test series New Zealand play. Daniel Vettori said sometime last season that he would have much rathered moved to seven but with McCullum in the team he would have been wasted at eight, Hopkins though wont be. Both Ryder and Williamson bring capable 5th bowling options should really give this New Zealand team a pretty good balance.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

I'm not convinced, and probably never will be, that Hopkins is international quality.
He did make a good fist of the CH series, but soon resumed his usual crap at the World T20 and the USA hit out.

 

[99*]

i can't figure out why people can't get the fact that he has had knee and back injuries for a while. Clearly keeping for 50 overs is much less of a strain than 100 overs in the field up to twice in five days.

Not surprised with his decision and have no issue with it, as long as he puts the numbers up to get selected.

awta.

 

[_Ed_]

I'm not convinced, and probably never will be, that Hopkins is international quality.
He did make a good fist of the CH series, but soon resumed his usual crap at the World T20 and the USA hit out.

True, and I worry about his glovework.

 

[Zinzan]

I can't figure out why people can't get the fact that he has had knee and back injuries for a while. Clearly keeping for 50 overs is much less of a strain than 100 overs in the field up to twice in five days.

Not surprised with his decision and have no issue with it, as long as he puts the numbers up to get selected.

With you in every respect on this one

 

[Hurricane]

Fantastic, exactly what I wanted him to do if he was to ever give up the gloves. It's been pretty obvious over the past year or so he's not been 100 percent (well not really but he's been making noises). It would make no sense IMO to continue wicket keeping in test cricket but not in the shorter forms of the game, plus it would weaken our one day team a lot more IMO.

He's already said he wants to bat at three for New Zealand in test cricket so I'm guessing we'll see him bat there right away.

1.McIntosh
2.Watling
3.McCullum
4.Taylor
5.Ryder
6.Williamson
7.Vettori
8.Hopkins


We'll see that batting line-up IMO in the next test series New Zealand play. Daniel Vettori said sometime last season that he would have much rathered moved to seven but with McCullum in the team he would have been wasted at eight, Hopkins though wont be. Both Ryder and Williamson bring capable 5th bowling options should really give this New Zealand team a pretty good balance.

No Guptil although Flem gave good reasons why he should go back to Auckland. But also no Sinclair. I am not sure if they will drop Sinclair without giving him another chance. Apparently Greatbatch was pleased with Sinclair's 29 against Aussie. He thought it showed fighting character or something.

 

[Woodster]

How long before McCullum gives up Tests for good and concentrates on making much more money in the shorter forms ? Citing these injuries he's picking up and a way of extending his career ?

The above statement is not something I necessarily believe, but with players increasingly opting for the easy life, earn more money and not play the most demanding form of the sport, it is always a possibility.

There are two positions that I can imagine McCullum could have a possibility in filling, that is either opening ther batting, as suggested in an earlier post, taking on the Dilshan, Tamim, Sehwag, style role. I am not suggesting he has as accomplished with the bat as those mentioned, but his style certainly lends itself to such comparisons.

Alternatively coming at number 6, a more likely role I think, depending on the balance that is wanted in the side. At 6 he has the capability to bat with the tail, produce a counter attacking innings, or have enough time to try and build an innings.

Personally I think it's a shame he's thrown the gloves in, Sangakkara has obviously benefitted but is a much more talented batsman that would always be selcted solely as a batsman, McCullum was an impressively athletic keeper and he think he's limited his effectiveness within the side. However, if it has been an injury-based decision, then you can understand it.

 

[Jezroy]

I think McCullum' best role is the Nathan Astle type player (reasonably consistent and attacking) that we have missed at 5 (apart from when Ryder did a pretty good job there).

Baring in mind that I am keen as a bean to have Williamson in there, and think that maybe number 3 would be a step too far for him first up... I would pick this line up for the upcoming tests against Bang(Again)ladesh. Also think that Ryder is a pretty decent played of fast bowling, so 3 may well suit him better than it does anyone else.

McIntosh
Watling
Ryder
Taylor
McCullum
Williamson
Vettori
Hopkins (or another keeper? Still not sold on his keeping - maybe Van Wyk?)
Southee
McKay
Arnel

Unfortunately, the tail is looking pretty thin... And the openers aren't the greatest. And Ryder at 3 is untried. And McCullum at 5 is untried. And Williamson at 6. And Hopkins (or whoever else keeps). Ah crap.

I like the pace that McKay seems to have. I liked the way that Arnel seemed so steady against the Aussies. And I have always liked Southee, but can't figure why he can't remain a constant threat? I know there is this theory that he gets tired after one spell etc... but I am sure I have seen him bowl the odd good 4th, 5th spell etc. He just can't keep a consitently good line and length. But I do rate him. Plus (especially against Bangla) Vettori should do a good job with the spin, with able back up from Kane.

Apart from that, take Guptill along (wish he could transform his "potential" into numbers), as he can cover most batting positions, an extra spinner (maybe give Nath Mac a try? he has certainly surprised me - I thought he couldn't turn the ball?), and Tuffey as well as the extra pace bowler. Probably the best test squad we have at the moment.

We are going to struggle in India aren't we

 

[Jezroy]

I can't figure out why people can't get the fact that he has had knee and back injuries for a while. Clearly keeping for 50 overs is much less of a strain than 100 overs in the field up to twice in five days.

Not surprised with his decision and have no issue with it, as long as he puts the numbers up to get selected.

Agree - can't understand why people constantly question his commitment to the NZ Cricket team when:

A. The guy has said in the press that he would "Do anything for the NZ Cricket Team"
B. Didn't I read somewhere that behind Allan Border, he played the most consecutive (ie. didn't miss a game) for his country ever? Hardly the actions of a guy that was picking and chossing his games.

I get that people wondered if he was going to chuck in his NZC contract so he could play the full IPL, but that was never a hundred percent confirmed. And if you had 2 jobs - 1 that was 6 weeks a year, and 1 that was 10 months a year, and the 6 week job got you 6 times as much money, wouldn't you have a think about that?

And yes, I know that when he gives up the gloves he is going to have to be averaging AT LEAST late 30's to keep his spot as a test batsman.