McCullum Gives Up Keeping in Tests

[Polo23]

While I understand he has had bad knees and a dodgy back for a while I think it is a poor move on McCullum's behalf.

At the moment he isn't good enough to get in the team as a batsman, especially with Ryder coming back and Williamson coming into the frame. Unless he is going to open, in which case i'd back him to do a better job than McIntosh.

 

[Hurricane]

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.

.

I am happy for McCullum to prove me wrong. But I don't see him succeeding at three. He is going to try to bat with a SR of 30 or 40 and be sensible and this is not his game. I think he will confuse himself in that position. Number 6 would be a great spot for him.
If he does open then someone needs to have a talk with him that he needs to go for it - even if he gets out for a quick 40. He does not have an adequate defensive system to bat slowly against the new ball.

Hope this decision comes off for him now that it has been made.

 

[Jezroy]

Hope this decision comes off for him now that it has been made.

Agree. Hopefully it does come off for him.

And for those questioning if he should be in the team or not - answer this question...

Is Brendon McCullum one of the 6 best batsman available for NZ at the moment?

On his home record (especially) last year, you would have to say yes.

 

[Polo23]

Is Brendon McCullum one of the 6 best batsman available for NZ at the moment?

Not if he is going to bat in the middle order, where he would likely have his most success.

Taylor, Ryder, Guptill, Williamson, Vettori, Hopkins/other keeping option in no particular order

I really don't see any room for McCullum there.

I agree with Hurricane that it's worrying if he does open or bat at 3 that he is going to try and defend, which will ultimately lead to his downfall as his defensive technique is pretty poor.

 

[Jezroy]

Not if he is going to bat in the middle order, where he would likely have his most success.

Taylor, Ryder, Guptill, Williamson, Vettori, Hopkins/other keeping option in no particular order

I really don't see any room for McCullum there.

I agree with Hurricane that it's worrying if he does open or bat at 3 that he is going to try and defend, which will ultimately lead to his downfall as his defensive technique is pretty poor.

I know McCullum "The Batsman" is untried at test level, but so is Williamson. And I certainly wouldn't rate Guptill ahead of him. How did each of them do against the Aussies? McCullum did MUCH better than Guptill.

 

[Somerset]

Agree. Hopefully it does come off for him.

And for those questioning if he should be in the team or not - answer this question...

Is Brendon McCullum one of the 6 best batsman available for NZ at the moment?

On his home record (especially) last year, you would have to say yes.

Personally I'd be inclined to say yes, though not with outstanding confidence and perhaps somewhat of an indictment on the rest of our batsman. Do keep in mind that in 52 tests hes scored just five test centuries, of which three of those five were against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. I suppose the counter argument which proves your point relatively successfully is that the two against class opposition, India and Australia, were both achieved within the last 15 months.

 

[Jezroy]

Personally I'd be inclined to say yes, though not with outstanding confidence and perhaps somewhat of an indictment on the rest of our batsman. Do keep in mind that in 52 tests hes scored just five test centuries, of which three of those five were against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. I suppose the counter argument which proves your point relatively successfully is that the two against class opposition, India and Australia, were both achieved within the last 15 months.

But also don't forget that his century against Bangladesh this year came when we were at 158/5. Yes, their bowling isn't the best, but it is better than it used to be, and that hundred came when we looked decidedly dicey.

His last 20 tests (3 vs England, 3 vs Bangladesh, 4 vs Australia, 2 vs WI, 3 vs Pak, 2 vs SL, 3 vs IND) have been against a fair range of opposition and he has managed to average 40.5, with 3 centuries and 8 50's. If he could keep that up in whatever position he played in, I would suggest that it would be a dumb move to drop him.

I will say again though, this is when he was a keeper, and we will have to see how he fares, and where he bats BEFORE we can make a judgement. But I wouldn't drop a guy from this NZ team that was averaging 40.5 from his last 20 tests.

 

[Jezroy]

And just to add a twist to who the new keeper will be...

Reece Young hots up Black Caps keeping battle | Stuff.co.nz

 

[Hurricane]

But also don't forget that his century against Bangladesh this year came when we were at 158/5. Yes, their bowling isn't the best, but it is better than it used to be, and that hundred came when we looked decidedly dicey.

His last 20 tests (3 vs England, 3 vs Bangladesh, 4 vs Australia, 2 vs WI, 3 vs Pak, 2 vs SL, 3 vs IND) have been against a fair range of opposition and he has managed to average 40.5, with 3 centuries and 8 50's. If he could keep that up in whatever position he played in, I would suggest that it would be a dumb move to drop him.

I will say again though, this is when he was a keeper, and we will have to see how he fares, and where he bats BEFORE we can make a judgement. But I wouldn't drop a guy from this NZ team that was averaging 40.5 from his last 20 tests.

Averages 36 when I take out the Bangers games. OK for a NZ player but wouldn't get him into too many teams around the world as a batsman.

 

[Polo23]

I know McCullum "The Batsman" is untried at test level, but so is Williamson. And I certainly wouldn't rate Guptill ahead of him. How did each of them do against the Aussies? McCullum did MUCH better than Guptill.

Sure, but you take out Guptill and there is still no room for McCullum.

Williamson is of course untried, but his talent is undoubted and I think everyone knows he'll almost certainly be a permanent part of the BlackCaps for many seasons to come.

I just don't see room in that middle order for McCullum as a specialist batsman, unless his defensive technique drastically improves, especially against spin.

 

[Raghav]

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.

The question over his commitment to NZC comes up because, he wants to give up keeping to increase his longevity for playing Cricket (instead of tiring his body on keeping for longer hours).

A country like NZ with less number of resources available cant afford to lose top players for various reasons like these... Its happening since many years.

 

[Jezroy]

Averages 36 when I take out the Bangers games. OK for a NZ player but wouldn't get him into too many teams around the world as a batsman.

Why take out the Bangers games - like I said, when he got his 185 we were in trouble at the time. Plus, would you take Taylors (our best batsman last season) numbers out against Bangladesh? He made 91 in 2 innings which was a bit below his overall average for the season.

Also you say "OK for a NZ batsman" - exactly right.

 

[Jezroy]

Sure, but you take out Guptill and there is still no room for McCullum.

Williamson is of course untried, but his talent is undoubted and I think everyone knows he'll almost certainly be a permanent part of the BlackCaps for many seasons to come.

I just don't see room in that middle order for McCullum as a specialist batsman, unless his defensive technique drastically improves, especially against spin.

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.

 

[Jezroy]

The question over his commitment to NZC comes up because, he wants to give up keeping to increase his longevity for playing Cricket (instead of tiring his body on keeping for longer hours).

A country like NZ with less number of resources available cant afford to lose top players for various reasons like these... Its happening since many years.

Exactly - imagine if his back and knees packed in within a year, and he had to retire altogether. We lose so many great players before their time because their bodies aren't up to it (Bond, Crowe, Cairns, Nash, also the likes of O'Connor, Allot), and maybe McCullum doesn't want to be one of those guys so he is looking at ways to get around that.

Just feel like people think that he is giving up the gloves because he can't be stuffed keeping in tests. I'm sure that he's smart enough to know if he doesn't cut it in the test team, and there is a better option, then he will be dropped. But our test batting has been pretty thin on the ground for the last couple of years, and a guy averaging a tick over 40 in that time should not be dropped until that average starts to drop.

 

[Prince EWS]

Exactly - imagine if his back and knees packed in within a year, and he had to retire altogether.

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.

 

[Jezroy]

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

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.

 

[Jezroy]

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).

McCullum hasn't been a test batsman and not a keeper yet (apart from 1 test when he injured his back and Hopkins kept). Just like Kane Williamson hasn't been a test batsman yet. People theorising that McCullum won't cut it as a test batsman are doing just that, theorising. Just as I am theorising that he (and Williamson for that matter) will be good enough to cut it as a test batsman. If he isn't he will be dropped. But his numbers in his last 20 tests for a NZ player do not suggest he should be dropped.

 

[Prince EWS]

McCullum hasn't been a test batsman and not a keeper yet (apart from 1 test when he injured his back and Hopkins kept). Just like Kane Williamson hasn't been a test batsman yet. People theorising that McCullum won't cut it as a test batsman are doing just that, theorising. Just as I am theorising that he (and Williamson for that matter) will be good enough to cut it as a test batsman. If he isn't he will be dropped. But his numbers in his last 20 tests for a NZ player do not suggest he should be dropped.

I'm not suggesting he should be dropped; I just think it's a stupid decision to drop the gloves, even if continuing to keep wicket would make him retire from the game completely in a year's time. As I said, I think you're sacrificing having a good player for a year for the chance to have a mediocre player for five which doesn't make any sense to me. Again though that depends entirely on your opinion of McCullum's batsmanship.

 

[Jezroy]

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.

Fair enough to have your opinion to - but I would point to the hundred he got against Australia. I know he bottled it at the end, but it was a pretty well constructed innings.

For a New Zealand player.

 

[Jezroy]

I'm not suggesting he should be dropped; I just think it's a stupid decision to drop the gloves, even if continuing to keep wicket would make him retire from the game completely in a year's time. As I said, I think you're sacrificing having a good player for a year for the chance to have a mediocre player for five which doesn't make any sense to me. Again though that depends entirely on your opinion of McCullum's batsmanship.

Agree that this could happen.

But then again, it may not - I think we have to wait and see.

Plus if he does become mediocre to the levels of players such as Flynn, Vincent, Fulton etc. people will call for his head pretty quickly and he will be dropped. Or he will take up the gloves again just to stay in the team.