• 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.

New Zealand doom and gloom thread

Chubb

International Regular
Although I don't know what particularly Baz meant by that back in 2013 in the cricketing sense. My best guess is the very bland ' 100/2 earns a freedom to attack that 20/2 doesn't'. Etc.
He said it after this game - https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...ew-zealand-1st-t20i-567353/live-cricket-score

"We played some aggressive cricket and missed a couple of fundamentals on the way. South Africa exposed us, That is how we are going to be, that is the way we are going to put them under pressure, by playing aggressive. You have got to earn the right to be aggressive. we were probably a bit too keen, we were outplayed. We will be up for it, and hopefully have a much improved performance."
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
To me, earning the right means technically having the game to be aggressive. Brendon wanted guys to build their game on a solid technique and ability to hit in the right areas, which gave them the 'right' to be aggressive. He still does. Someone like Peter Ingram never had a place in a team of his.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
The more I think about it, the more clear it is that Baz has played an almost impossibly large role in making cricket a sport I like a lot less now. Hearing yesterday about England making 800 in 150 overs and the repugnant Harry Brook making a triple century naturally led me to contemplate, as I often do, just how much cricket sucks these days.

In its current incarnation, the suckiest things are BazBall tests and T20 proliferation. Prior to that it was England's gross white ball cricket, which everyone knows started in 2015, inspired by Baz's NZ team. Coming back to T20 proliferation, we all know that really kicked off with the IPL, and Baz saved possibly his most influential innings ever for the very first IPL game. He personally made sure that garbage T20 could not fail from the outset of the biggest global competition.

All trolling and joking aside, it is incredible how central he has been to making the sport worse since 2008. Given the power wielded by the big cricketing boards etc etc, the way one Kiwi bloke has managed to keep pace with them in the race to make the sport totally **** is straight up stranger than fiction.
I honestly do appreciate your passion and viewpoint on this. I imagine a lot of purists feel the same.

My counter opinion is that we would be deeper in the mire of T20 frenzy if Brendon didn't exist.

T20 is a generation shift. It would have happened with or without Baz's 156. Money, short attention spans and Indian hegemony would always have led to that. Test cricket always had to adapt or die. It wasn't a case of it ambling along and Brendon commandeered it into his own break neck play toy. Here's a guy who could've been a fore runner and gone franchise only from 2010 when his back was playing up, but he wanted more. He could be a Matamata horse breeder now, bringing up his kids, playing golf and coaching in the IPL. But he wants more. You say he's been central to the sport going to ****, I say he's worked his arse off and made personal sacrifices to make it less ****.

I know this 800-6 thing off 150 sits poorly with some. I thought it would with me, too. I was sick in the mouth about day night tests, too, but now I think they should be more prevalent. I just love the self actualization that Brendon brings out in guys to go and score 300 and 260 from a position of being behind. I've accepted that the new generation won't buy into Test cricket but they will if teams score like that, and the attritional stuff happens sometimes, too.

I don't think the IPL knock, incidentally, is his most influential. Only if you're Indian. I think I could name 10 that shaped a generation of cricket from the 07 Chappell Hadlee to his final Test ton v Australia at Hagley.
 

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm glad this thread has had a pre-emptive dig ahead of the India tour. I'm honestly expecting pummellings on the scale of the Inzamam 300 in that ill-fated Pakistan tour.

I know we've taken less talented teams to India, but they've still managed to provide moments of glorious joy like Chris Martin inexplicably running through their top order and Tim McIntosh grinding out a wonderfully dull century. Obviously Ajaz too.

I'm usually pretty optimistic (and somehow remain that way with the White Ferns, despite almost-universal disappointment), but Gary Stead seems to have chiselled the optimism out of me with this team.
 
Last edited:

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I know this 800-6 thing off 150 sits poorly with some. I thought it would with me, too. I was sick in the mouth about day night tests, too, but now I think they should be more prevalent. I just love the self actualization that Brendon brings out in guys to go and score 300 and 260 from a position of being behind. I've accepted that the new generation won't buy into Test cricket but they will if teams score like that, and the attritional stuff happens sometimes, too.
Just to quibble, England in that match, and overall generally, have been scoring at a rate similar to ODIs that are losing popularity (often on similarly bland pitches too). Even BazBall isn't fast enough for the sixes-for-dopamine crowd.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Refering back to Steve's post, two things can be right at once:
- McCullum's leadership, especially with England, has been transformative.
- He provides a steady stream of quotes and actions that we can make fun of.

We on CW might lean moreso towards making fun of the latter, and yes cynical jokes are fun, though it does miss the point in a way. Of course McCullum's quotes shorn of context are going to sound trite and silly. And of course unapologetically boosting your side is going to sometimes come across as self-important and self-satisfied. All communication is imperfect. But looking at the whole picture, McCullum has found a way to build a culture, first attempted with NZ and perfected with England, that does enable their players to play with freedom and put aside fear of failure, but without a don't-care-at-all attitude that does lead to failure anyway. It's genuinely optimal play for most of their batsmen, under the guise of transforming team culture. That's catching lightning in a bottle, it's so rare in any kind of team environment imo. This will sicken TH to the core, but kudos to McCullum.

Coming back to NZ, yes some of our past success was due to players that have now retired, but honestly we have a very good team on paper right now too. I'm always a little reluctant to jump to conclusions about what's happening in a team environment, but there's enough visible in performance to say we're lacking something in culture/leadership/coaching. I disagree btw that it's because we're playing boring cricket now and weren't playing some attritional cricket when we were winning e.g. days of hard work by Wagner and co to dismiss an opposition for 350 on another home featherbed, before we score 500 and win. And our batting still includes plenty of very attacking shots (that we sometimes get out to), it's not pure stodge.

But we needed a new coach two years ago, that's clear enough imo, and it's notable that it's our senior players who are all performing at least 20% below their best, and that might be generous. That's where a new coach, a McCullum, or new leadership of any kind, could bring back the spark (another trite term, but you know what I mean). Make our players sharp where they're currently dulled, give context or purpose or freedom or whatever is missing. This really needs to happen now, as well, given the ages of 5 of the top 6 plus Matt Henry, not in 18-24 months when we are in full transition mode.

I don't really know how to end yet another NZ doom and gloom thread ok-worthy epistle, other than to say it's frustrating as hell to see what could/should still be a top-tier NZ team, if you could just add a couple more ingredients, instead slide thoroughly into mediocrity. Good luck to Latham as new captain and he's saying some of the right things, though expectations are low for this India tour tstl. Really all roads lead back to just this: Please give us a new and good coach, NZC. Thanks and see ya, Gary.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Nothing summarises the impact of McCullum better than Wagner. Yes, we had Boult and Southee and a collection of batsmen capable of averaging over 35 for a change. But Wagner would've been discarded in every other era of NZ cricket.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Nothing summarises the impact of McCullum better than Wagner. Yes, we had Boult and Southee and a collection of batsmen capable of averaging over 35 for a change. But Wagner would've been discarded in every other era of NZ cricket.
Nah, Wagner was more down to Williamson. Wagner, for instance, didn't play a single test on the ill-fated 2015 tour of Australia when Doug Bracewell was preferred and got smashed. Even Matt Henry played a test and got smashed.

Wagner averaged 31.3 under BMac (helped by a 6-fer vs Oz in BMac's last test, but 23.47 under Williamson.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Wagner played most of his early career under McCullum when we all wanted him dropped though. By the time the transition came, his average was rapidly dropping and he was a secure member of the team.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Nah, Wagner was more down to Williamson. Wagner, for instance, didn't play a single test on the ill-fated 2015 tour of Australia when Doug Bracewell was preferred and got smashed. Even Matt Henry played a test and got smashed.

Wagner averaged 31.3 under BMac (helped by a 6-fer vs Oz in BMac's last test, but 23.47 under Williamson.
Bracewell didn't get smashed. He was out most reliable quick that tour.

It was the ND duo who **** the bed.
 

jcas0167

International Regular
That's fair. Was still crazy Wagner didn't play though. For some super weird reason we played 2 spinners - Craig and debutant Santner in the pink ball test
It still irks me thinking what a difference Wagner might have made in that third test, especially after Lyon was infamously given not out by the third umpire. The first D/N test too. That series was actually fairly successful relative to the 2019 disaster. Kane was at his absolute peak and Taylor's 290 at the WACA was a record for a touring batsman.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
It still irks me thinking what a difference Wagner might have made in that third test, especially after Lyon was infamously given not out by the third umpire. The first D/N test too. That series was actually fairly successful relative to the 2019 disaster. Kane was at his absolute peak and Taylor's 290 at the WACA was a record for a touring batsman.
Yeah, this became soooo obvious during the home summer when Wagnerball really made it's debut v SL and Australia. The way morale and discipline collapsed during that innings with Lyon is something that Wagner would just not have allowed. Plus Wagnerball proved so effective at polishing off the tail without too much damage.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Bracewell didn't get smashed. He was out most reliable quick that tour.

It was the ND duo who **** the bed.
I mean, he got 7 at 52, which imo roughly reflects the quality of his efforts. Admittedly, none of the quicks had a good time on that tour, but given that Wagner would've been competing for Bracewell's spot (rather than Boult or Southee's) the comparison of Bracewell to Wagner is fair imo.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Wagner was super highly touted/anticipated before coming into the team under Taylor, had mixed returns under McCullum and was not a guaranteed selection, and by McCullum's last season was out of favour to the extent that he only played 1 of 5 tests against Australia. Arguably the birth of WagnerBall was literally McCullum's last test (there's an argument the idea actually originated from ChameeraBall a couple of tests earlier, but all the bowlers did it then, not just Wagner).

I guess you could argue that Baz The Genius invented WagnerBall as his parting gift in his last test, but jeez that's a stretch even for him. The vast majority of Wagner's career, success, and unique role were under KW.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Wagner played most of his early career under McCullum when we all wanted him dropped though. By the time the transition came, his average was rapidly dropping and he was a secure member of the team.
It's almost the opposite. He was a regular in the team in the early stages of McCullum's captaincy, but missed more tests than he played in the last 12 months before McCullum's retirement. He was selected for a total of 1/8 tests against England and Australia from 2015-2016. He missed the game immediately before McCullum's last test even.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Wagner was super highly touted/anticipated before coming into the team under Taylor, had mixed returns under McCullum and was not a guaranteed selection, and by McCullum's last season was out of favour to the extent that he only played 1 of 5 tests against Australia. Arguably the birth of WagnerBall was literally McCullum's last test (there's an argument the idea actually originated from ChameeraBall a couple of tests earlier, but all the bowlers did it then, not just Wagner).

I guess you could argue that Baz The Genius invented WagnerBall as his parting gift in his last test, but jeez that's a stretch even for him. The vast majority of Wagner's career, success, and unique role were under KW.
Nah, Wagner was doing it before the Chameeraball test. The first test of that SL series Wagnerball was used to wrap up the tail in the first innings and break SL's second innings resistance. I don't know whether it was something that Wagner was working on while he was stuck on the sidelines in 2015, or whether it was just a natural evolution of his intermittent success from 2013-2014 (where his bouncer had regularly proved one of his most dangerous deliveries for set batsmen).

Bracewell playing ahead of Wagner in the 1st test v Australia in 2016 was pretty bizarre given Wagner had significantly outperformed Bracewell in the preceding Sri Lanka, and Bracewell hadn't really done anything in 2015 to suggest he deserved a long-run spot in the side.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Nah, Wagner was doing it before the Chameeraball test. The first test of that SL series Wagnerball was used to wrap up the tail in the first innings and break SL's second innings resistance. I don't know whether it was something that Wagner was working on while he was stuck on the sidelines in 2015, or whether it was just a natural evolution of his intermittent success from 2013-2014.

Bracewell playing ahead of Wagner in the 1st test v Australia in 2016 was pretty bizarre given Wagner had significantly outperformed Bracewell in the preceding Sri Lanka, and Bracewell hadn't really done anything in 2015 to suggest he deserved a long-run spot in the side.
Well yeah, WagnerBall (in the sense of bowling short quite a lot) was also a feature of the Eden Park tests in 2012/13 and 2013/14. It's hard to definitively pin down when it "officially" started.

What's not really arguable though, is that Wagner's grip on a spot in the test team had actually weakened in the last 12 months of Baz's tenure.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Bracewell was absolutely horrible that tour, what are you talking about? Admittedly the pitches in the first two tests were roads.
I watched too much of that tour and Bracwell was the only pacer McCullum could set a field to.

Was he good? No. Should he bear most responsibility for that shower? No. Southee and Boult were both sides of the wicket until it got dark at Adelaide.
 

Top