What's new

1st Test, Lord's : England beat New Zealand by 124 runs

It looks like the afternoon session might get interrupted by rain. That could cause a major problem to NZ's victory surge.
 
I really dont understand how teams lose reviews when its that close, the DRS format needs to be looked at!
 
Boxer said:
:moali Bhai was unplayable for the indians:kohli
Click to expand...

I don't think his ability is being called into question, he's out of form at the moment with the ball and as the sole spinner that's quite an issue for England. Even on seaming wickets you need a spinner at least to keep it tight and let the fast bowlers rest.
 
Adnan Siddiqui said:
This is McCulum strength. This is how he plays.

Live by sword, die by sword. Warrior.

Well played McCullum.
Click to expand...

It's actually not McCullum's strength. He just thinks it is.

Dave Warner has never, ever in his life batted for 200 balls in a Test innings. Ever.

McCullum has scores of:

302 from 559 balls
225 from 308 balls
224 from 307 balls
185 from 272 balls
143 from 243 balls.

The trouble is that in the last year he has also scored:
202 from 188 balls
195 from 134 balls

.......and he is getting carried away with the rapid slogging innings.

But those five innings I listed above are much more precious in Test cricket than these short slogs.
 
Adnan Siddiqui said:
This is McCulum strength. This is how he plays.

Live by sword, die by sword. Warrior.

Well played McCullum.
Click to expand...

Except when he actually plays properly instead of trying to hit every ball out of the park. I saw him bat for 3 balls and he looked like getting out any time, and sure enough he did.
 
Adnan Siddiqui said:
This is how he played against Pakistan and took game away and NZ won.
Click to expand...

His double against Pakistan was in the UAE on a completely flat track where Talha was bowling rubbish. The 190 against SL was in his backyard in conditions he will know well, against inexperienced bowlers. Here, he is playing a Test match at Lord's and the conditions are overcast with the ball doing a little bit here and there and Wood bowling at a good clip. And he tries to slog him on every ball.
 
Junaids said:
It's actually not McCullum's strength. He just thinks it is.

Dave Warner has never, ever in his life batted for 200 balls in a Test innings. Ever.

McCullum has scores of:

302 from 559 balls
225 from 308 balls
224 from 307 balls
185 from 272 balls
143 from 243 balls.

The trouble is that in the last year he has also scored:
202 from 188 balls
195 from 134 balls

.......and he is getting carried away with the rapid slogging innings.

But those five innings I listed above are much more precious in Test cricket than these short slogs.
Click to expand...

It depends on the situation of the test match really. If you're looking to add quick runs to a lead before you declare such innings are valuable or when you are chasing big totals to win a Test match.

Do agree that he is getting carried away but not every aggressive bat plays like warner (his style of play isn't exactly risk free either), like one of the posters said; There's a fine line between genius and insanity. McCullum tends to walk the line.
 
Adnan Siddiqui said:
This is how he played against Pakistan and took game away and NZ won.
Click to expand...
Ball wasn't swinging around as much. Today it was Overcast plus new ball. He should have shown some discretion. He is a very capable batsman which is why this sort of recklessness is uncalled for.
honeybadger said:
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. McCullum tends to walk the line.
Click to expand...
Well he wasn't no Johnny cash this time for sure.
 
If MCCullum scored a 100 of 250 balls, the match would surely be a draw. His style of play is always result oriented. Kind of like Sehwag.

When it comes good, he will look like Viv. When it does not, he will look silly.

Still Brendon scored 40 runs. Its not that he scored 0(1) :afridi
 
shaz619 said:
It depends on the situation of the test match really. If you're looking to add quick runs to a lead before you declare such innings are valuable or when you are chasing big totals to win a Test match.

Do agree that he is getting carried away but not every aggressive bat plays like warner (his style of play isn't exactly risk free either), like one of the posters said; There's a fine line between genius and insanity. McCullum tends to walk the line.
Click to expand...

McCullum crossed that line three innings ago, when he reached 50 in the World Cup semi-final against South Africa.

He then proceeded to give his wicket away, and repeated the process inside 3 balls in the World Cup Final.

And when he probably needed tender loving care to regain his newly-misplaced marbles, he went off to the IPL and has come back playing like Charlie Sheen in a cocaine binge.

He has completely lost it. He has lost the ability to judge the tempo required and to adapt in mid-innings, and is literally playing like a madman every time he goes out to bat.

It's not brave. It's a car-crash.
 
Junaids said:
McCullum crossed that line three innings ago, when he reached 50 in the World Cup semi-final against South Africa.

He then proceeded to give his wicket away, and repeated the process inside 3 balls in the World Cup Final.

And when he probably needed tender loving care to regain his newly-misplaced marbles, he went off to the IPL and has come back playing like Charlie Sheen in a cocaine binge.

He has completely lost it. He has lost the ability to judge the tempo required and to adapt in mid-innings, and is literally playing like a madman every time he goes out to bat.

It's not brave. It's a car-crash.
Click to expand...

Some players play the same way irrespective of situation.

Sehwag played that way. Thats the only way they know.

McCullum produced some stunning innings in the last 2 years by playing aggressively.

When Brendon was playing according to the situation *cough* slowly, he did not have much success. Aggression seems to be working for him. Yes, he might get out anytime, but when it comes, he will destroy all bowling units.
 
Junaids said:
McCullum crossed that line three innings ago, when he reached 50 in the World Cup semi-final against South Africa.

He then proceeded to give his wicket away, and repeated the process inside 3 balls in the World Cup Final.

And when he probably needed tender loving care to regain his newly-misplaced marbles, he went off to the IPL and has come back playing like Charlie Sheen in a cocaine binge.

He has completely lost it. He has lost the ability to judge the tempo required and to adapt in mid-innings, and is literally playing like a madman every time he goes out to bat.

It's not brave. It's a car-crash.
Click to expand...

He never gave his wicket away. The ball was just too good for him and he got knocked over playing a defensive shot.
 
Last edited:
Lurker_Ind said:
Some players play the same way irrespective of situation.

Sehwag played that way. Thats the only way they know.

McCullum produced some stunning innings in the last 2 years by playing aggressively.

When Brendon was playing according to the situation *cough* slowly, he did not have much success. Aggression seems to be working for him. Yes, he might get out anytime, but when it comes, he will destroy all bowling units.
Click to expand...

When, as you put it, McCullum played to the situation he managed these monumental innings:

302 from 559 balls
225 from 308 balls
224 from 307 balls
185 from 272 balls
143 from 243 balls.

He used to be so much more than Sehwag as a Test batsman. And now he has shrunk to Sehwag's level.
 
Junaids said:
McCullum crossed that line three innings ago, when he reached 50 in the World Cup semi-final against South Africa.

He then proceeded to give his wicket away, and repeated the process inside 3 balls in the World Cup Final.

And when he probably needed tender loving care to regain his newly-misplaced marbles, he went off to the IPL and has come back playing like Charlie Sheen in a cocaine binge.

He has completely lost it. He has lost the ability to judge the tempo required and to adapt in mid-innings, and is literally playing like a madman every time he goes out to bat.

It's not brave. It's a car-crash.
Click to expand...

Am not calling it brave but it's just the way he has always played, there are some instances as you have pointed out where he displayed great judgement and patience but beyond it all he is a slogger by nature. I think his ability to score quick down the order during Tests is underrated; you're expecting too much from him Junaids.
 
Junaids said:
It's actually not McCullum's strength. He just thinks it is.

Dave Warner has never, ever in his life batted for 200 balls in a Test innings. Ever.

McCullum has scores of:

302 from 559 balls
225 from 308 balls
224 from 307 balls
185 from 272 balls
143 from 243 balls.

The trouble is that in the last year he has also scored:
202 from 188 balls
195 from 134 balls

.......and he is getting carried away with the rapid slogging innings.

But those five innings I listed above are much more precious in Test cricket than these short slogs.
Click to expand...

Wow. Now we have it. 202 (188) is not good enough and nor is 195 (134). Whatever the result, batting aggressively is wrong, because.......
 
Junaids said:
When, as you put it, McCullum played to the situation he managed these monumental innings:

302 from 559 balls
225 from 308 balls
224 from 307 balls
185 from 272 balls
143 from 243 balls.

He used to be so much more than Sehwag as a Test batsman. And now he has shrunk to Sehwag's level.
Click to expand...

Sehwag averages a full 10 runs more and is a legend. Much better than mediocre blockers.

It's people like you who keep cricket analyis in the dark ages with all these dogmatic, rubbish double-standards.
 
shaz619 said:
Am not calling it brave but it's just the way he has always played, there are some instances as you have pointed out where he displayed great judgement and patience but beyond it all he is a slogger by nature. I think his ability to score quick down the order during Tests is underrated; you're expecting too much from him Junaids.
Click to expand...

But he has done it so many times in the past!

He isn't a Dave Warner who hasn't got the discipline or concentration to last 200 balls.

This ball is only 20 overs old. If McCullum had not thrown away his wicket 2 overs before lunch he could have given himself the opportunity to thrash tired bowlers with a worn out ball in the next session.

He didn't need to score 42 from 38 balls. He'd have given his team more by scoring 30 from 45 balls at lunch and accelerating to 100 from 130 balls in the afternoon.

He is wasting his talent. He used to be better than this.
 
Junaids said:
When, as you put it, McCullum played to the situation he managed these monumental innings:

302 from 559 balls
225 from 308 balls
224 from 307 balls
185 from 272 balls
143 from 243 balls.

He used to be so much more than Sehwag as a Test batsman. And now he has shrunk to Sehwag's level.
Click to expand...

If BMac ends his career at Sehwag's level, it means he had a great career.

Sehwag averaged 50 just before his retirement. His last England tour brought his average down to 49.
 
Junaids said:
When, as you put it, McCullum played to the situation he managed these monumental innings:

302 from 559 balls
225 from 308 balls
224 from 307 balls
185 from 272 balls
143 from 243 balls.

He used to be so much more than Sehwag as a Test batsman. And now he has shrunk to Sehwag's level.
Click to expand...

Why don't you include all the failures there?

I mean when he's attacking even a score higher than his average is a failure because he attacked, from your perspective?
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Sehwag averages a full 10 runs more and is a legend. Much better than mediocre blockers.

It's people like you who keep cricket analyis in the dark ages with all these dogmatic, rubbish double-standards.
Click to expand...

Sehwag is no legend. He averaged 29 in the Third Innings and 31 in the Fourth Innings. He was a waste of space for half of every Test match.

He was a brilliant slogger when the pitch was at its truest on Days 1 and 2, when his flawed technique could often be concealed by his terrific hand-eye coordination.

I was probably a bit harsh - McCullum and Sehwag have both put together several innings over 200 balls, although Sehwag mainly did so in Asia's easier batting conditions, which is why he has a better overall average. They are quite similar.
 
Junaids said:
Sehwag is no legend. He averaged 29 in the Third Innings and 31 in the Fourth Innings. He was a waste of space for half of every Test match.

He was a brilliant slogger when the pitch was at its truest on Days 1 and 2, when his flawed technique could often be concealed by his terrific hand-eye coordination.

I was probably a bit harsh - McCullum and Sehwag have both put together several innings over 200 balls, although Sehwag mainly did so in Asia's easier batting conditions, which is why he has a better overall average. They are quite similar.
Click to expand...

Cherry-picking statistics to make a player look weak is absurd. If he was so bad in the second half, that's actually all the more impressive beacuse it underlines how extraordinary he was in the first half (and really in Test Cricket, that's what shapes the match in the vast majority of cases.
 
Junaids said:
Sehwag is no legend. He averaged 29 in the Third Innings and 31 in the Fourth Innings. He was a waste of space for half of every Test match.

He was a brilliant slogger when the pitch was at its truest on Days 1 and 2, when his flawed technique could often be concealed by his terrific hand-eye coordination.

I was probably a bit harsh - McCullum and Sehwag have both put together several innings over 200 balls, although Sehwag mainly did so in Asia's easier batting conditions, which is why he has a better overall average. They are quite similar.
Click to expand...

If Sehwag averaged the same as he did in his 1st innings of a Test, he would be the 2nd best after Bradman. Probably would have averaged close to 70. Every player has his strengths and they need to stick to it good or bad.

You seem to have some really high standards and my guess is you like Cook type of players. Everyone has their likings.
 
Junaids said:
But he has done it so many times in the past!

He isn't a Dave Warner who hasn't got the discipline or concentration to last 200 balls.

This ball is only 20 overs old. If McCullum had not thrown away his wicket 2 overs before lunch he could have given himself the opportunity to thrash tired bowlers with a worn out ball in the next session.

He didn't need to score 42 from 38 balls. He'd have given his team more by scoring 30 from 45 balls at lunch and accelerating to 100 from 130 balls in the afternoon.

He is wasting his talent. He used to be better than this.
Click to expand...

fair enough, hard to argue with your points. I don't have as much expectations from him in the same way I don't from Umar Akmal or Afridi; because for all their talent they are lacking in judgement/patience and will not be able to replicate good performances on a consistent basis. Brendon is a WK bat that bats down the order and can score very quick, It's what you expect as the bare minimum and not every team in the world has the luxury of such a player. There's great potential in Butler and Sarfraz is doing a good job for Pak at the moment but not everyone is a Kumar Sangakara or Adam Gilchrist.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Cherry-picking statistics to make a player look weak is absurd. If he was so bad in the second half, that's actually all the more impressive beacuse it underlines how extraordinary he was in the first half (and really in Test Cricket, that's what shapes the match in the vast majority of cases.
Click to expand...

Put it this way. You had all-time test greats in Tendulkar and Dravid and a top class player in VVS Laxman during Sehwag's decade as a Test cricketer.

If you had had 4 great batsmen you'd have been the undisputed top team. But you only had a year and a bit as the top team when both Australia and South Africa were in transition.

And that's because Sehwag - in spite of his inflated average - wasn't in the same class as Tendulkar, Dravid or Laxman. He was a liability after 2 days of every 5 day Test.

Like McCullum, he could be thrilling to watch. But like the current demented McCullum he couldn't be bothered to do what his team needed half of the time - it was just "take me as I am".
 
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] also, Brendon has averaged 36 in FC cricket. So it's not as if he has not been able to fulfil the limit of his talent. This is the difference between good players and greats (those who exceed expectations and their own ability).
 
McCullum definitely needs to tone down his aggression a bit. Needless dismissal.
 
shaz619 said:
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] also, Brendon has averaged 36 in FC cricket. So it's not as if he has not been able to fulfil the limit of his talent. This is the difference between good players and greats (those who exceed expectations and their own ability).
Click to expand...

Again, you're quite right.

But it saddens me to see a player who has the capacity to play proper Test cricket going out to slog like a clown.

Today is going to be shortened by around 20 overs I think. That means that NZ will need to accelerate to leave enough time in the match to press for a victory.

McCullum would have been useful against the wet ball. But he's already out, moments before the lunch break. And any cricketer should be ashamed to be caught on the boundary at Third Man. It's a shameful dismissal!

I am all for positive Test cricket. But the beauty of Test cricket is that unlike the shorter forms there are ebbs and flows which mean that you need sometimes to accelerate or protect your wicket with the bat, and to attack or contain with the ball.

McCullum used to be good enough to do that. But now he just plays kamikaze cricket, all the time.

Don't forget, if he had used more containing fields and given his quick bowlers shorter spells on Day 1 after the first hour they would already by 150 ahead. His over-attacking and over-bowling his quicks let England recover from 30-4 to 389 instead of 250 all out.
 
Last edited:
Junaids said:
Put it this way. You had all-time test greats in Tendulkar and Dravid and a top class player in VVS Laxman during Sehwag's decade as a Test cricketer.

If you had had 4 great batsmen you'd have been the undisputed top team. But you only had a year and a bit as the top team when both Australia and South Africa were in transition.

And that's because Sehwag - in spite of his inflated average - wasn't in the same class as Tendulkar, Dravid or Laxman. He was a liability after 2 days of every 5 day Test.

Like McCullum, he could be thrilling to watch. But like the current demented McCullum he couldn't be bothered to do what his team needed half of the time - it was just "take me as I am".
Click to expand...

Laxman was not a better player than Sehwag. He just played the way self-appointed purists preferred and played a magical innings once in a while.

"If you had had 4 great batsmen you'd have been the undisputed top team"- is just a metric you made up and makes no sense, and even if true, Laxman was the one who was not in the class of the others. Sehwag played in the same team as the rest, so what exactly was his performance 'inflated' by? Or do you mean that your subjective views determines who is good, and the reality must bend itself to those?
 
Junaids said:
It's actually not McCullum's strength. He just thinks it is.

Dave Warner has never, ever in his life batted for 200 balls in a Test innings. Ever.

McCullum has scores of:

302 from 559 balls
225 from 308 balls
224 from 307 balls
185 from 272 balls
143 from 243 balls.

The trouble is that in the last year he has also scored:
202 from 188 balls
195 from 134 balls

.......and he is getting carried away with the rapid slogging innings.

But those five innings I listed above are much more precious in Test cricket than these short slogs.
Click to expand...

Come on, how can 195 (134) not be a matchwinning knock in a test? You see 143 (243) all the time and it's rarely the kind of innings that can single handedly change the course of a test match. Just shy of a double ton in a mere 22 overs however can not only turn a match on its head, it can put serious dents into the confidence of the opposition bowlers going forward into the rest of the series. 143 (243) is never going to be the kind of innings to give opposition captains nightmares.
 
Even a double century is not enough for Test purists if you play positive cricket.

They would rather lose playing negatively than win playing like BMac.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Laxman was not a better player than Sehwag. He just played the way self-appointed purists preferred and played a magical innings once in a while.

"If you had had 4 great batsmen you'd have been the undisputed top team"- is just a metric you made up and makes no sense, and even if true, Laxman was the one who was not in the class of the others. Sehwag played in the same team as the rest, so what exactly was his performance 'inflated' by? Or do you mean that your subjective views determines who is good, and the reality must bend itself to those?
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow.

Here are their relative performances across all 4 innings of Test cricket:

FIRST INNINGS: Sehwag 58.11, Laxman 39.23
SECOND INNINGS: Sehwag 65.91, Laxman 48.49
THIRD INNINGS: Sehwag 29.69, Laxman 54.00
FOURTH INNINGS: Sehwag 31.06, Laxman 40.55

On that basis I have never even respected Sehwag, let alone rated him as a high class Test batsman. How can you average 29.69 and 31.06 in the second half of a match? It's just pathetic.

But VVS was a superb batsman. A joy to watch, but also a performer to fear at the business end of a Test match.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
His century against Pakistan was also needless I take it?
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong in playing aggressive cricket if you have the capacity to pick and choose occasions.

The double hundred v us in Sharjah was a much needed effort because NZ were trailing the series 1-0 and we had scored 350 in the first innings, so his approach was justified.

Today, in this context, it was a nothing shot considering the lead was only 12 runs.

If he would have scored another 100 at a run a ball, we would praise him, but the point is that you cannot do that all the time so you have to approach your innings properly and take the most sensible route, which does not have to be over-aggressive all the time.

McCullum played an irresponsible innings today and I don't think there's a justification for it.
 
Pantani said:
Come on, how can 195 (134) not be a matchwinning knock in a test? You see 143 (243) all the time and it's rarely the kind of innings that can single handedly change the course of a test match. Just shy of a double ton in a mere 22 overs however can not only turn a match on its head, it can put serious dents into the confidence of the opposition bowlers going forward into the rest of the series. 143 (243) is never going to be the kind of innings to give opposition captains nightmares.
Click to expand...

I'm not belittling those two very fast big innings. Although the second was on a dead wicket in the UAE after Phillip Hughes' death deflated both teams.

What I am saying is that such innings are as rare as hens' teeth. And the risk/reward equation is unfavourable - you are much more likely to get out prematurely than to make a big score batting like that in a Test.

McCullum has made two of those rapid big innings and has given up even trying to score the sorts of big innings that he previously complied.
 
Junaids said:
Wow. Just wow.

Here are their relative performances across all 4 innings of Test cricket:

FIRST INNINGS: Sehwag 58.11, Laxman 39.23
SECOND INNINGS: Sehwag 65.91, Laxman 48.49
THIRD INNINGS: Sehwag 29.69, Laxman 54.00
FOURTH INNINGS: Sehwag 31.06, Laxman 40.55

On that basis I have never even respected Sehwag, let alone rated him as a high class Test batsman. How can you average 29.69 and 31.06 in the second half of a match? It's just pathetic.

But VVS was a superb batsman. A joy to watch, but also a performer to fear at the business end of a Test match.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why the overall figures matter less to you than the figures for one half?

Especially when the game is shaped by the first half of the match?

Sehwag was truly monumental at winning games in the team's first innings when Laxman's record is that of just any other batsman. I seriously can't believe people come up with such random subjective stuff to ignore realities they don't like.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Can you explain why the overall figures matter less to you than the figures for one half?

Especially when the game is shaped by the first half of the match?

Sehwag was truly monumental at winning games in the team's first innings when Laxman's record is that of just any other batsman. I seriously can't believe people come up with such random subjective stuff to ignore realities they don't like.
Click to expand...

OK, let me take it out of numbers and into words to spell it out to you:

FIRST INNINGS: Sehwag superb, Laxman average
SECOND INNINGS: Sehwag superb, Laxman excellent
THIRD INNINGS: Sehwag useless, Laxman superb
FOURTH INNINGS: Sehwag useless, Laxman very good

Laxman is not useless at any of the four innings. Sehwag is useless in 2 out of 4.
 
Junaids said:
I'm not belittling those two very fast big innings. Although the second was on a dead wicket in the UAE after Phillip Hughes' death deflated both teams.

What I am saying is that such innings are as rare as hens' teeth. And the risk/reward equation is unfavourable - you are much more likely to get out prematurely than to make a big score batting like that in a Test.

McCullum has made two of those rapid big innings and has given up even trying to score the sorts of big innings that he previously complied.
Click to expand...

Yet he keeps doing so and you keep objecting.

Never mind that you will not condemn even repeated failures defensively.

Since he's started the kamikaze stuff his career and NZ's fortunes have undergone a dramatic upturn, yet the old geezers keep complaining because his methods don't conform to their pre-conceptions about what should and should not work.
 
Junaids said:
OK, let me take it out of numbers and into words to spell it out to you:

FIRST INNINGS: Sehwag superb, Laxman average
SECOND INNINGS: Sehwag superb, Laxman excellent
THIRD INNINGS: Sehwag useless, Laxman superb
FOURTH INNINGS: Sehwag useless, Laxman very good

Laxman is not useless at any of the four innings. Sehwag is useless in 2 out of 4.
Click to expand...

But Sehwag's ability in the first two is almost unparalleled while Laxman's is ordinary.

Tell me why the second half matters so much more?

We all know a game is shaped by the first innings.

Also, I don't get how 30 is useless, but 40 is average. It's a difference of 10 runs and while that's large useless is definitely overstating it.

Why are you pathologically averse to looking at the stats on the whole?
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Yet he keeps doing so and you keep objecting.

Never mind that you will not condemn even repeated failures defensively.

Since he's started the kamikaze stuff his career and NZ's fortunes have undergone a dramatic upturn, yet the old geezers keep complaining because his methods don't conform to their pre-conceptions about what should and should not work.
Click to expand...

I was at the MCG for the World Cup Final, a few days after I'd called him "Suicide McCullum" when he nearly threww away the semi-final.

First ball swung a mile. Big swing, missed it.
Second ball swung a mile. Big swing, missed it.
Third ball swung a mile. Big swing, missed it. Bowled.

That is not normal. That is not responsible. That is not acceptable.

He knew that Williamson and Taylor were out of form, but he threw away the World Cup with his selfish and mindless slogging.
 
Junaids said:
Sehwag is no legend. He averaged 29 in the Third Innings and 31 in the Fourth Innings. He was a waste of space for half of every Test match.

He was a brilliant slogger when the pitch was at its truest on Days 1 and 2, when his flawed technique could often be concealed by his terrific hand-eye coordination.

I was probably a bit harsh - McCullum and Sehwag have both put together several innings over 200 balls, although Sehwag mainly did so in Asia's easier batting conditions, which is why he has a better overall average. They are quite similar.
Click to expand...

Slogger really? His 201 knock against srilanka in galle against Murali,Vaas, was one of the best knock i have ever seen on a slow wicket. He single-handedly won that match for india

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/343730.html
Click to expand...
 
Junaids said:
I was at the MCG for the World Cup Final, a few days after I'd called him "Suicide McCullum" when he nearly threww away the semi-final.

First ball swung a mile. Big swing, missed it.
Second ball swung a mile. Big swing, missed it.
Third ball swung a mile. Big swing, missed it. Bowled.

That is not normal. That is not responsible. That is not acceptable.

He knew that Williamson and Taylor were out of form, but he threw away the World Cup with his selfish and mindless slogging.
Click to expand...

You are blind if you perceived a big swing on the ball he was dismissed.

Not to mention that his performance won them the Semi-final.

Here's a novel idea for you.

Evaluate a player on what he did. If a player scores a ton of runs and then team collapses after he is out it is THEIR FAULT and not his.

There is no logic or justification to adding adjectives like "throw it away" to Mccullum's failures but refusing to address anything when Taylor scores less runs and does so at a harmfully slow pace.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
But Sehwag's ability in the first two is almost unparalleled while Laxman's is ordinary.

Tell me why the second half matters so much more?

We all know a game is shaped by the first innings.

Also, I don't get how 30 is useless, but 40 is average. It's a difference of 10 runs and while that's large useless is definitely overstating it.

Why are you pathologically averse to looking at the stats on the whole?
Click to expand...

The reason that I love Test cricket is because it is not "shaped" by the first innings.

England were 354-6 in this match, and yet they cannot win it.

A team can do badly in their first innings and yet if they dig in second time around they do not lose. Like Bangladesh in the First Test against Pakistan last month.

The third and fourth innings, therefore, test more than the first two innings because there are no second chances. You need a better technique, because the pitch starts to misbehave. And you need a better temperament, because you know that there is no second chance if you mess it up.

That's why I've thought for over 30 years that how a batsman does in the third and fourth innings is the true measure of his technique and temperament.
 
Junaids said:
Sehwag is no legend. He averaged 29 in the Third Innings and 31 in the Fourth Innings. He was a waste of space for half of every Test match.

He was a brilliant slogger when the pitch was at its truest on Days 1 and 2, when his flawed technique could often be concealed by his terrific hand-eye coordination.

I was probably a bit harsh - McCullum and Sehwag have both put together several innings over 200 balls, although Sehwag mainly did so in Asia's easier batting conditions, which is why he has a better overall average. They are quite similar.
Click to expand...

Again , why is 4th innings so important ? Do you even know there are 4 innings in a Test match , not just 4th.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
You are blind if you perceived a big swing on the ball he was dismissed.

Not to mention that his performance won them the Semi-final.

Here's a novel idea for you.

Evaluate a player on what he did. If a player scores a ton of runs and then team collapses after he is out it is THEIR FAULT and not his.

There is no logic or justification to adding adjectives like "throw it away" to Mccullum's failures but refusing to address anything when Taylor scores less runs and does so at a harmfully slow pace.
Click to expand...

Unless you're Chris Tavare, there is no such thing as "a harmfully slow pace" in Test cricket.
 
McCullum just had the best year of his career and NZ one of their best in history with his methods.

I really don't see what issue is here?

Success is what matters at the end of the day.
 
Mamoon said:
There is nothing wrong in playing aggressive cricket if you have the capacity to pick and choose occasions.

The double hundred v us in Sharjah was a much needed effort because NZ were trailing the series 1-0 and we had scored 350 in the first innings, so his approach was justified.

Today, in this context, it was a nothing shot considering the lead was only 12 runs.

If he would have scored another 100 at a run a ball, we would praise him, but the point is that you cannot do that all the time so you have to approach your innings properly and take the most sensible route, which does not have to be over-aggressive all the time.

McCullum played an irresponsible innings today and I don't think there's a justification for it.
Click to expand...

The upside was huge, but NZL already lead with 6 wickets left and four of them specialist batters. Why was there any problem with it here? I just don't see how even the worst case scenario makes attacking a bad choice. I'd take a 50/50 coinflip between a first ball duck and a run-a-ball hundred at that stage because the upside is worth more than the downside hurts.

He scored 42 (37) and his side are on top. If it worked they would have much longer to bowl England out and they are easily on top now as well, which is the justification for it.
 
Junaids said:
Unless you're Chris Tavare, there is no such thing as "a harmfully slow pace" in Test cricket.
Click to expand...

Let me build on that.

If Corey Anderson scores 130 from 100 balls now and New Zealand end up 570 all out with 10 overs left tonight he has set the game up well.

But if BJ Watling comes in and scores 130 from 200 balls and they are bowled out for 620 at lunch on Day 4 they are in just as good a position - arguably better because there is no risk of them needing to score runs in the final innings.

Test cricket always offers choices, different permutations and combinations.

Good captains and good players adapt. Bad ones don't.
 
Junaids said:
Unless you're Chris Tavare, there is no such thing as "a harmfully slow pace" in Test cricket.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the World Cup, where even you recognized that Taylor was awful, but no references to him letting the side down or being irrepsonsible by chewing up balls at critical stages.
 
Junaids said:
Let me build on that.

If Corey Anderson scores 130 from 100 balls now and New Zealand end up 570 all out with 10 overs left tonight he has set the game up well.

But if BJ Watling comes in and scores 130 from 200 balls and they are bowled out for 620 at lunch on Day 4 they are in just as good a position - arguably better because there is no risk of them needing to score runs in the final innings.

Test cricket always offers choices, different permutations and combinations.

Good captains and good players adapt. Bad ones don't.
Click to expand...

50 runs are not worth 50 overs of wasted time here, given the almost negligible probability of England wining this.
 
At the end of the day it was still a very useful 42 runs. Especially now time has been lost.

He had the luxury of a great platform to play the way he has been most successful recently. It seems a little bit silly to criticize him to much and bring up irrelevant stats and matches from different formats.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
I was referring to the World Cup, where even you recognized that Taylor was awful, but no references to him letting the side down or being irrepsonsible by chewing up balls at critical stages.
Click to expand...

Even there, I disagree.

I was at the MCG. Ross Taylor was not in his best nick, but he did a brilliant job clearing up the stinking mess created by McCullum and lifting 39-3 (12.2 overs) to 150-4 (35.1 overs) at the fall of his wicket.

The problem for New Zealand was that he got out then, and the sloggers Anderson and Ronchi both got out for ducks in the next 6 balls.

If Taylor had stayed in for another 10 overs and scored another 25 from 30 balls the score would have been 240 instead of 183, and New Zealand would have had a 40% chance of victory.
 
Really well taken by Jos Buttler. That 5th wicket was coming, the ball is doing a bit under the clouds.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
The upside was huge, but NZL already lead with 6 wickets left and four of them specialist batters. Why was there any problem with it here? I just don't see how even the worst case scenario makes attacking a bad choice. I'd take a 50/50 coinflip between a first ball duck and a run-a-ball hundred at that stage because the upside is worth more than the downside hurts.

He scored 42 (37) and his side are on top. If it worked they would have much longer to bowl England out and they are easily on top now as well, which is the justification for it.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as 4 specialist batters, sorry.

There's Williamson and Watling. That's it. I'll be surprised if the lead reaches 110.
 
I've never seen somebody celebrate two fortunate wickets like that as much as mark wood.
 
Nice to see Dickie Bird with Michael and Mary Parkinson.

It's like a reunion of the 1952 Barnsley Under-18s!
 
Junaids said:
I'm not belittling those two very fast big innings. Although the second was on a dead wicket in the UAE after Phillip Hughes' death deflated both teams.

What I am saying is that such innings are as rare as hens' teeth. And the risk/reward equation is unfavourable - you are much more likely to get out prematurely than to make a big score batting like that in a Test.

McCullum has made two of those rapid big innings and has given up even trying to score the sorts of big innings that he previously complied.
Click to expand...

Understood. Sometimes though the risk reward ratio becomes very favourable. For instance, if Warner scores 180 off 150 on the first day of the Ashes series, it would be an immense innings, giving Australia a huge advantage in the first test and throughout the series. If you're the kind of player who has the capability to play a knock like that (after all, it takes a special batsman to score 150+ at a strike rate of 80 in a test match), then if the situation warrants it, like winning the toss and batting on a flat deck on the first day of a big series, it's better to back yourself and go for it. Not every player has that sort of destructive ability, those few who do should try to capitalise on it now and again when the opportunity arises.
 
That was a good catch by Buttler but if his footwork was better it would of been a lot easier.
 
That was a dolly. You just do not drop Kane Williamson in this form.
 
Another one down in the slips.

Might have to play Chris Jordan every game just so somebody who can catch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cricket Warrior
New Zealand (259 & 255) beat India (156 & 245) convincingly in the 2nd Test by 113 runs to seal a 3-Test series victory (2-0) with one match remaining
10 11 12
Replies
955
Views
17K
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
Cricket Warrior
Pakistan reach 328/4 at stumps on Day 1 of the 1st Test against England
8 9 10
Replies
772
Views
19K
Mockingbird
M
Cricket Warrior
England (823/7d) secure a historic win by an inning and 47 runs against Pakistan (556 & 220) in the 1st Test match and lead the 3-match series 1-0
2 3
Replies
188
Views
6K
Josh
Josh
shariqnoor
  • Poll Poll
Swing vs Seam: Which is more deadly?
Replies
41
Views
1K
aboveandbeyond
A
Cricket Warrior
  • Locked
Shoaib Bashir's (4/84) impressive performance restricts India to 219/7 as they trail England by 134 runs at Stumps on Day 2 of the 4th Test
2 3 4
Replies
316
Views
7K
gibsyhesperis
G
Back
Top