• 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.

Brendon McCullum to retire after upcoming Australia series

thierry henry

International Coach
Yeah I don't think anyone is saying Baz is an ATG on the levels of Bradman, Lara, Sobers et al, nor are they ignoring that he underachieved. Same goes for when Fleming retired. Lots of flaws and could've had a better career performance wise, but some things go beyond stats and such like impact on the game and their legacy as a sportsman, for which McCullum and Fleming will be remembered for a long time to come.
I mean I guess when it comes down to it I kinda DO want to "character assassinate" him a little. Not necessarily in a (T)Reason-ous manner, I don't think he beats his wife or is a dick to fans or whatever else, but in terms of his "cricketing character" if that makes any sense.

I know I'm pushing **** uphill and 90% of people disagree with me but I think McCullum's "legacy" for the most part is promoting an untenable style of cricket due to his own inability to properly grasp the game throughout his career, manifested in his own generally foolish brand of batting.

His personal underachieving was a result of basically a generally wrong-headed approach to the game which rather than fixing or working on he simply doubled-down on in an "it's so crazy it just might work" manner.

In short, my overall perception of his "vibe" as a cricketer is something that detracts from his tangible on-field achievements rather than enhancing them. Everything about the way he approached his cricket was manifested in his underachievement as a batsman. For me, although he had periods of extraordinary achievement, his "doing it wrong and therefore underachieving" was a relatively consistent feature of his career and is the main gloss on the raw stats and achievements.

I'm happy to discuss his overall merits as a player but I don't think there's actually that much debate about them. At a time like this, when we come to assess a player, we generally look at the stats, the great innings etc, and then we create some sort of narrative or overarching theme as a lens through which it all is viewed. I guess what I'm saying is my lens for viewing McCullum as a cricketer is whatever the opposite of rose-tinted is called. I don't think it's any more wrong to see his cricket through that lens then through a rose-tinted one.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
I agree with much of the above. Against that, you'd have to say part of his legacy was taking us to a CWC final and the triple hundred, both of which were unprecedented.

I think the crucial part of your post is the realisation that McCullum's "gambler's instincts" often amount to taking the dumbest possible approach in the hope that you would look like a genius if it came off. Sometimes it does come off, and it's fair to credit McCullum with the times it did. But so often it didn't.

One interesting aspect thus far overlooked is that Williamson's captaincy will be very different. KW is the ultimate percentage shot player. With McCullum's captaincy sometimes you feared we'd throw away a winning position, whereas under Fleming's captaincy it was more like hope that we'd find a way out of a losing position. I expect KW will be more like Fleming.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
I guess what I'm saying is my lens for viewing McCullum as a cricketer is whatever the opposite of rose-tinted is called. I don't think it's any more wrong to see his cricket through that lens then through a rose-tinted one.
What if he were dead. Would we be even handedly discussing his detrimental aspects with his positive aspects. He isn't dead and apologies for the dramatic statement. I guess some people feel a compulsion to only say positive things about someone when they are retired. While they are still playing the criticism serves a purpose. They might read it or somehow it may become known to them and they can improve. Not so much when they are retired.

I have always struggled with retirement threads. There have been plenty of occaassions I have wanted to put the boot in. But have not done so for various reasons.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
What if he were dead. Would we be even handedly discussing his detrimental aspects with his positive aspects.
Why shouldn't we? I'm all for even-handedness in all things.

I'm not a fan of people being able to hide behind the anonymity of the interwebs to troll, but I think the ability to be as rational as possible and not having to follow some of the more illogical social conventions is part of the beauty of the thing, right?
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Why shouldn't we? I'm all for even-handedness in all things.

I'm not a fan of people being able to hide behind the anonymity of the interwebs to troll, but I think the ability to be as rational as possible and not having to follow some of the more illogical social conventions is part of the beauty of the thing, right?
Its the something of the thing.

Good post. Something to stew on.

Like I posted if he double tons up at a SR of 55 and wins us the Australian tests then that will form part of the mix for me. I am deeply dissapointed we lost the world cup final. I have said lots about his captaincy over the years. Sometimes it just makes me feel good to find the positives. I will give it more thought. Thanks for presenting the other side of the coin.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Good point. His legacy isn't done. It completely changes if he wins the series vs. Australia.
 

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
For all his under-achievement with the bat, he stilled managed to average 42 without the gloves in the latter part of his career. Again, not worthy of ATG status but that's still very good.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
I think McCullum's "legacy" for the most part is promoting an untenable style of cricket due to his own inability to properly grasp the game throughout his career, manifested in his own generally foolish brand of batting.

His personal underachieving was a result of basically a generally wrong-headed approach to the game which rather than fixing or working on he simply doubled-down on in an "it's so crazy it just might work" manner.
Nah. McCullum had a specific set of mental and physical attributes which were best augmented by his approach to the game. It was far from pretty at times and definitely I wouldn't tell young batsman to play anything like him, but it was undoubtedly optimal for him. Not every person can boil everything down to the bare variables and plan **** out rationally, some just do best going out and having a good time. Baz was one of those guys and you need people like that as well as the Williamsons of the world. I feel like there's a sculptor-quarryman-jeweler metaphor somewhere in here.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Devil's advocate maybe, but: is it any less pathetic that someone with a genuinely negative impression of McCullum (which is entirely feasible) is basically unable to say as much any more because it's impossible to do so without being branded as one of dem haterz?

I'm not defending gutter journalism but at the same time, as someone who just honestly never much liked McCullum as a player or a captain or a thinker about cricket, it's very noticeable to me now that a proper discourse about his merits has become more or less impossible.

Just in general I think that when anything or anyone achieves "sacred cow" status and it becomes impossible to talk negatively about them without being accused of being a spoilsport or a hack or having an agenda of some sort, then that's a bad thing. Not being able to properly debate both sides of an argument is a bad thing.

And tbh, Brendon McCullum has absolutely no business being a sacred cow imo
Good points well made. But in my opinion, Mark Reason has a personal vendetta against McCullum. And when you throw in that absolutely ridiculous Pacific Island comment, and the crap he wrote about Indian match fixing, painting McCullum as the alleged criminal in the Cairns case and probably stuff I've forgotten, it's awful journalism/writing whatever and deserves no place in print.

Brendon is a sacred cow in some media circles, agree with that. He's a personable bloke whose probably gone out of his way to be accommodating to the media in the knowledge they'll find it hard to go after him and front up each week for conferences. And that's probably a bit far the other way from where Reason is.

I'm an unabashed Brendon fan but I can acknowledge his quite noticeable faults now and over time. Some are not fans, and I completely understand why.But they should acknowledge that a bloke who scores 300 at Test level, is the highest T20 run scorer of all time and his other achievements, 13 Tests unbeaten at home, 100 Tests in a row etc needs some recognition. Then some are sycophants, which is wrong, and some have a vendetta like Reason.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Why is everyone surprised McCullum won't be playing the World T20? It's hardly on the same level as the world cup, and home farewells are more significant than some two-bit random world event, even if that's the format he's a giant in. Especially if we get up over the Aussies. A short format tourney where we probably won't win would be a bit of a limp balloon in comparison.
I haven't seen much surprise. I've seen more of a theme of well it's disappointing because he's easily our best T20 player and we're now really not much of a threat, or certainly less than we were, but we can understand why you wouldn't want to go the sub-continent to finish your career in a bit-part tournament where you could dip out in the pool stages to a minnow team with 5 spinners.
 

Unleashed

Cricket Spectator
He's the best captain in the international cricket right now. Hopefully Kohli can learn some things from him.

Big blow to NZ this. One of the games great personalities also.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Nah. McCullum had a specific set of mental and physical attributes which were best augmented by his approach to the game. It was far from pretty at times and definitely I wouldn't tell young batsman to play anything like him, but it was undoubtedly optimal for him.
I really couldn't disagree more and I guess this is where I might differ from most.

I think there's a big difference between "McCullum batting like a maniac worked often enough that it was a pretty good tactic" and "McCullum batting like a maniac was the optimal way for him to bat".

I don't believe for a second that McCullum, a man who made 4 200+ scores in test cricket is somehow some unique case in the history of the game whose best chance of success was to try to hit forehand 6s over cover regardless of the match situation. I don't believe McCullum was that technically inept or that mentally deficient and I think that believing in that flies in the face of accepting that this man could ever captain his country. He is not some some incorrigible madman. He's not Afridi, he's not even Sehwag or Warner, yet even the last two batted more sensibly than him.

I really think you're underrating McCullum's skill as a batsman to suggest that his best chance of success was to bat like an almost unparalleled maniac. The worst thing about his career was after long enough he tricked most of us into believe he actually was that bad.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
He wasn't batting like an unparalled maniac. He was seeing the ball and hitting it without the mental baggage of trying to bat the way everyone had been telling him to bat his whole career because it's "proper cricket" no matter how ineffective it was or how unnatural it felt.
 

banquetbear

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Good points well made. But in my opinion, Mark Reason has a personal vendetta against McCullum. And when you throw in that absolutely ridiculous Pacific Island comment, and the crap he wrote about Indian match fixing, painting McCullum as the alleged criminal in the Cairns case and probably stuff I've forgotten, it's awful journalism/writing whatever and deserves no place in print.

Brendon is a sacred cow in some media circles, agree with that. He's a personable bloke whose probably gone out of his way to be accommodating to the media in the knowledge they'll find it hard to go after him and front up each week for conferences. And that's probably a bit far the other way from where Reason is.

I'm an unabashed Brendon fan but I can acknowledge his quite noticeable faults now and over time. Some are not fans, and I completely understand why.But they should acknowledge that a bloke who scores 300 at Test level, is the highest T20 run scorer of all time and his other achievements, 13 Tests unbeaten at home, 100 Tests in a row etc needs some recognition. Then some are sycophants, which is wrong, and some have a vendetta like Reason.
...I think that Mark Reason's Pacific Island comment really needs to be put in perspective. I'm Samoan. Never been prouder than when Taylor got the captaincy. And never felt more kicked in the guts than when he lost it. He didn't just loose the captaincy. They went all "dirty politics" over it. Unsubstantiated accusations of abuse in the dressing room. Stuff like that.

I've been a follower of cricket since I was little. Once when I was working down south, I once drove 30 km to find somewhere where I could get radio reception just so I could listen to a test match in South Africa. I never played the game. But loved the "great days of summer."

But what happened to Taylor broke me. I've stopped following the game. Its been hard enough for a Polynesian player to get into any cricket team, let alone the NZ team, and to be Captain? I doubt that it will happen again in my lifetime.

Reason said that this "showed unacceptable disrespect to the Pacific community": and while I think that "disrespect" is the wrong word to use, I don't think that he is that far off the mark in terms of how the Pacific community feels. I know that this upset many of my friends and family. It is a sign of how strong a person Ross Taylor is that he continues to play the game. He's a much better person than I will ever be.

I don't want to rain on the McCullum parade. He's a fantastic cricketer who did well with the captaincy and I hope he enjoys his retirement. But I need to say this. I'm glad he is going. I do not respect the man. Reason talks about "McCullum's joint business interests in India with members of the New Zealand board" and there are a few other dodgy things that were going on in the background at the time that just didn't smell right. I would have loved to have seen what Taylor and John Wright would have accomplished if they didn't have people conspiring in the background and if they had been given full reign to do what they wanted. But we will never know.

And with Williamson taking over the mantle I might just start following the game again.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
He wasn't batting like an unparalled maniac. He was seeing the ball and hitting it without the mental baggage of trying to bat the way everyone had been telling him to bat his whole career because it's "proper cricket" no matter how ineffective it was or how unnatural it felt.
You should be his spokesman.

TH is correct. I just more agree with the positive energy you are directing to McCullum due to my ethical beliefs of wanting to talk positively about him now he is retired.

To TH's point his dismissal in the last inning may well have led to his retirement. It was completely reprehensible and not appropriate for a captain to be dismissed that way. Mike Hesson would have been negligent as coach if he did not have a serious talk with Brendon after that dismissal, and that conversation may have led to the decision to retire. This is raw speculation, but hey we are a message board and we thrive on conjecture.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
He wasn't batting like an unparalled maniac. He was seeing the ball and hitting it without the mental baggage of trying to bat the way everyone had been telling him to bat his whole career because it's "proper cricket" no matter how ineffective it was or how unnatural it felt.
As I said I'm a massive Baz fan, but I disagree with that. The majority of his innings in 2015 have been in the maniacal category. He's gone from averaging 72 in Tests in 2014 to 30 in 2015. The shot at Lord's in the first innings was horrendously uncultured and highly irresponsible. A lot of his stuff in Australia was the same. His approach to the World Cup final was dumb. I find it a bit disappointing that he hasn't batted the way he did to score a triple, double and big hundred in 2014. But that might be fatigue from on and off-field commitments.

It's kind of hard to sum him up overall. Great leader of men, jury's out on him as a tactician. Good batsman, at times insanely good, but not world class in his career as a whole. Has the 300 in a match-saving situation, the other doubles including as an opener, the other amazing innings but nothing really clutch to point to in big tournaments or match-winning v top sides. One of the greatest all-time T20 players which no one really pays much credence to given the format. Was also a world class glovesman which has tended to be forgotten now. Top-class bloke you'd have a beer and a punt with but had 'controversies' like the IPL/rumour of not signing NZC contract/turning up late for England tours etc, the Cairns trial, saying Martin Crowe was someone no one listened to etc.

So yeah, good luck to anyone writing the perfect obit for that.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
I wish. #needajob

Yeah I'm not defending his dismissal in that last innings. McCullum had a decent stonewall mode and that was a period where we needed him to use it. What he sucked at was any kind of in-between gear.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
As I said I'm a massive Baz fan, but I disagree with that. The majority of his innings in 2015 have been in the maniacal category. He's gone from averaging 72 in Tests in 2014 to 30 in 2015. The shot at Lord's in the first innings was horrendously uncultured and highly irresponsible. A lot of his stuff in Australia was the same. His approach to the World Cup final was dumb. I find it a bit disappointing that he hasn't batted the way he did to score a triple, double and big hundred in 2014. But that might be fatigue from on and off-field commitments.

It's kind of hard to sum him up overall. Great leader of men, jury's out on him as a tactician. Good batsman, at times insanely good, but not world class in his career as a whole. Has the 300 in a match-saving situation, the other doubles including as an opener, the other amazing innings but nothing really clutch to point to in big tournaments or match-winning v top sides. One of the greatest all-time T20 players which no one really pays much credence to given the format. Was also a world class glovesman which has tended to be forgotten now. Top-class bloke you'd have a beer and a punt with but had 'controversies' like the IPL/rumour of not signing NZC contract/turning up late for England tours etc, the Cairns trial, saying Martin Crowe was someone no one listened to etc.

So yeah, good luck to anyone writing the perfect obit for that.
Why was his approach in the WC final irresponsible when it is literally the way he batted all tournament to get them into the final, including against Australia chasing a small total and against South Afrca chasing a big total?
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
cricket is a dumb sport. You can make the right decisions and lose. You can make the wrong decisions and win. People becoming very fixated on end results and think of players being built of lego which you can take apart and put together. Unfortunately real people aren't like that. When you change one thing it has influences on everything else. every player has their ugly and good aspects, and they're often linked or inseparable. Trying to remove the ugly from McCullum would've neutralised his good imo. If he'd knuckled down and played like a proper batsman or captained like a normal captain he would've got mediocre results. Of course, playing the way he has wasn't going to come off forever either, as the contrast between his 2014 and 2015 test averages shows.

tldr kane hides dead bodies under his bed
 

Top