Brendon McCullum to retire after upcoming Australia series

[Bahnz]

Annoying myth no 3 (amongst NZ fans anyway):

-McCullum was obviously wrong in his decision to bat first. He wasn't. It's the MCG ffs. You win the toss. You bat first. You score big. And you win. Mccollum made absolutely the right call. NZ lost because Australia were just a much better team than them (and maybe partly because NZ had 0 recent experience of playing in Aus conditions).

 

[OverratedSanity]

Don't be rude.

Why not?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah its ****.

Two annoying myths of the 2015 WC:

- McCullum batted irresponsibly
- West Indies batted the right way when chasing NZ's big score in the quarter final

Annoying myth no 3 (amongst NZ fans anyway):

-McCullum was obviously wrong in his decision to bat first. He wasn't. It's the MCG ffs. You win the toss. You bat first. You score big. And you win. Mccollum made absolutely the right call. NZ lost because Australia were just a much better team than them (and maybe partly because NZ had 0 recent experience of playing in Aus conditions).

Most annoying myth of all:

SA were a great team and if they'd won the semi, they would've put up a much better fight in the final than nz.

 

[Hurricane]

Annoying myth no 3 (amongst NZ fans anyway):

-McCullum was obviously wrong in his decision to bat first. He wasn't. It's the MCG ffs. You win the toss. You bat first. You score big. And you win. Mccollum made absolutely the right call. NZ lost because Australia were just a much better team than them (and maybe partly because NZ had 0 recent experience of playing in Aus conditions).

Even with the benefit of hindsight do you think this. IE if you had a time machine and had the ability to go back and bat second would you just figure nah I will pass on the chance at changing history because probably NZ would lose worse?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

what kind of question is that

 

[Hurricane]

what kind of question is that

What's wrong with my question? Just a standard hypothetical.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

but it leaves only one inevitable answer so it's not a fair open hypothetical question

 

[Bahnz]

Even with the benefit of hindsight do you think this. IE if you had a time machine and had the ability to go back and bat second would you just figure nah I will pass on the chance at changing history because probably NZ would lose worse?

Cane, please don't take offence at this, but that's a dumb question. Obviously if I was given a choice between certain defeat and almost certain defeat, I would chose the later. A more pertinent question would be, if Michael Clarke had said "double or quits, let's play another one tomorrow and if we win we get to claim pavlova to boot", would you choose to bat first again? And the answer would absolutely be yes. If New Zealand had bowled first, you would have basically seen the match play out in reverse (Aus scoring big and NZ being done for under 200).

 

[Hurricane]

but it leaves only one inevitable answer so it's not a fair open hypothetical question

Bahnz is being equally as biased in his presentation of the facts in his post. It's a message board to use fair and foul (but not language) means to get your point across.

You didn't take Bahnz to task even though he got into hyperbole and made it sound like a slam dunk that you bat first at the MCG. Since the history of ODIs at the MCG the team that has batted first has won 71 times and lost 69 times. That's if I did my statsguru query correctly.

 

[Bahnz]

...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.

By "they" I hope you don't mean McCullum. That was Richard Boock (iirc) spreading that bull****.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Bahnz is being equally as biased in his presentation of the facts in his post. It's a message board to use fair and foul (but not language) means to get your point across.

You didn't take Bahnz to task even though he got into hyperbole and made it sound like a slam dunk that you bat first at the MCG. Since the history of ODIs at the MCG the team that has batted first has won 71 times and lost 69 times. That's if I did my statsguru query correctly.

not sure why I need to argue with bahnz too. I'm slow enough as it is arguing with one person.

Regarding batting first, I don't have a strong opinion either way. The better team on the day would've won regardless.

 

[Bahnz]

Bahnz is being equally as biased in his presentation of the facts in his post. It's a message board to use fair and foul (but not language) means to get your point across.

You didn't take Bahnz to task even though he got into hyperbole and made it sound like a slam dunk that you bat first at the MCG. Since the history of ODIs at the MCG the team that has batted first has won 71 times and lost 69 times. That's if I did my statsguru query correctly.

You're not looking at it in the context of the World Cup though. 4 teams bat first. 4 teams register thumping wins. The only teams that lost batting first all season were teams playing against Australia - a team obviously superior to every other side in the tournament.

 

[Spark]

not sure why I need to argue with bahnz too. I'm slow enough as it is arguing with one person.

Regarding batting first, I don't have a strong opinion either way. The better team on the day would've won regardless.

You want a score on the board though. A tight chase in a final? Hope you don't get shaky hands.

You're not looking at it in the context of the World Cup though. 4 teams bat first. 4 teams register thumping wins. The only teams that lost batting first all season were teams playing against Australia - a team obviously superior to every other side in the tournament.

Yeah massive bat-first wins were the norm in that tournament; sheer scoreboard pressure just smashed so many sides. India in the semi is the classic example, you'd say that they'd be best placed out of any side to chase down 330, but they didn't get remotely close.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You want a score on the board though. A tight chase in a final? Hope you don't get shaky hands.

bowling when nervous is every bit as bad tbh

 

[Hurricane]

You're not looking at it in the context of the World Cup though. 4 teams bat first. 4 teams register thumping wins. The only teams that lost batting first all season were teams playing against Australia - a team obviously superior to every other side in the tournament.

You've typed this too quickly and it is missing the odd bit of detail - but enough that I can't follow it. E.g. 4 teams bat first? In the tournament? In the history of world cup finals?

 

[Bahnz]

At the 2015 World Cup at the MCG. Spark is also right on his point about team's getting smashed by scoreboard pressure more generally. Another point worth remembering was that bowling second suited our bowlers more. Bowling first, under a blazing hot sun...the balls didn't swing for more than about the first 6 overs. Without Milne our bowling attack was always going to be in for it in that scenario. At least bowling second, if you have a score on the board you have the potential to build pressure.

 

[Spark]

At the 2015 World Cup at the MCG. Spark is also right on his point about team's getting smashed by scoreboard pressure more generally. Another point worth remembering was that bowling second suited our bowlers more. Bowling first, under a blazing hot sun...the balls didn't swing for more than about the first 6 overs. Without Milne our bowling attack was always going to be in for it in that scenario. At least bowling second, if you have a score on the board you have the potential to build pressure.

It was actually kind of surprising, because the trend in the previous few years had been for massive chases. But in that particular WC, batting first and putting on a big score virtually guaranteed you win. Hardly any chases of any substantial size at all, in fact the NZ semi might have been the biggest.

 

[Hurricane]

At the 2015 World Cup at the MCG. Spark is also right on his point about team's getting smashed by scoreboard pressure more generally. Another point worth remembering was that bowling second suited our bowlers more. Bowling first, under a blazing hot sun...the balls didn't swing for more than about the first 6 overs. Without Milne our bowling attack was always going to be in for it in that scenario. At least bowling second, if you have a score on the board you have the potential to build pressure.

Granted I will pay out all those points. However you are not taking on board my points:

How many of those men in black caps had played ever at the MCG or ever in front of 90,000 people.
Most of our batsmen were like deer in the headlights.

We needed time to get used to the occassion. It was always going to be an upset if we defeated Australia in Australia in the final. I think most of us predicted that we would make the final but lose to Australia before it started. Had the final been at Eden Park we would have won.

 

[Spark]

Granted I will pay out all those points. However you are not taking on board my points:

How many of those men in black caps had played ever at the MCG or ever in front of 90,000 people.
Most of our batsmen were like deer in the headlights.

We needed time to get used to the occassion. It was always going to be an upset if we defeated Australia in Australia in the final. I think most of us predicted that we would make the final but lose to Australia before it started. Had the final been at Eden Park we would have won.

Nah.

 

[Hurricane]

Nah.

Hands down. No wuckin furries. We won in the group stages there even though we played horribly.