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.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.
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 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.
Why shouldn't we? I'm all for even-handedness in all things.What if he were dead. Would we be even handedly discussing his detrimental aspects with his positive aspects.
Its the something of the thing.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?
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.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.
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.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
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.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 really couldn't disagree more and I guess this is where I might differ from most.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 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.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.
You should be his spokesman.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.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.
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?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.