Nathan Astle v Brendon McCullum

[Flem274*]

Both players of amazing innings rather than great players themselves. Who was the better batsman?

Astle - 81 tests, 4702 @ 37.02. 11 hundreds, 24 fifties.

McCullum - 101 tests, 6453 @ 38.64. 12 hundreds, 31 fifties.

 

[Athlai]

Baz towards the end was much better IMO.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Gonna give this to Dirtbag Nate because he didn't have a huge PR team behind him.

 

[honestbharani]

Astle did it in the tougher era IMO.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Astle's double-century tho

 

[M0rphin3]

Late Baz without the gloves makes it really tough for me. Prolly Astle but not by a huge margin.

 

[Bahnz]

Would probably rate McCullum slightly higher. But very good contest - both were imperious for a short period of time (McCullum 2014, Astle in 01/02) and both had technical and temperamental flaws that were not especially difficult to expose. However, if we're talking their careers as batsmen, McCullum averaged nearly 43 after he hung up the gloves.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Voting Astle, but if McCullum had more of his career without the gloves it probably would have been him

 

[NZTailender]

Voting Astle, but if McCullum had more of his career without the gloves it probably would have been him

Both as middle order players (since both had a stint as opener)

McCullum fares very well

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=7;batting_positionmin1=3;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=0;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2021;spanmin1=01+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;team=5;template=results;type=batting

Until you do games played away from home only - smaller sample size for McCullum
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...al1=span;team=5;template=results;type=batting

But to be fair, he did have some success opening overseas, so overall all positions goes back up a bit

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

I feel like you could make a case for either. My gut says Astle but they may be because I like Astle more as a person and player so definite bias.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Both as middle order players (since both had a stint as opener)

McCullum fares very well

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=7;batting_positionmin1=3;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=0;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2021;spanmin1=01+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;team=5;template=results;type=batting

Until you do games played away from home only - smaller sample size for McCullum
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...al1=span;team=5;template=results;type=batting

But to be fair, he did have some success opening overseas, so overall all positions goes back up a bit

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

I feel like you could make a case for either. My gut says Astle but they may be because I like Astle more as a person and player so definite bias.

Yeah I definitely have the childhood hero bias towards Astle.

 

[Jayro]

I find it no contest while picking Nathan Astle who was as good of an opening batsman as they were in his time in Odis he was among the premiers of the game.

 

[Zinzan]

I assumed from the OP the question was specifically regarding Test cricket in which case it's McCullum for me. Especially considering his efforts after he hung up the gloves.

 

[Moss]

As a specialist test bat McCullum was more consistent and even had decent returns at the opener's position, where I don't think Astle ever batted. If Astle arguably batted in an era of better bowling, McCullum had to front up when the team was really short on quality players - until his last 2-3 years when KW-Taylor-Watling all became world class.

That said, Astle played some excellent forgotten test innings. Back-to-back hundreds against Ambrose and Walsh on their own turf in 1996, that last wicket century stand with Morrison against England in 1997, and a century when unwell in Ahmedabad in 2003 (a series in which India promised revenge for the pitches NZ dished out in 2002-03).

 

[Athlai]

Astle would have a Nicholls esque record if he batted with a better team imo.

 

[_Ed_]

Astle would have a Nicholls esque record if he batted with a better team imo.

I was thinking along similar lines the other day, actually. McMillan would likely have a better record too.

 

[SteveNZ]

Baz by a fair way in Tests. Once he lost the gloves, he was a far superior batsman. And did it both as an opener and a middle order bat.

Astle in ODIs probably just as comfortably.

 

[Bahnz]

As a specialist test bat McCullum was more consistent and even had decent returns at the opener's position, where I don't think Astle ever batted. If Astle arguably batted in an era of better bowling, McCullum had to front up when the team was really short on quality players - until his last 2-3 years when KW-Taylor-Watling all became world class.

That said, Astle played some excellent forgotten test innings. Back-to-back hundreds against Ambrose and Walsh on their own turf in 1996, that last wicket century stand with Morrison against England in 1997, and a century when unwell in Ahmedabad in 2003 (a series in which India promised revenge for the pitches NZ dished out in 2002-03).

Revenge served tepid, those were close to the flattest tracks I’ve ever seen NZ bat on.

 

[Athlai]

Astle was my absolute idol when I was a kid though. Loved the bloke and thought he had a gun name. The Boss pretty much took over that role after a slight absence from cricket till I joined up here.

 

[Bahnz]

Baz by a fair way in Tests. Once he lost the gloves, he was a far superior batsman. And did it both as an opener and a middle order bat.

Astle in ODIs probably just as comfortably.

Astle was a very instinctive hand-eye player. Couldn’t help himself from having a leaden-footed lash at a floaty outswinger. Once those reflexes started to dull his output really declined (from 2004 in particular). McCullum was more technically correct (at least in terms of foot movement), had a wider array of shots and imo was more talented - thus he tended to get better and better until the last year of his career when he seemed to be pretty mentally exhausted and was looking forward to retirement.

As ODI players I think they’re quite hard to compare. Astle probably takes it in terms of being better for longer, but McCullum’s batting in the final stage of his career was just ridiculous – imo the greatest pinch-hitter in ODI history by the length of a straight.

 

[SteveNZ]

Astle was a very instinctive hand-eye player. Couldn’t help himself from having a leaden-footed lash at a floaty outswinger. Once those reflexes started to dull his output really declined (from 2004 in particular). McCullum was more technically correct (at least in terms of foot movement), had a wider array of shots and imo was more talented - thus he tended to get better and better until the last year of his career when he seemed to be pretty mentally exhausted and was looking forward to retirement.

As ODI players I think they’re quite hard to compare. Astle probably takes it in terms of being better for longer, but McCullum’s batting in the final stage of his career was just ridiculous – imo the greatest pinch-hitter in ODI history by the length of a straight.

Yeah, you're probably right in terms of ODI players.

I've always thought Astle v Guptill would've been a better comparison if Gup got to bat at 5 in Tests, which he was much more suited to. A lot would disagree, but we'll never know