lebron_fan Posted May 30, 2015 Posted May 30, 2015 Just slogging and getting out without seeing the context of the game. He should play little more sensibly or he will end up as another Afridi.
GrandMasterSaxy Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 True - better and consistent version of Afridi
rahulrulezz Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 What pisses me off is that people are ok if batsmen get out lbw and slips while defending the ball but the wanna be critics go cuckoo if players get caught while being aggressive. He still scored 41 which was third highest. Ironically Ronchi who scored highest played more aggressive than Mcculum
HippoSucks Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 The comparison with Afridi is too extreme right now. McCullum has the temperament to bat for long periods of time, as we saw in his triple hundred. But lately since his aggressive tactic worked in the World Cup, I think he is trying to see how he does in tests with the same approach. Hopefully he starts playing sensibly soon. What pisses me off is that people are ok if batsmen get out lbw and slips while defending the ball but the wanna be critics go cuckoo if players get caught while being aggressive. He still scored 41 which was third highest. Ironically Ronchi who scored highest played more aggressive than Mcculum That is because sensible test batsman defend good balls and get out usually to some great deliveries. And they punish the terrible deliveries. Instead McCullum has been slogging at every delivery which is idiotic. In tests you don't need a #5 batsman who can get 41 off 28 balls. For example, in the first test match, England won by some 120+ runs. If Stokes hadn't gotten his century (playing very aggressively), England would have still likely won. However is Cook hadn't made his 162 then England would have most likely won. Not only did Cook score more runs, he stabilized one end and allowed players like Stokes to play aggressively in the end. The only time you play aggressive cricket in tests is if you have a good lead and want to increase it quickly before declaring (or if there are only tail-enders batting of course). That's precisely why Luke is playing his first match and likely his last for quite some time. People like him aren't suited for test cricket if he plays like that - and if his ODI performance is an indication, he will. He was only selected because Anderon's injury aggravated.
gattaca Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Mccullum plays this way in tests. I have seen it before 2015. It was against England as well may be in 2013 I think. It was a tense draw for England in one of the matches in that series.
HippoSucks Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Mccullum plays this way in tests. I have seen it before 2015. It was against England as well may be in 2013 I think. It was a tense draw for England in one of the matches in that series. His strike rate in tests is 62 throughout his career. He has consistently started batting aggressively only recently. Before he occasionally batted like this, mainly when the situation called for it.
HippoSucks Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Sehwag way not afridi' date='he is minisehwag[/quote'] Sehwag, Warner etc don't play high risk shots for the most part. They play attacking shots but bat very sensibly. You can't compare them at all.
Gollum Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 I think he got carried away by public/experts praising his aggressive batting/captaincy in the World Cup. Before that both his batting and captaincy involved controlled aggression and sometimes being passive. But now he bats and captains like a drunkard.
lebron_fan Posted May 31, 2015 Author Posted May 31, 2015 I think he got carried away by public/experts praising his aggressive batting/captaincy in the World Cup. Before that both his batting and captaincy involved controlled aggression and sometimes being passive. But now he bats and captains like a drunkard. +1 I agree he got a carried away by excessive praise. Lets see how he does in the second innings.
rahulrulezz Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 You guys r talking as if he scored a duck. He out scored 8 of the batsmen in the team. Y not blame them. Also, y is that getting out defending ball means that the ball is good but a ball is not good if he someone gets out aggressively. I personally play both 50 overs and t20 matches every weekend and as a pacer, I LOVE bowling in 50 overs cuz they r defensive and I get majority wickets with nicks and bowled. But that's not the case with t20 cricket. I am always on my toes and not perform that well.
renjith Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 afridi is more of a lower-middle order slogger and mccullam is a proper batsman. there can be no comparison. when someone is playing as aggressive as mccullam, some dismissals may seem like foolish shots. its quite natural.
CricketBuffOne Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Yes, off late we have seen him bat more aggressively in all formats, but it's too early to say this. Cannot judge him on the basis of a few performances. He has done enough to establish himself as a Test batsman.
Gollum Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 You guys r talking as if he scored a duck. He out scored 8 of the batsmen in the team. Y not blame them. Also, y is that getting out defending ball means that the ball is good but a ball is not good if he someone gets out aggressively. I personally play both 50 overs and t20 matches every weekend and as a pacer, I LOVE bowling in 50 overs cuz they r defensive and I get majority wickets with nicks and bowled. But that's not the case with t20 cricket. I am always on my toes and not perform that well. BMac's test SR is under 63, not frigging 120. Throughout his career he has been a batsman who displayed controlled aggression and at times passive batting when the situation demanded. 302 from 559 balls http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/667653.html 225 from 308 balls http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/464532.html 224 from 307 balls http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/667651.html 185 from 272 balls http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/423786.html All this shows that he can put his head down and play long innings, score daddy 100s, grind it out when the match context demands good old attrition. He has the old school test temperament which most batsmen lack. Unfortunately his recent 100s against Pakistan and Lanka which were both above run a ball seem to have messed up his mind. Also his aggressive batting in the WC which was lauded by all has got over his head and that has affected his judgement in test cricket. He could have sorted his mind before the all important test series but went on a vacation to play the IPL which was an extension to his WC mind set. Right now he is playing like a mad man who has lost the ability to pace a proper test innings. In difficult conditions like on Day 1 here he was always going to get exposed for the joke of a batsman he has become. (That 100 against Pakistan(albeit on a phatta) was in a must win match under dire circumstances where they had to go bang bang, also remember that that innings came in the immediate aftermath of Hughes' death which affected all the players that day, Pakistan seemed to lack the spark or will that day. Against Lanka's popgun attack he made merry and kudos to him, the assault paid off and he got a very rapid 195. In the bat dominated WC he made those quick 30s and 40s on flat decks in hobbit sized grounds with ridiculous field restrictions. Those 30s/40s are par score in the limited over formats but will never win you matches in tests. Also his maniacal batting was a big factor in them losing the finals at the G. ) Consider a hypothetical situation.Will you be pleased if tomorrow Rahane(our no 5) gets a chancy 28 ball 41 and is dismissed trying to clear the field when the match situation requires him to get a big one, knowing that Vijay, Kohli, Pujara our other 3 main batsmen have already been dismissed? I am sure not, that would be madness right. You would have no qualms if he gets out defending and nicks one or misses a straight one. But trying to flay a good length ball, a T20 shot when your team is down 0-1 and needs you to play responsibly? BMac is too good a player as his past records show, being one of the batting mainstays he should have judged the match situation better, the BMac of 2013 would never have done such a stupid thing. And it isn't only about this innings. He was the main reason why they lost the Lord's test. Forget his captaincy, this thread is about batting so let's stick to that. He got out when the score was 402/3, 13 ahead of England's tally. How he got those 42 runs is a mystery, against a newish ball(came in 86th over, departed in 98th over) he was playing like it was a T20 slogathon, charging at the fast bowlers and missing every 2nd ball, all that when his team was comfortably placed, had he played normal cricket they would have had 650 on the board and inflicted a crushing innings defeat. His dismissal again was a joke, getting caught at 3rd man :hysterical: !! His 38 ball knock in the grander scheme of things achieved nothing. Put it this way, had he played like this against us last year we would have cruised to a 2-0 mauling. Test cricket is not only about scoring but also playing time. Had he scored that 42 in 70 or 80 balls NZ would have drawn the match(remember match was lost in the last hour of the 5th day). The reason England won was because of Cook, that was one of the greatest innings of this decade. He played for 9 hours and scored 162, what is more awe inspiring is he did it when they were trailing against some testing bowling. His judgement, patience,shot selection is what encapsulates a classical test innings. Only because of his solid foundation could Stokes go berserk at the other end. Cook snuffled the spirit out of the NZ camp with that slow torture. And who allowed Cook and co to mount that comeback? Brendon McCullum, who in stead of shutting out England for good with a massive 1st innings lead threw his wicket like a circus clown and gave NZ the window to break in. McCullum's average and run tally is underwhelming but not the biggest disappointment for me. He has played fewer balls than almost everybody and that concerns me.The importance of occupying the crease can't be overlooked in this format. A batsman as good as him has been reduced to an Afridi level player this series. And all his runs were chancy, his dismissals were LOLworthy.
Lannister Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 In tests, playing aggressive cricket will less likely to have an impact on the result compared to LOIs. If you get all out for 400 in a single day, the opposition will have 3 more days to get those runs and then take a lead. How well a team plays out the last day is the real test in this format. So scoring quick runs will no way ensures a win in this format.
Pagalpanti Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 I guess he is still in the LOI mode. He was smashing everything in WC and then the IPL.
vvvslaxman Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Baz has the capacity to slow down. Remember two of his measured 50s against us in the two T 20 game in NZ.
f.b.m Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 For example, in the first test match, England won by some 120+ runs. If Stokes hadn't gotten his century (playing very aggressively), England would have still likely won. However is Cook hadn't made his 162 then England would have most likely won. Not only did Cook score more runs, he stabilized one end and allowed players like Stokes to play aggressively in the end. The only time you play aggressive cricket in tests is if you have a good lead and want to increase it quickly before declaring (or if there are only tail-enders batting of course). That's precisely why Luke is playing his first match and likely his last for quite some time. People like him aren't suited for test cricket if he plays like that - and if his ODI performance is an indication, he will. He was only selected because Anderon's injury aggravated. The person you plagiarized from conveniently ignored Stokes' first inning 90 which came after an excellent 'foundation' of 30/4.
Gollum Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 The person you plagiarized from conveniently ignored Stokes' first inning 90 which came after an excellent 'foundation' of 30/4. From where did you get this extract? These aren't my words. That is from post 4 by HippoSucks. You have an issue, take it up with him rather than accusing me of something.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now