Filling McCullums' Boots in ODIs

shark

47 off 27 in his final ODI innings is a perfect example of why we will and won't miss Baz. Similarly, his innings in games 1 and 2 of this series were 28 and 44 at much better than a run a ball. These are great cameos but not great innings, particularly when you're batting first. A final career average a touch over 30 won't be missed. A career tally of five centuries - with three of those vs powerhouses Ireland, Canada and to a lesser extent Zimbabwe - won't be missed. As an ODI opener, aside from strike rate, I'm sure Tom Latham will eclipse McCullums' century stat and most likely set us up more often than McCullum was able to.
 
But we will miss those cameos when we're chasing and need quick early runs to settle nerves and make things easier for the batsmen to follow. We saw this in great effect in the last World Cup in key games against Australia and SA. And we'll miss his innovative and super-aggressive captaincy. And his 100% commitment to every single ball in the field. And thinking back to his days as a 'keeper and lower order batsman, we've often missed his ability to close out an innings, particularly when chasing.
 
I'll miss his charisma and the mana he seemed to bring to his role as skipper of the Black Caps. We last had that with Fleming and before him, not even Crowe, but Coney had it. It's a rare thing, not guaranteed by personal performances and clearly attainable by relatively mediocre players. Williamson could yet become a captain who as a player is a world-beater, but doesn't achieve icon status as a skipper, we'll see.
 
But I want to discuss McCullums' role in the ODI team as a player and his replacement, and the possibilities that brings with it.
 
Latham has been the man to fill in of late when Baz has been unavailable. He started off batting in whichever position was vacated, for his first couple of years in the side. But he's a genuine opener as demonstrated by his test performances, and an over-all ODI average of 29.58 deceives because when he opens he averages 39.07 and hit his first century just last year - vs Zimbabwe - as an opener. In fact all five of his fifty plus scores in ODIs have been made opening the innings. So he's certainly the heir apparent as an opener. The SR might only be mid 70s but given the way Guptill has blossomed the last 18 months or so, Latham can settle into the anchor role, no probs.
 
An added benefit with Latham is he can keep wicket, and has done so already in ODIs. So at the very least we should take the opporunity to experiment with Latham as our limited overs 'keeper which means curtains for the out of form Luke Ronchi, who at almost 35 must surely be looking at the writing on the wall. Ronchi's batting position could be taken by Colin Munro, or Jimmy Neesham when he returns. Whomever is most successful could ultimately replace Grant Elliott at 5, OR this could open the path for Henry Nicholls to settle in at 5 because we'd have the extra all-rounder in the former 'keepers' spot.
 
Latham opening and keeping wicket offers us tremendous opportunity to better balance the ODI side. Ironically, it could also mean an opening for Munro - the NZ limited overs cricketer whise game I feel most closely resembles McCullums' - in a 'finishers' role down at 7 doing the job that Baz did so well for a number of years.

mariner4life

The stats don't normally tell the story. But in Baz's case an average of 30 and 200 6s is pretty much bang on.

gollum

I actually think in terms of pure batting the guy coming in will be better. Baz has played some fantastic inning & been incredible to watch, but he is in effect a 30 off 20 pinch hitter. Afridi, Russell or Flintoff without the bowling.
 
Latham already looks like he can be more of a 70 off 80 & maybe score 100's sort of player which I think is better in the current game. 
 
NZ have tended to lose games recently not because we didn't get off to a flyer, but because one of our top order didn't bat thru, we've got a LOT of fire power right down, but are very dependant on Guppy or Kane (or to a lesser degree Taylor) going big.
 
Really if we were looking for a like-for-like Baz replacement we'd pick Munro.

canefan

In Latham Nicholls and Munro we have some really good options

gollum

We'll actually probably end up more balanced as we will drop Ronchi & pick a genuine keeper / batsman to open (Latham / Watling) and a slogger who bowls a bit low down (Munro, Neesham)

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="557378" data-time="1454925919">
<div>
I actually think in terms of pure batting the guy coming in will be better. Baz has played some fantastic inning & been incredible to watch, but he is in effect a 30 off 20 pinch hitter. Afridi, Russell or Flintoff without the bowling.
 
Latham already looks like he can be more of a 70 off 80 & maybe score 100's sort of player which I think is better in the current game. 
 
NZ have tended to lose games recently not because we didn't get off to a flyer, but because one of our top order didn't bat thru, we've got a LOT of fire power right down, but are very dependant on Guppy or Kane (or to a lesser degree Taylor) going big.
 
Really if we were looking for a like-for-like Baz replacement we'd pick Munro. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Lance Klusener could fit that bill too. As I think I mentioned on his retirement thread BMacs aura far exceeded his tangible results, somewhat like Beefy Botham if that makes sense.
 
Our "firepower" down the order is still a bit hit or miss for my liking. Sure they did the biz against Pakistan but last nights low order hitting was diabolical. The BCs won which is great but everybody knows the team should have scored at least 50 more runs.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="557391" data-time="1454929924">
<div>
We'll actually probably end up more balanced as we will drop Ronchi & pick a genuine keeper / batsman to open (Latham / Watling) and a slogger who bowls a bit low down (Munro, Neesham) 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I agree but I just don't think Munro and Neesham are quite comparable.
 
Having Latham at keeper and opener makes perfect sense. We aren't too strong with the openers and it means our lower order can be more balanced. If we pick Neesham, we can pick 3 quicks, Santner, Anderson and Neesham which gives us plenty of options. Then we can also just pick someone like Munro if we don't need the bowling so much. Other options to open would be guys like George Worker and he isn't a slogger anyway.

taniwharugby

you'd have to think McCullums boots that need filling are more to do with the team, decisions and attitude he brings to the team rather than the average 30 runs off a little over 5 overs in a 1-Dayer.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="557563" data-time="1454991939">
<div>
I agree but I just don't think Munro and Neesham are quite comparable.
 
Having Latham at keeper and opener makes perfect sense. We aren't too strong with the openers and it means our lower order can be more balanced. If we pick Neesham, we can pick 3 quicks, Santner, Anderson and Neesham which gives us plenty of options. Then we can also just pick someone like Munro if we don't need the bowling so much. Other options to open would be guys like George Worker and he isn't a slogger anyway.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I like that bowling line up and it offers a nice 6,7,8 combo of CA, JN and MS all of whom have real talent. Given our lower order aren't mugs that to me looks a pretty solid middle-lower order.
 
Only question I have is what is Lathams keeping like ?

Virgil

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="557581" data-time="1454998597">
<div>
you'd have to think McCullums boots that need filling are more to do with the team, decisions and attitude he brings to the team rather than the average 30 runs off a little over 5 overs in a 1-Dayer.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's true and I think McCullum will be a big loss in that regard. I think we are lucky that Williamson is somewhat experienced as a captain now.

Gunner

Neesham. All very well and good - if we can get him on the park. 
Love the idea of Herb, him and Satnav at 6,7,8 though. 
But the chances of that happening on a regular basis are slim to fuck all, due to the fact at least one of them seems to be injured at any given time. 
Just throwing ideas around as a plan b, so doesn't mean I'd necessarily go for this, but any love out there to go like for like and pick a guy like Munro to open? Then have Latham/Watling at 7?

gollum

Cricinfo have done their usually in depth drill down into Baz
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-australia-2015-16/content/story/970491.html'>http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-australia-2015-16/content/story/970491.html</a>

Immenso Rapido

There's no way Latham keeps and opens. There's no way any sane thinking selection panel wants to muddy the role of their young test opener with ODI keeping distractions. 
He's already got a a full time job, and he needs to do a lot of work to get better at it. 
Giving him an ODI batting spot is another matter, could help polish some parts of his game. 
I would go: Watling at 5 for ODIs, Elliott shuffles on about now anyway (gets a bit messy if Eliott keeps aceing it) with hitters at 6 and 7 . 
I wouldn't want the same keeper in all 3 formats. I wouldn't want to mess with Watling's test game too much. Someone new keeps for T20s (de Boorder probably as filler for a few years). Edit. I'm talking post T20 world cup. For this tournament we are either stuck with Ronchi or draft in Watling. I wouldn't got too worked up about this one with it being in Asia plus Baz's poorly timed retirement.

TeWaio

An <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/37737.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting'>ODI average of 30.41</a> is clearly underwhelming in today's age: among the <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=5000;qualval1=runs;spanmin1=01+jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting'>42 batsmen</a> who have scored at least 5000 ODI runs since 2000, only Shahid Afridi has a lower average. 
that is a damning stat

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="TeWaio" data-cid="557611" data-time="1455015563">
<div>
An <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/37737.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting'>ODI average of 30.41</a> is clearly underwhelming in today's age: among the <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=5000;qualval1=runs;spanmin1=01+jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting'>42 batsmen</a> who have scored at least 5000 ODI runs since 2000, only Shahid Afridi has a lower average. 
that is a damning stat
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Worse when you recall Afridi also has 400 ODI wickets....

ACT Crusader

Who cares about stats, I know I don't. Sure I would've loved for him to stay down in our middle order where he could unleash, but because of a number of factors he played up the order. 
But for me Baz brought confidence, even a bit of swag to NZ cricket that IMO was much needed to get us through a transition period. To me that means more than any batting average or other stats. I thought he handled himself with great professionalism but took up any challenge with confidence and an attacking attitude. I think he is a big part of why the future looks tremendously bright for NZ cricket.

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="557618" data-time="1455017148">
Who cares about stats, I know I don't. Sure I would've loved for him to stay down in our middle order where he could unleash, but because of a number of factors he played up the order. 
But for me Baz brought confidence, even a bit of swag to NZ cricket that IMO was much needed to get us through a transition period. To me that means more than any batting average or other stats. I thought he handled himself with great professionalism but took up any challenge with confidence and an attacking attitude. I think he is a big part of why the future looks tremendously bright for NZ cricket.</blockquote>
I don't think anyone can argue that the Hesson McCullum partnership hasnt been a roaring success

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="557622" data-time="1455020630">
<div>
I don't think anyone can argue that the Hesson McCullum partnership has been a roaring success
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You mean "hasn't" right?
 
Tho' I'd argue its maybe more that the Boult-Kane-Taylor partnership has been the key to that success. Or even Edgar who was the guy who pushed through the best change in that period - select good players & then not drop them 2 games later. Consistency of selection has been a far bigger driver of our success than anything else.

Siam

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="557623" data-time="1455021768">
<div>
You mean "hasn't" right?
 
Tho' I'd argue its maybe more that the Boult-Kane-Taylor partnership has been the key to that success. Or even Edgar who was the guy who pushed through the best change in that period - select good players & then not drop them 2 games later. Consistency of selection has been a far bigger driver of our success than anything else.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You can't stand any praise of McCullum or Hesson can you?
 
So we didn't get much out of Hesson and Baz, because Edgar's selection strategies are BY FAR the biggest driver of our success?
 
piffle
 
Credit where it's due, the funny little fella pulling the strings and Baz's "back yourself" attitude has been the biggest differentiator of this team in my 40 years of watching them

The Silver Fern

Filling McCullums&#39; Boots in ODIs

Filling McCullums' Boots in ODIs