The difference between Clark Kent and Daniel Vettori is that Clark Kent took his glasses off before saving the day.
India had slowed down a little but were still ahead of the rate, seemingly cruising to victory when Vettori brought himself back on for the 17th over. Yusuf Pathan could not make much out of the first two balls, but latched on to the third, sending a screamer back over the bowler’s head. A certain four, quite likely six. Except that SuperDan leapt, stuck both hands in the air and despite being knocked sideways by the force of the blow, was still clinging on to the ball when he hit the ground.
It was a stunning catch. The remaining Indian batsmen seemed dazed as they pushed and prodded for singles and scrambled twos when boundaries were needed. The crowd in the Upper Compton stand, which had been shouting loud enough for an entire full house, stopped mid-yell and sat in shock as the game slipped away.
Catches indeed win matches – even in a form of the game where wicket-taking is theoretically optional.
Not that this was Vettori’s only influence on the Indian innings. Gautam Gambhir and Rohit Sharma had started well, Gambhir falling at the end of the fifth over with the score on 42 to bring danger man MS Dhoni to the crease. Dhoni began with dot-four-two and then Vettori brought himself on for the first over after the powerplay. By the end of the over, he had disposed of both Dhoni and Sharma, and India wobbled slightly. Since Raina and Ravindra Jadeja soon picked up the pace, it did not seem to have mattered all that much; in hindsight, perhaps it left them a batsman short right at the end. And of course it was Vettori whose sharp pick-up and throw ran out Irfan Pathan to extinguish India’s remaining hopes.
Other than Vettori, the rest of the participants in the game mostly did what you probably expected them to. Raina and Sharma hit the ball sweetly, Ross Taylor and Scott Styris aggressively, and Brendon McCullum batted with the grace and subtlety of an out-of-tune Motorhead.
I do not demand classical purity of technique. I’ve watched in awe as Brian Lara and Kevin Pietersen invented shots I’d never seen before. I’ve weathered, just, the storm as Viv Richards the Master Blaster unleashed his elemental power. I love it that the unorthodox jostles with the technically correct to enrich this wonderful game.
But that does not mean I have to approve of McCullum’s batting.
Effective it may be – when it comes off – but it is ugly, ugly, ugly. I do not for a minute accept that Twenty20 is some horrible mutant as the form’s most vehement detractors would have you believe, but McCullum is the sort of unhelpful evidence the defence does not need to have brought before the court. At the very least, his innings ought to be regarded as not suitable viewing for impressionable young minds – but since the whole idea of this tournament is to get the kids watching, I fear that a whole generation may be corrupted while such menace is allowed out on a cricket field.
Over the next three weeks we will see brilliance and incompetence, thrilling games and bad ones, beauty, courage, comedy, athleticism, determination, clumsiness, impudence, passion, triumph and despair. And McCullum’s batting.
We got most of those at Lord's on Monday evening. As a warm-up, India v New Zealand was just about perfect.
Ugly it may well be, but certainly effective and no uglier nor worse than others worth (dis)honorable mentions;
Dhoni
Collingwood
It's probably just the nature of the 20/20 beast, though I'll admit to nightmares of a whole generation of test players swinging themselves off their feet in the 43rd and last over of the match (on the 2nd day).
Posted by: Kiwi_london at June 2, 2009 8:21 AM
Regarding your comments on McCullum, It's the nature of the best that is 20-20 cricket. You have to improvise and do things out of the "box" to be effective and hit boundaries. He plays with this is mind, trying to hit boundaries everyball, it may be ugly at times, but its proven to be damn effective. He plays in the similar mindset as players like Sehwag. But in both cases we have seen beautiful test cricket innings from both of them at certain times, where they play the orthodox shots more powerfully and eloquently then anyone in the game.
20/20 is just that, hit and miss. Its where you can have a license and try new things. At least McCullum keeps his eye on the ball, unlike one particular all rounder :)
Posted by: Indian_London at June 2, 2009 9:37 AM
I don't think it is right to compare the brilliance of Sehwag with utilitarian batting of McCullum. Brendon may be playing with the same mindset as Sehwag, but there is a gaping hole in terms of talent, ability and quality of outcome.
Posted by: amit singh at June 2, 2009 11:34 AM
Well if there is a prize for the most ugly batting style , I think Dhoni should win it hands down!!..
It was also evident in the way how stupid he was made to look by Dan when he managed to push through the ball between his feet!!..
Posted by: Dunga at June 2, 2009 12:24 PM
Why shouldn't a generation of kids be learning how to bat that way if it seems to work, huh?
As far as I can tell, you're further into the whole 'Twenty20 will kill cricket' then anyone else.
Ignoring the positive impact it has had on some countries, of course!
Posted by: Saurabh at June 2, 2009 1:25 PM
I dont think McCullum's batting should be compared to Sehwag, where Sehwag is timing and placement, McCullum is sheer force.
But what matters is that T20 needs such batting.
We all know how Yusuf Pathan lacks technical soundness of Cricket shot, but after his heorics in IPL 1, he is now a part of Indian T20 team.
So Ugly may be the word to McCullum's batting but all said and done, its effective and he is integral memebr of Kiwi side.
Posted by: Voice at June 2, 2009 8:02 PM
Ugly? Ugly? Ugly? Different people, different strokes, I guess.
When McCullum bats, its one of the most beautiful instances of batting I have ever seen. I have seen him perform magic with that bat of his, and play some unbelievable shots ..McCullum's batting is actually beautiful, classy cricket.
If we can use the word 'ugly' to describe anybody's batting, its Dhoni who comes to mind. But I still won't call his batting ugly, because as far as you can make it work, its all good. And thats the beauty of cricket.
And some might find it unfair to compare McCullum and Sehwag but there are people who actually prefer McCullum to Sehwag. Sehwag is an amazing batsman, but so is McCullum and they both play to their strengths. In the end it mostly comes down to everybody's own preferences. And I find McCullum one of the most gifted batsmen, especially in the t20 format of the game.
[Mike: As you say, each to their own. I may question your taste, as you question mine, but that is one of the reasons why so many different people love this sport. We each find different things in it. Cricinfo are kind enough to offer me a regular platform to broadcast my tastes, but that does not mean that my opinions are any morevalid than yours - and of course, vice versa. Thanks for defending McCullum.]
Posted by: Aghast at June 3, 2009 12:30 AM
The great Lara and Pietersen in the same sentence about batting technique? Is nothing sacred anymore???
Posted by: elcabron at June 3, 2009 1:29 AM
What a load of Rubbish, McCullum on his day is as good as any batsman out there.
I also find it rather humerous that apparntly McCullums talent is apparantly not upto Sehwags standard,indeed the comment of a closed minded patriot, The only problem with McCullum and indeed all of New Zealands batsman is some form of consistancy which seems to be permantly lacking.
Posted by: Ben Gussey at June 3, 2009 6:25 AM
The problem with McCullum is that he does not seem to have the natural ability to always be in the zone. When he is on song he looks as good as anyone but sometimes he appears so out of touch he has to adapt to a more "rugged" style of batting, rather than the fluent style he is sometimes capable of. I've found that his technique changes more drastically from innings to innings than probably any other international cricketer.
Posted by: Pranav at June 3, 2009 10:48 AM
My tuppence worth: I think while the patriot may have been close-minded indeed, the fact that one has a Test match batting average of fifty plus does make him the better player. But that's because some of still give Tests more weightage than the shorter formats. If you're talking only ODIs/T20, however, i'd go for McCullum. And neither would make my world XI.
Posted by: KiwiShamoo at June 3, 2009 2:39 PM
I seem to recall similar comments when a certain Mr V Richards challenged the English orthodoxy with a batting style based more on raw power than an elegant follow-through. Hitting across the line, one hand off the bat, tut tut such impudence...in hindsight, he's now revered as one of the greats....
Posted by: Dave at June 3, 2009 11:01 PM
As a Kiwi... I think some of you are over-simplifying. Our Brendon _is_ batting a bit ugly of late - compared say to his work of early last year. The miracle is that he's getting runs at all; each innings seems more painful than the one at all. You have to remember the guy is continually deluged with advice on how he paced his batting wrong in the previous game (so is Sehwag, but he seems to have the gift of ignoring everyone else?). The results haven't been pretty as he tries to work out mid-crease whether he is supposed to be charging or grafting this week. I don't feel that he's been able to develop any form, maybe not even practice, as one or the other. It's a real credit to the bloke that he can play and fight those demons at the same time.
[Mike: An interesting point, for which much thanks. I'll also note that in Luke Wright, England have also discovered someone whose batting is pretty horrible to watch.]
Posted by: 2020 at June 4, 2009 2:31 AM
Are you english or something? English batsmen, the likes of bell etc, are rubbish because they have this idea of 'class and style' which has absolutely no correlation to scoring runs. Objective in 2020 is to score runs FAST. You mould yourself to this end and forget about looking 'classy' or 'ellegant'. Lara and Petterson, hmmm how well have they done in 2020
Posted by: Adhil at June 4, 2009 5:03 AM
Mccullum has played much better innings than that before. i think this blogger has blown that innings way out of proportion. atleast mccullum looks better than dhoni when he bats. mr indian.london,what makes sehwag such quality for you, when all he does is basically slog? if you said rohit sharma being an indian fan is quality, then its undebatable. but sehwag? there are far better batsmen like gayle who are better than him even with his posture at the crease so sehwag isn't superior to any other mate!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 4, 2009 3:56 PM
Sehwag is an amazing talent to watch. im a kiwi and comparisons between him and McCullum are fair but Sehwag is superior at this point.
Bell fails because he has no balls, he can only score runs when others have first cleared the path.
Posted by: imran_Dublin at June 5, 2009 9:11 AM
Well---Thats true, one might call it ugly, but comparing McCullum with Sehwag wouldnt be a fair play, i personally think McCullum is a fearless player no matter he is going after fast bowlers or the spinners,once he is on the crease he does have that tendency of hitting anyone out of park,unlikely, sehwag would fall against firey pace,has happened in recent times,when he played fast bowler with fear in the eyes and falling on the ball,having nothing in it but just shear pace. overall, McCullum is a brave player and on his day he can nail anyone. And in this form of cricket, McCullum becomes more critical and i think he is alot more stylish as well. He can play all he shots in the book.The player one would like to see in T20 format is Razzaq,and i know no one would say that there is any better hitter of cricket ball other than him.
Samir Chopra lives in Brooklyn and teaches Computer Science and Philosophy at the City University of New York; his academic interests include the philosophical foundations of artificial intelligence and the politics of technology. In his third undergraduate year, he captained Mathematics in the departmental cricket competition (and lost to Chemistry in the first round). Samir played C-grade cricket in Sydney and makes guest appearances for his old club when possible (and desirable). Samir runs the blog Eye on Cricket and the cricket page at The Faster Times.
Paul Ford is a co-founder of the New Zealand cricket supporters' cult, the Beige Brigade. He was once described by a current New Zealand cricketer as "looking spastic" even mucking about with an Excalibur and a tennis ball in the backyard. Paul bowls right-armed Nathan Astlesque "nudes", his batting would make Ewen Chatfield look elegant, and he is a committed fielder. He sometimes grows a beard to hide his double chin and inhabits a periphery of cricket that Cricinfo is proud to be glimpsing through this blog.
Stephen Gelb grew up in Cape Town, a short walk from the beautiful Newlands ground. Always a better student of the game than player, his passion for cricket survived eight years as a student in Canada, where he learned to love baseball too. He lives in Johannesburg doing economic research at The EDGE Institute and teaching at Wits University.
Mike Holmans, a database consultant by profession, has spent thirty summers (and a few winters) going to the cricket. Brought up in one and working in the other, his dearest wish is for a season to end with Yorkshire winning the county championship by beating runners-up Middlesex by one wicket with five minutes to go. If it’s also a summer when England win the Ashes, so much the better.
Born in Colombo, educated at Oxford and now living in Brisbane - Michael Jeh (Fox) is a cricket lover with a global perspective on the game. An Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, he is a Playing Member of the MCC and still plays grade cricket. His views on cricket might best be described as those of a "modern traditionalist". Michael now works closely with elite athletes in his job as a manager at Griffith University in Queensland.
Saad Shafqat takes special pride that his cricket-watching life began during the three-month interval between Javed Miandad's debut Test in Lahore and Imran Khan's 12-wicket haul at Sydney. Although a practicing neurologist based in Karachi, cricket has never been far from his activities. He has co-authored Javed Miandad’s autobiography Cutting Edge and has been a contributor to Cricinfo since 2005. His regular column Reverse Swing appears fortnightly in Dawn, Pakistan’s leading English daily.
RSS Feed
