The thinking man's weekend wrap: Clarke, McCullum and Higginbotham's captain's tale

Apparently there was a game of 50-over cricket played on Saturday. One which, with apologies to Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, left me dazed and confused.

We have become conditioned to run of the mill, limited overs games where the pitch is prepared for batsmen, who duly take advantage to knock up 300 or so, including what is usually an obligatory dull, accumulation period in the middle overs.

Where fielding captains have to juggle their bowling resources, using strike bowlers for short spells only, in and around padding things out with the second stringers and part-timers.

How refreshing it was then to see what was effectively Test cricket being played at Eden Park. It was as if the overs and time were irrelevant, it was simply two sides doing everything they could to get the other side out. And doing a rather good job of it too.

Not that it started out that way. Black Caps skipper Brendon McCullum’s early introduction of Dan Vettori was purely a defensive measure, designed to stem the bleeding from a strangely erratic Tim Southee and a reluctance to expose Adam Milne too early.

Shane Watson duly obliged, selling his wicket cheaper than a Mumbai tailor shifts dodgy dinner suits, followed next ball by Southee getting one to straighten beautifully on Warner.

McCullum’s prime skill as captain is his instinct. Just as he did against England, he was immediately in tune with the opportunity, engaging his strike bowlers for their full allotment of overs, to hell with the consequences of who might bowl out the last 15 or 20 overs.

Too many captains extend their responsibilities no further than the toss, confirming the batting order, and setting a field. McCullum has learned that it is within his power to influence the path and outcome of a match, and is consistently being rewarded for that.

By contrast, his counterpart Michael Clarke came into the match, in racing parlance, in need of the run.

Critics weighed into Clarke, citing his ‘soft’ dismissal to short cover, and his decision to take Mitchell Starc out of the attack after six overs, as conclusive proof of a cognitive deficiency, or even insanity. Which is no fairer nor truer than the rubbish spouted by the hordes who immediately flocked to other forums blaming the presence of Tony Abbott for the loss.

At the time I and many others felt that Clarke should have kept going with Starc, which hindsight shows to be correct. But this was no hanging offence. He was outpointed here by McCullum no question but, more to the point, he simply didn’t have enough runs to play with.

The whole behind the scenes power struggle involving Clarke is, frankly, as tiresome as driving up Punt Road in peak hour. He is the incumbent captain, he is fit, there is still a lot of cricket to be played in this world cup, and he (and his team) will be all the better for Saturday’s experience.

That the match reached such a thrilling conclusion was great credit to the players involved, particularly Starc, Trent Boult and Kane Williamson. Boult’s five wickets were well deserved but surely his most telling and composed contribution was to get in behind Starc’s penultimate ball and get a straight bat onto it.

If he had his time again Williamson may not have exposed Milne, Southee and Boult, but, having been allowed the opportunity to remedy his error, he iced the game in a single shot. Ironically he sent the ball sailing over Glen Maxwell’s head, who it emerges moments earlier was caught on video simulating choking, to the crowd at long on.

In a match where batsmen clearly struggled against quality bowling, Williamson shone like a beacon. He didn’t play a false shot in attack or defence, and looked to be in another class altogether than his teammates.

Should these sides meet again in the semis or final, the tactical considerations for Clarke and McCullum will be fascinating.

There is no rule which compels these sides to score at six-plus runs per over. Both skippers would do well to temper some of the testosterone-fuelled arrogance in their charges and – if the conditions are such and the opposition bowlers are coming as hard as they were on Saturday – demand that their batsmen build an innings, graft even, to ensure that the full overs are batted out and 240-250 is still achieved.

A bit “old school” I know but, in situations like these, well worth a try.

With this is mind, New Zealand will think hard about using Tom Latham next time. He is a Test opening batsman, a good one at that, far more capable than Grant Elliot of seeing off a white-hot Starc, if the game needs the heat taken out of it for a few overs.

As this match so starkly demonstrated (no pun intended), a flying start of 80 off a handful of overs does not guarantee a score of 300 plus. Heck it doesn’t even guarantee 150.

Captain three is Eoin Morgan. Watching his awful body language as his limp England attack withered under assault from Lahiru Thirimanne and Kumar Sangakarra, I almost felt sorry for him. Almost.

That England can be so abjectly thrashed by Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka and still potentially play a role at the business end is a stunning indictment on this tournament.

Another captain who knows how it feels to walk in Morgan’s shoes is Jason Holder. After five overs against South Africa his figures read 1 wicket for 9 runs. For a West Indies quick these days, that’s nearly as good as it gets. Five overs later they read 10 overs, two for 104.

This was mostly due to another captain, AB de Villiers. His stunning assault on the Windies bowling in Sydney had to be seen to be believed, moving from 100 to 150 in 12 balls!

Our final captain is the bewildering Scott Higginbotham. For the second week running he was interviewed immediately following his Melbourne Rebels losing a hard fought match at home, this time to the Brumbies. Again struggling to put a finger on the reason for his side’s loss, a frustrated Higgers cited the usual suspects like failure to stick to the game plan and to execute better.

He used the proverbial ‘we’ exclusively.

If Higgers watches a replay, he would surely substitute ‘we’ for ‘I’. If he looks carefully he will identify the Rebels player who spurned easy points from kickable shots at goal, when everyone knew that a rain storm was close at hand. He will also identify who twice spilled the ball forward through loose carries, in promising second half attacking raids.

And he will surely pick up which player blatantly pulled down a Brumbies attacking maul, leaving his side a man down in the bin, from where the Brumbies scored the crucial, match winning try.

Higginbotham will live to fight another day, just as will Michael Clarke. It will be fascinating to see which one learns best from their weekend loss.