A "fine" leader doesn't bat like that in a world cup final against Australia in Australia. Can't believe Kiwi's defend that innings.
I'll defend that innings, and I appear to be the most critical Kiwi of McCullum. But it is in test cricket that I hold my reservations of BMac.
He played that way all world cup tournament. He made the ICC World Cup XI despite that innings.
To change the game plan, having made the final, would have been a bigger mistake. If he had made a quick 30 or 40, it would have sent a strong message to the team, this is just another game and we're off to a good start. Just play it like we have all summer. He makes a 100, and NZ is odds on to win that much by the 20 over mark. He played crucial innings of 50 or so (and more) runs off sfa deliveries that helped NZ get to the final by playing that way all tournament.
The problem is he is a eager batsman of limited ability but an absolutely brilliant striker of the ball. He was not even watching the ball by his own admission. The eagerness got the better part of him, like they often do in games by his own admission. Just some games, he clears the ropes a few times, bowlers are on the back foot, and he takes over. That has nothing to do with his captaincy, but his batsmanship and ability. They are separate issues. If he had succeeded, the batting line up to follow can then downhill ski off a big run rate established, like they so often do.
Noone in their right mind would choose McCullum to bat for their life, the ol' classic Steve Waugh or Allan Border test saving captain's innings knock, despite his 300 against India in test cricket. But many would choose him to kickstart a limited overs innings with Gayle.
And in no way can BMac be blamed for the middle order collapse largely carried out by Faulkner - which was far more decisive in that match.