As an England fan - despite how it seemed in my last piece - it’s tempting to cast an envious glance at other countries players. In days gone by, we'd stare longingly at Shane Warne - when not cowering in fear - thinking, "Why can't we have one of those?" When we did, he was called Ian Salisbury.
Now, as I watch West Indies play New Zealand, it could be tempting wish for Trent Boult, or Tim Southee, but most of all, I'd like to scoop out Brendon McCullum's brain, liquidise it, then inject the resulting cricketing goo into Alastair Cook.
Zombification aside, McCullum gets a lot of credit, and deserves most of it. When he declared, setting a West Indies team with a long tail 308 in at most 98 overs, but likely a lot less given the weather forecast, he got more credit than he deserved. It was the only reasonable option, of course he took it.
That decision is only brave in comparison to timid, defensive modern captaincy. What would Alastair Cook do is unlikely to become a phrase on wristbands. What would BB McCullum do may not abbreviate well (WWBBMCD), but it's a far more exciting way to live.
The only dangerous factor was Chris Gayle, but his only real attacking zeal in the series came in a calculated blast at a run chase less than half the length. Could he have tried it for a bigger target? If he had, it could have been over in one ball or after a fifty ball double century. Still, that would have been brave.
Rewind just over a year and think back to England's Second Test win over New Zealand. That was the last time Alastair Cook got a century, but it was also the first time his captaincy was seriously questioned. Up to that point, few were enthused by his style, but 2-1 in India shut up the doubters, and captaincy wasn't the problem when all three Tests were drawn in New Zealand on deathly dull pitches.
Then he deferred a declaration for about two hours more than most judges recommended. Still, England won the match, so wasn't he 'vindicated'? Well, by being ultra-conservative England gambled with time, just as capricious an enemy as their actual opponents. They may have beaten New Zealand soundly, but with that sound beating, they shouldn't have run it so fine against time.
Until Cook grasps that setting a target isn't just about batting the opponent out of contention then declaring, nothing will change. Until he understands that sometimes a carrot must be dangled, sometimes losing may have to be risked to ensure there is enough time to win, England won't progress.
If England aren't progressing, at their current rate New Zealand may soon overtake them. As of the end of England's last Test, New Zealand were eight points behind, and that gap will close with this win over the West Indies. Brendon McCullum hasn't accumulated as many runs as Alastair Cook, but he has accumulated plaudits for his captaincy.
McCullum is a livewire in the field. Cook vegetates at first slip. McCullum makes changes often and decisively. Cook lets the game drift. McCullum has no truck with convention unless it wins him games. Cook at his most inventive is a leg-slip or a short cover.
Contrary to what I wrote earlier, I'm not sure that McCullum is a brilliant strategist a la Richie Benaud or Mike Brearley, but he is inventive and ever-changing. He reminds me of a different Essex player and England captain: Nasser Hussain.
That was a man who was brave. That was a man who led from the front. Perhaps Cook could find a mentor?