Happy Holidays

Hello Cricket Fans!

Hope the holiday season finds you in good cheer and filled with more food and liquor than drunk Scotsman stumbling in a Soho doorway (or if you're a kiwi - ...than Jesse Ryder). May you avoid the burnt skin typical of a naive tourist to New Zealand while you bask in sunshine at any cricket ground to watch the sport that we all enjoy so much. Please avoid the need to go duck shooting like the Pakistan cricket team did in Christchurch last night - that comes in the first week of May guys!
Now I realise that I promised a last official post before the end of 2010, unfortunately unforeseen events have prevented me from finishing it in time (before you ask, nothing to do with holiday cheer/Christmas hangover - sadly). As such I will attempt to post it early next week
Just one observation to keep your addiction to reading this blog alive, at the beginning of 2010 Ricky Ponting made 200 against Pakistan in Hobart to reignite his faltering career and inspire his young, inexperienced team ahead of an Ashes season...
...how things have changed

Happy New Year everyone and I hope you join me again in 2011 for World Cup Year and the next installments in the compelling drama that is Cricket

The necessary media round-up

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Although not quite as carrion-bird-like as post-Bangladesh the media machine has offered up various opinions and 'experts' thoughts following a disappointing ODI series loss in India. Now before I get to some specific articles I want to clear up one mistake that seems to appear too often and that is the notion of the opposition being the Indian B side. This is almost true in that several top players were not playing (Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dhoni and Harbhajan) - although any person who considered Dravid and Laxman part of the A Side shouldn't be reporting for the Dannevirke News let alone any other. The fact that the Indian team on show performed far better than the Black Caps says more about Indian depth than New Zealand's frailty. So let's have no more of that!

Of all the opinions presented this week I found the following article best matched mine: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/cricket/news/article.cfm?c_id=29&objectid=10693724 by Andrew Alderson. He looks at several important details surrounding the coach/management structure and highlights the lack of preparation IN India before the series began. In another article the same writer brings up other issues that I think need mentioning:

• Kane Williamson has played 9 ODIs with only 1 victory and 8 losses - what must this do to his development?
• Just as damaging may have been the decision to place him at 3 (instead of Taylor) - a position he is clearly not ready for just yet

From this I couldn't help but question whether Ross Taylor's development is being poisoned by the label of, not just A senior batsman but, THE senior batsman. Vettori is still a bowling-captain and this leaves Taylor to be the inspiration, the leader and/or the target of the top order; at least Crowe had other batsmen around him in the early 1980s. The other reason I begin to worry about this possibility is what Martin Crowe said himself when referring to Stephen Fleming's career. He suspected that, burdened by captaincy at such a young age, Fleming was robbed of crucial years of batting development that may explain the inability to convert 50s that remained for the entirety of his career. The sad thing is, if this proves to be true of Taylor, there would be little that could be done to reverse/prevent it. Not until Ryder and McCullum establish themselves can the pressure come off Ross Taylor I fear
Finally Alderson's article above ends with, almost a plea, the realisation that Vettori MUST captain on after the World Cup (not currently his intention). The batting is only just beginning to find some structure and the last thing needed is to foist the captaincy on one of them

Now for the dregs

• Mark Richardson (largely a good article by his standards) doesn't want to hear the term 'our world-class players' used anymore. Well sir perhaps you shouldn't have used the term in your commentary/advertising of the team in the first place.
• Similar to this would be the description of Vettori's role as a selector as a 'controversial' appointment - a term used ONLY by the media who failed to realise that most captains are selectors in all but name anyway. Former players were willing to give it a chance - that chance may well have occurred and produced nothing but the experiment was worth it
• Now sadly, before you subscribe to Andrew Alderson (see above) he also suggested that Chris Martin be drafted in to the World Cup squad if Tuffey remains injured. Well I have one question, is there possibly a reason that Martin hasn't been playing ODI cricket this whole time anyway? (I'm not referring exclusively to his batting either)

And here is Jonathan Millmow for his second appearance on this blog. His first appearance here was almost as unpleasant for him as it was for the people reading his article. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/4450685/Changes-sorely-needed-to-grab-that-elusive-W Here he picks his ODI team going forward and thoughts regarding the World Cup and strangely enough I AGREE with most of his selection. In particular his moving of Brendon McCullum back to 6 or 7 which is long overdue (I don't have time to expand on this now but I believe I covered it in previous posts). Having said that I do have a some thoughts after reading his article:

• Was the 5-0 result in India equivalent to the 4-0 to Bangladesh? Serious question but my inclination is to say no the latter was more embarrassing given that the rot hadn't set in at that point and the Black Caps were expected to win (whereas winning the India series was always a tough ask - competency was what I wanted)
• The big disagreement I have with Millmow's team is the dropping of McKay who seems to be a wicket taker with pace and reverse swing; you have other bowlers to be tight, wicket taking is the key in Asia

A couple of statistical points by David Leggat sum up the problems for me though:

“New Zealand's batsmen managed five half centuries, two by Franklin batting at No 6. India produced four centuries and four fifties, and all bar Yusuf Pathan's spanking 123 not out in the fourth ODI came from batsmen in the top three.

Spinner Ravi Ashwin's 11 wickets matched the combined return of Daryl Tuffey, Mills, Dan Vettori, Nathan McCullum and Tim Southee. Ashwin's came in 47 overs; New Zealand's quintet needed 129.5 overs”

And now for something completely different (forgive me Monty Python) a point on the Ashes before the end of the year. Although most of the last week in Australia has been spent coming up with better puns surrounding the name Michael Beer (...selectors must have had Beer goggles... OR ...Australia will hope they have finally produced a quality beer...) there was one development that struck me during Day 1 of the Perth Test. Has anyone noticed how much the New Zealand commentary team seems to have influenced the Channel 9 one? Whether its the very negative-towards-your-own-team style that Ian Healy has suddenly adopted (reminiscent of Ian Smith) or Slater's rationale of 'Hughes hasn't got the runs at First Class level of late but that just means he's due' which is straight out of our own commentary manual, there is definitely some change there. It may be sad to see the Australian team in decline but the hard days should do wonders for the famously bias and pompous team calling the game.
Lastly, an apology to anyone that was told by this writer that the Perth test would begin on Wednesday when in fact it began Thursday. I pride myself on knowing such things and am sorry for any confusion or disappointment this may have caused.

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

You call that analysis? This is analysis

Hello and welcome back to my blog

After 2.1 overs of the Adelaide test Australia were 3-2 with Katich, Ponting and Clarke all gone for ducks and Englishmen might have remembered what it felt like when they fell to such as score in South Africa in 1999. Here is the footage of that collapse where the tourists were quickly 4-2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaJ8-4jrCWQ

The keen observer may notice a couple differences between that day in Johannesburg and the beginning of the test in South Australia last week. For instance the bowler was Allan Donald at his best, the deliveries were swinging square at pace and the conditions were very much in favour of the bowler. Thus the English camp should be filled with pride and ambition and those next door with green caps, quite the opposite; 260 may have been an acceptable score on Day 5 of the Adelaide Oval test but not Day 1 and after this happened only rain stood in England's path to victory.

Before I get into my musings on how Australia might try to move forward and whether England will let them, I have to bring up the following article which I found while reading up on other opinions. This is from the New Zealand Herald this week about the fall of the Australian cricket team (a cliched topic in itself):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10692320 by Christopher Rattue and apparently not read by an editor. I thought this was a terrible piece on several levels which I will now run through by order of appearance:

• Right first of all although I can see why he needs to diminish England at the beginning to support his argument, that doesn't give him the right to prop them up again later in the article - you can't have it both ways!
• If memory serves me Australia were only narrowly beaten in the first test of the recent India tour (a mistake I have noticed in other publications) - don't just look at 2-0 and think you know what happened
• As for the picking of Xavier Doherty, I think it was quite clear they simply panicked in the face of Pietersen, a stupid move but not entirely without logic (perhaps they forgot the word 'good' in front of 'slow-left-arm-spinner' but there we are). The real reason this selection was indicative of poor planning is mentioned below and is certainly not in Rattue's piece (nor could you expect it to be)
• The mentioning of Test Cricket's eminent death seems to be the sports journalist's little toy they carry around these days. They drop it in there to try and seem all-knowing. I'm starting to think it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy - but I don't have space to go into that today sadly
• The obvious turn around in Ashes fortunes bares a better resemblance to that of the 1980s than a boxing reference. The article paints a picture of an author not well versed in Ashes history...
• ...as he proves again when talking about England's lack of significant victories in the 15 years before 2005. It wasn't that England barely won a match - there was just one victory between 1987 and 2005 (where the series was still alive) and it was Edgebaston in 1997 - a much better point of reference for comparisons and analysis (see below)

Do you see the collapsing scenery yet? Not quite well that was just the first half of the article.

• The second part is simply bizarre with no coherent structure as statements are simply dropped in without much explanation.
• "The boot is not only on the other foot, but planted firmly on Australia's throat" - a simple sigh at this point (cliche, as you know, should be avoided like the plague)
• Lastly, I don't think it wise to trust the seriousness of any writer that uses the word 'yonks' as a measure of time

I realise that by the end I was having a bit of fun at Rattue's expense but there is a serious consequence to poor analysis like this. The discussion needs to begin with more background knowledge and less knee jerk, cliche enveloped writing is required to get people thinking. Without it the public settle for questions like 'why is Brendon McCullum being so lazy?' instead of 'why don't we have a competent keeper-batsman to pick from any of the six domestic teams?'


Now for MY Ashes analysis

The scoreline reads 1-0 to England after two tests and Australia appear toothless with the ball and overpowered with the bat. Earlier I mentioned that England only won 1 Ashes match between 1987 and 2005 (while the series was alive), that match was in 1997 and that series looked the same after two tests with a 1-0 lead to the hosts (England). Australia came back to win that series 3-2 and the main thing that may prevent the same thing happening again is the absence of Steve Waugh (who made twin centuries in the crucial third match of 1997), Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne - the greatest match winners of all. I know the absence of these two is ALWAYS trumped up as the excuse for any Australian loss these days but in this case it is a singular example of the cost their retirements have on the team. Australia needed to draw this game as much as England needed to avoid defeat in Brisbane, now I fear England have the momentum but Australia may have one last hope
Australia require a bold and risky strategy of attacking England in the next test at Perth. This will likely come from the batting which still has some stability in the middle (of all places given form up until this series) and thus Philip Hughes is essential to replace the injured Katich and attack the bowling before Swann can come on. North may be dropped as well - if only because he seems weak to spin in the same way Martyn and Katich were to reverse-swing in 2005 (and weren't dropped to Australia's detriment) - a new face in the middle is needed.

Stuart Broad is out for the series for England and his place will be taken by one of Bresnan, Tremlett and Shahzad. These three will play this weekend in a tour game in Melbourne - I would recommend that Tremlett play as the most natural replacement (Bresnan is more in the mold of the all-rounder but England don't really need more batsmen and Shahzad may be more useful at the MCG come December 26th). Whichever bowler is selected, Australia will fancy their chance against a different attack and on a different wicket
Speaking of the pitch, for about the fifth season in a row the word is that the WACCA will be hard and fast like the days of Lillee and Thomson. This shouldn't be believed for a second given that for the last four seasons the 'word' has been wrong. However the pitch should still have more bounce than Adelaide and Brisbane but I doubt anyone will lose their head.
Australia have to throw everything at England in the first few hours and either score 300 on day one or knock them over for less than 300. You may have noticed that Australia must avoid defeat in the final three games and win at least two of them. This seems a difficult task for any side and when you consider that England just destroyed them by an innings... suddenly 4-0 isn't a crazy bet. Perth is where the scoreline may be decided
Now there have been some suggestions of strange selections for Australia like Brett Lee and Brad Hodge - both of which are supposed to be playing in the HRV Cup 2020 in New Zealand. Another is the strange notion that Shane Warne should play and 'save' Australia. I think we can laugh that idea into submission in round one can't we? How is a retired, 40+ spin bowler meant to help win a test in Perth of all places? The most cricket he has played since has been 4 over spells in the IPL - and anyone who has actually watched those matches (as I have) will notice that he bowls with the shoulder and not his whole body. There is no way he would be fit to bowl even 15 overs of quality per day (let alone the 30 that would be required). Besides, grant you that he is fit enough to make a contribution - why didn't they do that in 2009?
Having said that, the spin bowling is a big problem for Australia and poses the biggest selection dilemma over the next week. Do you persist with Doherty? I don't think so, I mentioned above that his selection was purely to try and take down Pietersen - the main problem with this is that they don't seem to have plans for Cook, Trott and Bell. This is stupid because the same plan will work for all three and that is to slant the ball across them to the slips - using right-arm quicks against Cook and Bell while employing Johnson (if in form) against Trott - this is their best hope to negate them

I suppose I can hardly lambast Rattue of the NZ Herald and not front up myself so I hope this has helped improve the discourse a little better than his effort; I let you, my readers be the judge

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Plans undone and plans gone mad

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Some of cricket's greatest success stories have centred around good planning before a series or a tournament; the major three that jump to my mind would be Stephen Fleming planning the way to victory in England in 1999 and 3 draws against Steve Waugh's Australian team in 2001, or Martin Crowe's World Cup team of 1992 and, most impressively, the transformation of the poor Australian side of 1986 into the best team of the 1990s and 2000s by Allan Border and Bob Simpson. These are some of the best instances, this week we have witnessed some of - not the worst but - the less fruitful ones
First to The Ashes where cricket's main event got underway with a fascinating draw that included two 6-fors, two double hundreds and two triple century partnerships (enough '2's for Richie Benaud to drown on his own saliva). England refused to accept tradition and batted well in the second innings of a test in Australia and crossed 500 for 1 - crushing records and Australian dreams in the process. Now that the dust has settled (literally in this case given the pitch by the end of day 5) it is amusing to note some of the obvious plans that went nowhere in this match:

1. Strauss' obvious intention to attack with the bat on Day 1 ended when he cut the 3rd ball to gully - although history would suggest he was correct to try and I would say his frustration would be with the groundsman before himself
2. The reliance on Swann to not only take wickets, but tie down the Australian batsmen. I predicted last week that the opposition wouldn't allow this to happen again without a fight and I think I was right. Swann was attacked early and his control of length disappeared as a result. The one lesson the English should have learnt from 2006/7 is that the plans of the previous series won't work twice
3. For Australia, Mitchell Johnson looks terrible. Enough said? Perhaps not so how about this. Their 'best' bowler looks slow, lost and confused - so much so that his innings of 0 lasted 19 deliveries! The less-than-subtle tattoo decorating his non-bowling arm looks more dangerous than his bowling at the moment. I said that Australia needed him to bowl well to win and I meant it

Here are some thoughts going forward:

• Bollinger and Harris have already been drafted into the team for the Adelaide match. With Johnson not getting runs at the moment (none in fact) he could be dropped for either of these - Dougie would be my preference - but then the Australian tail will be significant (Ashes experts feel free to chuckle at that thought)
• If Australia plan to win this series they MUST find a way to crush Trott and I mean destroy him mentally and technically (ala Atherton or Lara) and the best way to do this is with accurate, left-arm pace (thus my preference for Bollinger). If there is one technical flaw that seems obvious to me, it's that Trott seems to play to the legside a little too often and could be found out with the ball shooting across him - think of that ball McKay got Tendulkar with last week

Oh and there is one last plan that has come undone for England and that is their player's not being able to use Twitter while on tour. Apparently Alastair Cook couldn't help himself after the match today:
http://twitter.com/engcricketteam
(or perhaps this could be the Ashes Twitter account I promised back in August. Look forward to further 'tweets' here during the next test)

NOW to the New Zealand team
Although I applaud imagination in captains some of the stuff going on in this ODI team boggles the mind. For instance, sending Darryl Tuffey up the order like that was more surprising that effective, but it was opening the bowling with him that annoyed me most - he is too similar to Mills at the other end! - why would you do this with McKay as an option?
However, the thing that keeps me up at night is a nagging feeling that the team is not taking any of this seriously. Let me expand here, I don't mean to question their commitment as such, I just think that, with all this talk of 'conditioning' for the World Cup, the concentration has been removed from the now and focused on the future - as if the tours to Bangladesh and India are merely net sessions - for lack of a better term. We should be trying to WIN over there - not just get used to the conditions. I hope this hasn't begun to rot the team, I'm not sure that it has but it is a growing fear in my mind when i see them play. Feel free to disagree with me on this, I think it is a worth while discussion though.

On the other hand, all the best or worst laid plans in the world will mean nothing if the match reporting is as poor as that on display in the TVNZ ranks this morning. I was appalled while witnessing the ONE News report on the match - I thought they were talking about a different match until I realised that the reporter must have been simply researching straight from the scorecard - here are some points and see if you agree with my suspicion:

• 'the indian 2nd tier team that doesn't include Dravid or Laxman' oh right because those two have played ODIs lately (2009 and 2006 respectively!)
• 'late fireworks pushed the total up to 276' funny because as someone who watched the game I could have sworn it was the hitting in the middle that did the damage?
• 'Guptill's innings was filled with luck that ran out' I could have sworn he played several wonderful straight drives reminiscent of Martin Crowe before getting carried away against the spinner
• 'it took Taylor blasting his way to 66' my definition of blasting doesn't include spending the first 40-odd balls nudging singles but perhaps the definition was changed.
• 'Mills and McCullum's hitting delayed the inevitable' well this one is more a matter of opinion I guess but the tone doesn't impress me - it's that 'oh there they go collapsing again' nonsense that you get from the same people who would have lorded the effort if it had gone on for just 30 more balls (and won the game) as it could well have done.

So not to sound too much like a Monday-morning-quarterback (to borrow an American Football expression) I would like to offer some advice. First Ross Talyor needs to have a net with Kyle Mills and I don't mean as the bowler, he needs to learn that you can hit the ball to areas other than square leg! Also, as a more long-term idea, with the return of a keen Lou Vincent this might free up Brendon McCullum to return to 7 in ODIs where his skills are needed far more than opening (thanks to a friend for giving me this brain wave)
Or perhaps answers will come from the king of plans himself, former English Coach Duncan Fletcher who has joined the team for the remaining 4 games. You may remember him as the man who, with Michael Vaughan, led the 2005 Ashes campaign He should provide a fresh voice as Mark Richardson put it last night

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

"It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing..."

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I have long thought that the quote in the title of this week's post sums up The Ashes contest perfectly (I won't tell you till the end where it comes from by the way - see if you can guess). This season it seems even more appropriate given the conundrum that faces me and fellow cricket fans looking at two seemingly well-matched teams, not great teams but talented and certainly eager XIs. Many commentators seem almost irritated that the New Zealand cricket team is distracting them from this task (tough luck) however now that the campaign for a first series win in India (or even a draw) is going quickly down the 'gurgler', my attention switches to Australia as easily as the wording in this sentence. Some might say that, given the 4-0 defeat in Bangladesh, ambitions for winning that series began IN the gurgler but I digress

The two teams that will line up in Brisbane this Thursday are led by two tired captains who must realise that they have both played a great deal of cricket in their careers, during this year and will have to play in the longest World Cup yet in the new year. Both captains are not known for flare or imagination and both have suffered the lows of Ashes defeat and the high of Ashes victory. They must both use the memory of these experiences to overcome their defensive, cricket-killing-because-they're-not-prepared-to-take-a-chance, barely-club-level captaincy and push their troops to victory. I firmly believe that this may be the factor that ensures victory for one side or the other - this is a long series and will be hard fought in conditions stretching from a seamer at the Gabba in November to a dust-bowl at the SCG in January (with a WACA flyer in the middle hopefully). Strauss leads a team with more senior players but only ONE (Pietersen) has tasted any kind of success in Australia (obviously I mean in a personal sense) and Ponting has the home turf advantage that helps Australia just like any other cricket team.


(yes Ricky you hit the ball with that side) (Andrew don't drop them!)

Predicting the performance of these captains is impossible so lets look at some points we can predict:

• First, if England wish to WIN the series they must win at the Gabba and with seam-friendly conditions they should be in with a good chance - their best in years. The reasons for this are that Australia have such a good record there (16 wins and 4 draws in their last 20 matches there!) and have used victories here to upset opposing teams, with the flat wickets of Adelaide and co to come a good result here is crucial and any touring side knows that wins become harder to manufacture as a tour goes on - fatigue sets in to rot the resolve
  Second, if Australia wish to WIN back The Ashes the need Mitchell Johnson to bowl like Wasim Akram and not like James Franklin. Poor as his bowling action is, he has the fitness and strength to bowl some devastating spells at key times - the kind that can steal victories in places like Adelaide and Melbourne. They don't need him trying to imitate Harmison's efforts of 2006 (where the first ball of the series ended at 2nd slip and quickly announced the end of that particular campaign before it had time to begin)
• Third, the Australian batsmen (Ponting, Clarke and Hussey) of real class will come good at some point in this series and cannot be matched by England (Trott, Pietersen and Collingwood). All three are very experienced in their conditions and dominated the last Ashes contest in Australia.
• Fourth, Shane Watson will resume his normal habit of getting out LBW to quality bowling
• Fifth, Graeme Swann will need to think on his feet and be flexible with his plans because there is no way that the Australian think-tank hasn't planned for his influence on this series. They know he is the key difference between the two bowling attacks and will/should have formulated plans for countering, negating or even defeating him - spinners have met their end in Aus before

Personally I think a drawn series is quite possible (where England retain The Ashes but don't win the series itself). This would include English victory in Brisbane but defeat at Perth or Melbourne where their attack won't be as affective. That's about as far as I would even CONSIDER putting moeny in this fight. before I finish here are some links to previous Ashes moments and any thoughts inspired by them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClNsK1bX23A
Ponting's 196 from two years ago to set up victory at the Gabba. He lost the urn the year before and with this innings, made an emphatic statement of intent - really a threat - of what was to come. Runs are his best method of captaincy and will be crucial to winningthe series
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1z6P9LCRiU
Johnson's 7 wickets at Perth against South Africa, this kind of bowling will be the best England can expect - at least they won't have to face these two again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA2mJP-UgPY&feature=related (Warne)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IQPMU44IPE&feature=related (McGrath)
Sadly neither side will likely offer the following kind of innings...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPOOhFmUprA (Gilchrist second-fastest test century) ...but what team could

Personally I don't really have a dog in this race and thus don't really care what the result is - I am looking forward to a tight contest though and the ingredients are all there. As for the quote in the title for this post, Sean Bean said those words in The Fellowship of the Ring 10 years ago




Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Maddening, McCullum and Mail Bag

Hello and welcome back to my blog

The New Zealand team continues to push the 'best' side in the world over in India this week, refusing to live in a lugubrious state of being like the rest of us; I hope they can maintain their intensity for the whole series. Having said that I do have some thoughts:

• Daniel Vettori finally picked up his 19th 5WB but went for 130+ runs to do it despite taking his 4th wicket having only conceded 91 runs. Try and as he might, he was unable to remove the last wicket (a period of tired and terrible cricket that could have proven fatal today) and his struggle highlighted a major short-fall in his game. The great spinners have always been able to run through the tail-end of a team by spinning the ball - think Warne and Murali here - Vettori lacks this skill and thus takes much longer to pick up nine, ten and jack. Probably too late to change this but it is certainly a weakness the team needs to address and with a different bowler
• I must be running out of hats to devour in shame during this series. Brendon McCullum defied my criticism and scored a very nicely constructed test century last night and showed the kind of patience required at this level by turning it into a double to draw the match. I will say that I am glad to be proven wrong so far on this point
• If the question mark over McCullum has been removed this has only emphasised another one, two spots down the list over Ross Taylor's head. He has failed to have the impact in India that he had at home against Australia and India in the last two seasons and appears to have no real idea how to play. His quality continues to appear in an on-drive or flick through mid-wicket but seems to be quickly negated and forgotten by a poor piece of defence - the delivery that got him last night (an inswinger) moved less sideways than his bat did across the line

I can't help but feel that this series may turn out to be as maddening as a whack-a-mole game

Now to the mail-bag, to borrow a term from Murray Deaker of Sky Sports, a few weeks ago a fan of the blog posted a comment of equal length to the relevant post (Playing cricket doesn't make you a journalist anymore than being blind makes you an optometrist ) and thus I felt it fair to reply in this form as opposed to tacking another comment below his. In his comment there are several points and questions which I would like to address here:

First is the concern over Roger Mortimer (high performance manager) and whether his expertise with the fitness and discipline of singular athletes is suited to a team sport. I admit that this question worries me as well, it seems like the whole exercise could be a waste. Can Mortimer relate to the pressures of batsmen out in the middle? What does he know of cricket technique? I honestly don't think this role is required in a cricket team (at least not in the form of a separate coach/manager) but it did occur to me that the relative inexperience of the players may require something new, like this to bridge the gap between them and their international colleagues. I therefore recommend patience on this point
The comment also states that Daniel Vettori should remain a selector and that every captain should have some influence on selection. There are many arguments supporting this assertion and I personally think that this is the way to go in the small cricketing nations but let me ask you this: can you honestly see this working in India and Pakistan where the political in-fighting and favours are rife. As a rule of thumb I would say that if you charge a captain and coach with rebuilding a team then they deserve a say in selection
Third point was that the 4-0 loss in Bangladesh was more educational than disastrous. I think I know what he means here but if he could elaborate that would be great - I can foresee a good discussion in this area
Now we reach my major disagreement with the fan's comment, the pushing for John Wright to be a coach NOW. First I wish to point out that I never said he wasn't needed, my thinking was that it would be cruel to bring him in 5 months before a World Cup. The team deserves more faith than that, Greatbatch deserves more time and certainly Wright deserves more respect. I don't wish to sound strident but I firmly disagree with what appears to me to be a knee-jerk reaction that I know the fan to be above
Lastly, the suggestion that the All Black coaching model of using coaches for specific roles (like batting, bowling and fielding?) is an interesting thought. Correct me if I'm wrong here but don't England currently do this? I won't say I don't like the idea but it might be prudent at this point to mention Bob Simpson, who with Allan Border crafted one of the greatest cricket sides in the world between 1986 and 1996 without such a structure. Their approach was very basic, create the best fielding, most disciplined and fittest team in the world out of young and talented men and the success will follow. Could well work for the Black Caps under Vettori and Greatbatch although I doubt we would allow them 10 years to do it

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Old men take the lime light, sadly

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I thought to myself 24 hours ago that I shouldn't write my blog until the thing was finished - herald the NZ comeback only to see a boring draw/embarrassing loss etc. Naturally I refer to the just-completed test between India and New Zealand and not surprisingly it didn't end in a victory for my favoured team. Despite the efforts of Martin, four wickets were still to be claimed when play began on Day Five. The last of these was not removed until after Tea by which time Black Cap fans had moved comfortably from celebrating a possible victory to celebrating - well anything else.

I am disappointed that Dhoni didn't push for a victory himself - his side blunted the Day Five attack after an hour and could have declared anytime after lunch really. This is the kind of captaincy that destroys interest in test cricket; certainly there was no real reason to keep batting after Harbhajan Singh reached his century (sigh). The only sympathy I have for him is that he likely didn't expect both overnight-batsmen to still be in at lunch and closing in on centuries (neither, I would wager, did Vettori). However, some kind of punishment for 'captaincy contrary to the spirit of the game' could be useful...

Certainly the visiting team took more out of this match than the home side. Although I didn't write them off to the extent that many publications did, I never thought the match would make it to the end of Day Five. The sad thing is, and it will be a learning curve for many of the players, you really need to win early in India because it generally takes great sacrifice of resources to do so. In the case of Vettori's men the cost for this draw was quite obvious with Bennett, Ryder and possibly McIntosh injured to one degree or another; less obvious will be the physical and mental strains from this match which will likely appear in tests 2 and 3. While there are still bowling resources to be used (and, according to Vettori, players that can be called from NZ) one can't help but ask whether Simon Doull and Danny Morrison have been told to hit the nets before the second and third tests.

Beyond this, the glaring concern is the use of Brendon McCullum as a top order batsman. This development has huge implications on the balance of the team - suddenly they only had two front line seamers (and the danger of this was realised when Vettori was forced to open the bowling with Martin in the second innings) not to mention the joke selection of Gareth Hopkins as keeper. Although equally important a consequence, the latter proved more frustrating as Hopkins missed several straight forward chances (in both innings) and did nothing while batting to convince us that he isn't a poor (emphasis on poor) man's version of a domestic keeper (harsh? I'm not sure). Traditionalists worthier of the title than I express a regret that the post Marsh/Healy/Gilchrist area is dominated by keeper-batsmen, but of equal importance to these geriatrics is the QUALITY of the old keepers whose batting average was less than 25. The idea of selecting an all-but-34 year old keeper is also insulting to some of us who would perhaps have kept quiet if only a person of younger years than McCullum were given the chance - I doubt that Brendon will suddenly change his mind, thus a bit of forward thinking was required and hardly difficult to manage.

One might say that the Black Caps have lost a keeper but gained a top-order batsman (no secret that they were lacking) but sadly that small victory has not yet been won- and I don't think it will be either. It certainly will please some that Brendon made runs at No. 2 (curse them if they print such a 'triumph') but to the trained eye the problem was as obvious as it was saddening. His eventual dismissal (stumped) was of bad technique equal to the fine piece of keeping to complete it and exposes his flaw. The top three batsmen MUST be century makers (although old-time openers were less concerned with this, their time finished after the West Indies/Australian dominance of the last 25 years) and this requires a mix of mental and technical skill and patience; McCullum was undone by hard hands going at the ball and lost his balance - never mind how good the delivery was. I would have given him the benefit of the doubt if I hadn't seen him play two seasons of ODI cricket in the same position and walking into the same problem (literally?). Is the team losing a talented No. 7 (in both forms of the game) to that player's ambitions? The corollary question is what about his next flight of fancy? Ross Taylor took two wickets today - after making a handful of fifties opening the batting in test cricket will Brendon try and be an all-rounder?

On a different note, congratulations to Chris Martin for producing a wonderful display of swing bowling yesterday evening. Although I did predict his selection, I did so in a dejected sense and certainly thought him past such spells - not even Hadlee could have dreamed of such an effort (in India) and neither could the bowling coaches of the subcontinent who have become obsessed with reverse-swing of late. Consider me silenced sir (for now) and eating my hat. Consider the other traditionalists occupied in a similar fashion.

Oh and by the way Kane Williamson made a debut century that required concentration that belied his years...

Sadly it won't surprise me if India ease to large victories in the remaining test matches (as has happened in the past) and that would be no great shame in my mind. As for the two tired umpire decisions made on the final afternoon - if you don't fork out and pay for the Umpire Review System you get what you deserve (and the BCCI are supposedly leaking cash!).

Also, as I type this up, a story is emerging around the second-choice keeper for Pakistan, Zulqarnain Haider, who may have received threats after steering his side to victory against South Africa in the fourth ODI of their current series. He has apparantly disappeared. Naturally I will be keeping an eye on this as it unfolds - despicable if true

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now

All this talk of XIs!

Hello and welcome back to my blog

First an apology to my faithful readers for the lateness of this week's post, family frivolities kept me away from the Internet for several days - would have been at home in Bay 13 at the MCG to be honest. So today I find myself trying to avoid the Mark Richardson method (see his book) and ponder how the Black Caps might win (or win respect at least) in India over the next few weeks. In the spirit of picking XIs that seems to have overtaken Cricinfo of late (copied from my early blog entries I might add) here are some fun suggestions
The Squad is as follows:
Vettori, Arnel, Bennett, Guptil, Hopkins, McCullum, McIntosh, McKay, Martin, Patel, Ryder, Southee, Taylor, Watling and Williamson

The XI will likely be:
McIntosh and Watling to open (the description of 'get runs no matter how slow' picks these two quite naturally I'm afraid - enjoy these two while they're there because after this series it will likely be that time again where we 'blood' a new pair)
McCullum, Taylor, Ryder and Williamson (unless they're stupid enough to put in No-runs-against-Zimbabwe B/World 1000th XI-Guptil) should fill out the rest of the top-order.
Vettori fits into the counter-attacking Number Seven role (although he should move up if 4 wickets fall early)
Hopkins keeping at 8
Then bowlers will be Patel, Arnel and Martin

Now, in my opinion, the line up should be:
McIntosh, Watling, Taylor, Williamson, Ryder and Vettori as your top Six. McCullum should be given a slap or a bucket of water and told that he should be keeping and batting at 7 (where he has averaged 50 for the last 12 months or more) thus not wasting a spot with first-class rubbish like Hopkins (the same man who scored a century against ZIM B recently - revealing the 'quality' of that bowling line up)
The bowlers should include Southee, Arnel (who should know now that he will bowl a great deal) McKay/Bennett (for pace) and either Martin or Patel. Note that Patel, who went at 5+ an over in the recent A tour, should ONLY play if the pitch will definitely turn

Now for some fun:
The best chance for victory lies in the following selection:

1. Turner
2. Wright (just in case we need a century to draw a match - seriously look at his stats for drawn matches)
3. Crowe
4. Crowe
5. Crowe
6. Crowe
7. Hadlee (the one that gets runs)
8. Ian Smith
9. Vettori
10. Hadlee
11. Hadlee

(Note: these selections depend on the assumption that four Martin Crowes and four Richard Hadlees wouldn't kill each other)

Finally, to give some hope to the boys, almost no result could be as disappointing as the one likely to be produced by the following XIs
FIRST

1. Sutcliffe
2. Leggat
3. Poore
4. Reid
5. McGregor
6. Rabone (c)
7. Cave
8. MacGibbon
9. Colquhoun
10. Moir
11. Hayes

(see March 1955)

SECOND

1. T. Franklin
2. J. Morrison
3. M. Sinclair
4. J. Crowe
5. K. Rutherford
6. C. Harris (not to be confused with his twin who played ODI cricket with distinction)
7. V. Pollard
8. L. Germon (c)
9. G. Loveridge
10. C. Pringle
11. H. Davis

(Poor-men versions of better players all)

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Playing cricket doesn't make you a journalist anymore than being blind makes you an optometrist

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I once heard a story about famous essayist and MIT linguist, Noam Chomsky: that his dentist told him he was grinding his teeth. Chomsky couldn't quite believe this, being something you generally would notice yourself doing, but the dentist was quite certain. So Chomsky and his wife endeavoured to find out how this was happening. they checked him while he slept and at other times of the day and eventually discovered that he only ground his teeth in the mornings when he read the New York Times! In my own little way I can sympathise with this clear sign of irritation from a very genial individual. While his world is one of truth, history and ethics and the distortions of them in the media, I refer to thinking on the sport of cricket and the utter nonsense printed in papers, drooled on radio or spouted on television, allowed to happen simply because someone being interviewed happens to have 'former player' in front of their name
Just because a person plays the game for X-number-of seasons or in Y-number-of teams or takes Z-number-of wickets, DOESN'T make them an automatic expert on its politics, mechanics or the needs/wants/future of any other player or team. It's fair to ask specific players about specific aspects such as interviewing Allan Border about New Zealand's current predicament given his efforts to turn around a team that had hit rock bottom (1980s Australian team). However his expertise is limited to that area; it's advice not gospel. We don't need headlines like 'Black Caps too soft, Border says' - he doesn't know the players! Print his advice based on his own trials and tribulations but don't pretend he knows anything about OTHER teams. Not to sound to harsh about Border (as far as I know, there is no such article) but you don't have to look far to find an example of your own, in any sport in any form of media
This is a large subject for which one entry will not suffice. Today I want to deal with some examples from the last week or so, talking about the recent tour to Bangladesh and the way forward for the team. In the near future I will post about TV commentary where the most obvious examples of what I'm talking about exist.

The problems facing New Zealand Cricket are, have always been and, with a population of just four million, are likely to remain Legion, but in terms of discussing what course to take for now, we can laugh some arguments out right away and focus on the important ones

First of all, and this is less a question to be argued than a general question I put to you that is outside my ability to answer, is it appropriate to be using a high performance manager who has specialised in individual athletes rather than a large team sport? I am unsure on this point but it has been raised recently so I hope readers with opinions/knowledge in this area can offer some assistance in the comments section. Second, should Daniel Vettori be removed from the selection panel and focus on simply being captain, coach, top-bowler, top-order batsman and senior player? From my wording of the question you may be able to guess my answer - no he shouldn't! Certainly not after one ODI series loss ever if it was against Bangladesh, it was not the failure of new players of his choosing that led the team's poor performance - the blame lies more at the senior end of the team sheet where people like McCullum, Taylor and Ryder barely managed to maintain their average let alone build on it (as was expected)

The most entertaining (and least useful) question is whether the 4-0 loss was the team's worst effort/result in its 80 year history. I'm not sure I would cite, as others have, the '26 all out' innings from the 50s as the worst given that we now have a professional (by definition if not always in practice) team. Some commentators mentioned the 5-0 losses to Australia, Pakistan or South Africa between 2000 and 2005, my disagreement here is that we were not likely to beat those sides - compete YES but winning was always going to be difficult. Also it must be remembered that some of the losses in Bangladesh were very close (unlike many of those in the three series mentioned above) so if we really have to make a comparison my vote goes to the 3-0 test series defeat in England in 2004. Although the score lines were not as close, the two teams were evenly matched and only batting collapses on Day 4 of all three tests prevented a different result. This series took place just 5 years after NZ had won 2-1 in 1999 and the team was coming off a competitive series draw against South Africa. For me the disappointment is the same (I would also point to that series as the beginning of the decline for the team that reached its lowest point last week)

Now here is a question I pose myself: why is Matthew Sinclair constantly announced as the ‘veteran test international’ – literally true but not the reason he is called such by The Herald and others. This description suggests that the opinion which follows is that of a competent thinker on the New Zealand game; am i the only one who finds this laughable. If you are not immediately convinced ask yourself what kind of intellectually honest person could criticise the batsmen for not using their feet to the spinners having himself turned into the Head Lecturer at the School for Shoving-your-pad-forward-and-hoping.

You might say he is just a player they bring on every now and then to talk about batting (although at this point in the blog I would hope you wouldn't see this as an excuse), OK fine. What about the former player that the Dominion Post employs to talk cricket, namely Mr. Jonathan Millmow who is a perfect example of the point. He wrote this week about the problems with the Black Cap team and the structure of NZC and in short, you know as a reader that you're in trouble when the first line you read is 'The cracks were starting to appear...'.

Millmow announced the failure of the new management structure (Vettori, Greatbatch and Roger Mortimer) as if it had been in place for over a season (which it hasn't!) and his solution is to throw John Wright into the melee right before the World Cup (which is not fair on him or the players). He then blamed the lower-than-expected sign up for Johnsonville's junior clubs this season on the recent loss - just because he's fickle doesn't mean that children are!

This is garbage as content but even when he has the ghost of a point, feels the need to chuck in cliche like 'shuffling the deckchairs' as if the recent 4-0 loss were some kind of ice berg (to complete the saying) that will sink New Zealand cricket. The use of cliche in sports commentary is the most irritating part about it because the meaning is completely lost to the speaker who just blurts it out robotically and should be revealed as the incompetent thinker that they are. Case in point would be Mark Richardson's line on Prime recently "it was an awful segue (in agreement with his co-host) and now the soccer where it was a game of two halves..."

There should be room for professional writers and journalists in this kind of discussion not just professional cricketers-turned-would-be-writer. Then perhaps the REAL question that should be being asked at this moment can be considered: why was it necessary to split the Bangladesh tour and have the test played next April. I realise that lines about the weather and scheduling reside in the answer but you can't tell me that the decision wasn't made on the grounds that we should fill the period October-February with as much ODI cricket as possible. The former player may get this far and smile with pride but the better thinker on this point will point out that playing test cricket doesn't impact your ability to play ODI cricket (in fact it enhances it) and it is actually the reverse that is true. By shuffling Test cricket to the end of the season we are hobbling ourselves. We do the same to our minds if we continue to listen to these former players all of the time

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Man looks in the abyss.
There's nothing staring back at him.
At that moment, man finds his character.
And that is what keeps him out of the abyss

(Hal Holbrook's character Lou in the 1987 Oliver Stone film Wall Street)

The New Zealand Black Caps could be said to have stumbled towards an abyss this year after falling from their No. 2 ranking to No. 7 in the ODI standings, culminating this week with a series whitewash to Bangladesh. Any ideas of planning our way to World Cup success next year with rotations and a plethora of games in subcontinent conditions have been shown up as foolish at best. The arrogance to think we could ignore our opposition in Bangladesh and instead randomly blood new players anywhere in the order has come back to hurt the team and injure its confidence for months to come
The facade of ODI competence has been removed and illusions of grandeur shattered as the team reached the nadir of its existence on the low, slow, spinning pitches of the subcontinent's worst team. The squad now faces several days where they will be attacked in every paper, radio coloumn and television news room around the world and they must perservere.
The first calls will be for sackings (not really an option at this point) and after those people are laughed into silence the more ridiculous questions over Vettori's multiple roles will emerge. The Herald has already obliged by digging up people like Burgess and Morrison (not Danny) to reveal how little they know about current international cricket; just because you played the game doesn't entitle you to stop paying attention BUT STILL offer up opinion as any kind of expert (more about this in future posts). It would be wrong, for instance, to accuse the Black Caps of complete failure in their recent efforts - this would undermine some very impressive cricket played by Bangladesh over the last ten days, and thus headlines including things like 'worst defeat ever' are unlettered and offensive to any cricket lover.
To begin with, some of the bowling and catching by the hosts was better than anything I have seen from them and most importantly they pulled it off when key players were involved (the catch to get Vettori in this last match for example). Also the Black Caps bowlers did fairly well on slow pitches and with no preparation. It was really the batting that dived to new depths of incompetence, embarrassment and all-round failure with each of the top SEVEN being found out on more than one occasion. The obvious problem here is that without THREE front line spinners to attack with in February next year, the team will need totals of 250+ to have a hope of winning matches. The first lesson to learn is that 50 runs cannot be scored in the opening 10 overs - a fact apparent the last time we toured there but apparently forgotten - only Williamson, Taylor and Elliott showed any Patience and took the time to build their innings.
However the most glaring error for me was the combination of Vettori/management claiming that this tour was being taken seriously AND the media reporting this without question as fact! It was impossible to believe this after the very first game where Stewart was a specialist batsman at 7 thus keeping out the necessary extra spinner required to play in the subcontinent. Then the bizarre way the team was shuffled around for each game, the whole business was clearly an effort to expose players to the conditions. This was amazingly arrogant given that we had to eek out a 2-1 victory last time we toured there and was punished by an improving opposition accordingly

Across the pond (to borrow an Anglo-American expression for the Atlantic divide - much better than 'the ditch') our Australian 'friends' must be experiencing similar notions of shame and dismay - particularly with an important Ashes contest approaching (at least NZ won't be expected to WIN in India) - and the horrible realisation that they now sit at their lowest point on the Test rankings. Like the New Zealand team they jetted off to the subcontinent looking to build momentum for more important ends later in the summer and, by not putting in the effort in the short term, have gone backwards instead.
Finally the stereotype that Hauritz is in anyway a world class spinner has been dismantled as nonsense and fears about the damage that Swann might do in Australia from November to January must surely have trebled. If the lie about Hauritz has been discredited then the one about Watson has not, although he showed good concentration at times the pace bowling on show was not of the quality he will come up against at the Gabba or Perth and the letters L B W will begin to appear next to his name as soon as that series starts.
Lastly on the Australian question, problems are definitely apparent in areas like converting starts - not usually a problem for the baggy-green XIs but have plagued their scorecards for twelve months now - also the killer instinct of their bowling attack has certainly died and without it they will struggle to beat the top sides.

There is a great deal of doom and gloom here I realise but I now offer the light to keep my fellow cricket lovers in the game. In 1987 the Australian team led by Allan Border failed to win The Ashes at home and while drowning their sorrows they watched their own Prime Minister mock them on national television and at that point they new they had hit rock bottom. That was it, there would be no more losing or the feeling of inevitability to their defeat - they would regroup as a team and come through the hard time to regain their respect and standing in the cricket world. They proceeded to win the World Cup later that year, The Ashes in England (4-0) in 1989 and dominate the 1990s and 2000s like no other team had managed before them. This is what needs to happen for the teams of Oceania. These teams now have a core of players who have experienced the worst of their mistakes and must use the pain and humiliation to forge ahead. They need to find their character and escape the abyss that now threatens to consume them

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Up the creek without Paddles

Hello and welcome back to my blog

It is well known and often repeated in cricket discussions that Sir Richard Hadlee was our best cricketer but the repetitive use of this statement has perhaps dulled our understanding of the extent to which it is true and even unworthy of his legacy. Before Hadlee joined the team, New Zealand had won less than ten tests and triumphed in just ONE test series (in Pakistan of all places) and on occasion the team challenged the other test nations but parallels with current day Bangladesh are not false (funnily enough our series victory against Pakistan was achieved in Bangladesh right before the civil war). This was after 40 years of cricket! In particular our ability to get 20 wickets in a match was always lacking. Here I will run through the timeline of NZ test series from the 1970s and 1980s and focus on Hadlee's impact in the hopes that his true greatness may be restored

February 1973, PAK in NZ (1-0 loss)

• Richard Hadlee debuted as the 123rd player for his country and took 2-84, 0-28 and hit 46 (batting at 8)
• His returns did not improve as the side lost 2-0 in England and 2-0 in Australia and a habit of being very expensive didn't ensure his selection in the team.

1973/74, AUS in NZ (1-1 drawn series)

• The second test in this tour is better remembered for Glenn Turner making twin hundreds as we beat Australia for the first time in a test, but Hadlee was crucial with figures of 3-59 and 4-71. He finished the series with 10 wickets @ 22 and established himself as a talented fast bowler - expensive but took wickets.
• England toured the following season and won 1-0 but Hadlee did not play (although his future bowling partner Ewen Chatfield debuted in that series)

1975/76, IND in NZ (1-1 drawn series)

• In the third test Hadlee bowled 4th and wrecked the Indian batting card while taking New Zealand's best ever figures of 4-35 and 7-23 (11-58). Incredible given he was destroyed in the second test and we were fighting to save the series, but this victory became the blueprint for the next 15 years - 10 wickets for Hadlee and a crucial victory for his team

1976/77, NZ in PAK (2-0 loss)

• Making 214 runs @ 53 and also taking 10 wickets, Hadlee built on his reputation as his teams young star
• He took a further 13 wickets @ 33 in the fast-bowling graveyards of India right afterward
• Australia toured later in the year and won 1-0.

1977/78, ENG in NZ (1-1 drawn series)

• Although the team was gaining respect against other teams, the record against England was still 0 WINS. This finally changed when Hadlee destroyed England in the second innings with 6-26 (10-100 match figures) in the first test
• He took 15 wickets in the series and another 13 @ 20.76 in the tour of England that followed (although this was lost 3-0)

1978/79, PAK in NZ (1-0 loss)

• This was the last home series that New Zealand lost until 1991/92. Hadlee continued to improve in both facets of his game with 115 runs and 18 wickets (including his 100th in his 25th match)

1979/80, WI in NZ (1-0 victory)

• New Zealand announced to the world that they would now be competitive with their first home series victory and also the rise of Richard Hadlee the world-class all-rounder
• NZ won the first test on the back of Hadlee's fine performance: 51 runs and then figures of 5-34 & 6-68 (becoming our leading wicket-taker). He made his first century (103) in the second test and took a another 5 wickets in the third
• We were the last team to beat the West Indies for 15 years and Hadlee was the star: 178 runs @ 44 and 19 wickets @ 19 (becoming New Zealand's leading wicket taker and our first player to pass 1000 runs & 100 wickets)
• The following summer he took 19 wickets @ 19 in Australia and although the series was lost (2-0) he was Man-of-the-Series. India was beaten 1-0 at home soon after and it was around this time that Hadlee began to employ the use of a shortened run he had learnt in the Sunday League in England. It was heavily criticised at the time but undoubtedly enabled him to remain playing for as long as he did

1981/82, AUS in NZ (1-1 drawn series)

• New Zealand won the second test where Hadlee took 5-63 in the second innings
• Sri Lanka played their first tour of NZ the following summer and were thrashed 2-0 and we had our first instance of consecutive test victories

1983, NZ in ENG (3-1 loss)

• Despite the scoreline, Hadlee was supreme on this tour: 301 runs @ 50 & 21 wickets @ 26.6 - most wickets for a series and best all-round effort for a kiwi. The solitary win was our first IN England and Hadlee played his part with 75 runs (although surprisingly NO wickets)
• England made a return tour and New Zealand beat them in a series for the first time (1-0) and in the crucial victory, Hadlee made 99 then took 3-16 and 5-28
• Soon afterward the team toured Sri Lanka for the first time and won 2-0, Hadlee beat his own record by taking 23 wickets in this series (10-102 in the third match)

In 1984/85 the team lost 2-0 in Pakistan but Hadlee did not play

1984/85, PAK in NZ (2-0 win)

• The home team won the second and third tests and Hadlee took 6 and 8 wickets in them respectively (including his 250th)
• New Zealand then toured the West Indies and were beaten 2-0 over four tests - quite respectable given the thrashings being dealt to every other team (5-0, 5-0 and 4-0 to England during the same period!). Hadlee passed the 2000 run 250 wickets mark (3rd player to do so)

1985/86, NZ in AUS (2-1 win) and AUS in NZ (1-0 win)

• Possibly our best summer of cricket (and certainly the best by anyone against Australia
• Definitely Hadlee's best as he helped himself to 9-52 & 6-71 in Brisbane, using every trick in the fast bowling manual on a helpful pitch, he then added a rapid 54 in an innings victory. 7 wickets in the second test and 11-155 in Perth took him to 33 for the series (second best ever)
• The Australian team came to NZ in the new year and Hadlee took another 16 wickets. New Zealand is still the only team to beat Australia in TWO series in the same season
• During the winter the team continued their form with the first series victory in England. They were undefeated in the 15 first-class games that were played the tests were won 1-0 and Hadlee was the star in that victory by scoring 68 and taking 10-140
• to cap the year off the West Indies were held to a 1-1 draw back in New Zealand. Hadlee took 9 wickets in the final test which was won
• A single test was played in Sri Lanka in 1987 and Hadlee recorded his second test century: 151* (New Zealand's 100th test century as it happens)

1987/88, NZ in AUS (1-0 loss)

• An improving Australia side managed to hold on and draw the third test despite 10-176 from Hadlee
• England toured New Zealand with Richard Hadlee needing just ONE wicket to become the leading wicket-taker in the world but he was injured and missed most of the series (which was drawn 0-0)

1988/89, NZ in IND (2-1 loss)

• Arun Lal became Hadlee's 374th victim on the first morning of the first test in India as he took 5-65 and then 10-88 to win the second test but the decider was lost. He remained the leading wicket-taker until Kapil Dev went 3 better in 1994
• Pakistan toured later that season but Hadlee had little success (series drawn 0-0)
• A single match was famously drawn in Australia during the summer but Hadlee did not play

1989/90, IND in NZ (1-0 win)

• He became the first man to take 400 test wickets in the first test
• Australia played one test at the end of the season which New Zealand won after Hadlee took 5-39 in the first innings - his last effort at home

1990, NZ in ENG (1-0 loss)

• He made an aggressive 86 in the second test and finished at Nottinghamshire (his second home) by taking 8 wickets including two in his final over (one off his last ball)

Without him, the team won just 5 tests between 1990 and 1997 and only one series (against Zimbabwe). New Zealand's undefeated run of series at home ended in 1992 when England won 2-0

Looking at the history of New Zealand cricket, there have only been two truly successful periods for us: 1980-1990 and 1999-2004. Stephen Fleming may have got the best out of a talented team in the second of these but it is quite clear that even with Crowe, Wright and Chatfield - without Hadlee the 1980s would not have come close to being as successful. With him at one end you suddenly didn't need 400 runs to defend (an accusation that will surely plague Daniel vettori's record in future years). With that change to the equation, you can have the team collapse for 250 and still win thanks to Hadlee - thus the team was undefeated at home for 12 years

His complete control of swing, seam, line and length may never be equalled and the fitness, both mental and physical, to keep on doing it for as long as he did with nothing but the Ilford Second XI bowling in support (thank you Mike Gatting) is surely the model of professionalism

And just because one must, here are some statistical points:

• Of the 22 ten-wicket-matches by New Zealander's, 9 of them are Hadlee's
• 36 of the five-wicket-hauls are his
• Took 130 wickets @ 20 against Australia
• One of only two New Zealand born cricketers to take 1000+ first class wickets

As a final word I will offer hope to our young cricketer's and a word of caution to our coaches and selectors. After 8 matches Hadlee averaged 15 with the bat and 41 with the ball - how many players have been dropped since because they had better stats? Right now we have two very talented cricketers in the form of Tim Southee and Kane Williamson and I hope that they will not be judged by what Hadlee and Crowe did at the end of their careers but how unpolished they were at the start

Finally, if you have read this far you are a true Black Cap fan and deserve a treat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNW37MujrQk

Our greatest test match in highlights

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now

Look to Friday

Just in case people look here during the week, I'm currently working on a special blog entry similar to the one I did about Stephen Fleming over Christmas. This one will be about Sir Richard Hadlee and in particular his influence on New Zealand's success in the 1970s and 1980s. I've Been wanting to do this one for months now but there has been too much going on in cricket (not a bad thing) but now there is a slight lull, current matches can be commented on next week

The familiar warmth

Hello and welcome back to my blog

SPRING is very much upon us in the southern hemisphere; September melts into October, the English season concludes and the Champions League finishes with, perhaps, a statement of intent that to me feels more like a threat (but more about that in a moment). My (hopefully 'our') focus now shifts away from the GMT time zone to the subcontinent as the Border-Gavaskar Trophy and the Black Caps tour of Bangladesh loom as a challenging start to what promises to be a long summer of cricket (though little of it will be in New Zealand sadly - possibly less than we think if Pakistan are banned)
It doesn't take the most astute of cricket fans to suffer a bout of deja vu at this point - Aus in India and NZ in Bangladesh? Didn't this happen recently? Yes in fact these same tours occurred in 2008. It would appear that India has positioned itself to play Australia almost every year (they played ODIs in 2009) and with The Ashes occurring twice in a 4-year period there is some evidence that the top teams are manufacturing a top-tier for themselves. Mind you this attitude was clear several years ago when India quite openly stated an intention to create a relationship similar to ENG v AUS (at the time it was at the expense of a scheduled Indian tour of NZ which is why I remember). Meanwhile NZC has contented itself with series-after-series against Bangladesh - helpful for the stats (although not as much as it should be for some players) but not the key to improving our ranking. Don't be surprised if this occurs with Zimbabwe... oh wait maybe this has already begun (see end of NEWS segment below)
However I digress, there will be plenty of time to rant about this situation as the new season progresses, first there a couple of quick points to be made in order to close off the 2010 winter (as much as it can be given the match fixing issue). The Champions League finished last night with Chennai Super Kings victorious over the SA-based Warriors in as clinical a beating as stands in recent memory. This result underlines the main talking point from this forgettable event (especially from a NZ point of view) and that is the obvious and inevitable dominance of the IPL teams because of their 'first-pick' of players from other domestic teams. Although Ross Taylor did nothing for Bangalore the question remains as to how the NZ and Sri Lankan teams will get anywhere without their best players; it becomes a catch-22 situation where by a domestic team aims to win their own tournament by signing and producing better players but the same players are then snatched up by the IPL and thus unavailable for the League that they were developed for in the first place. Depth saved the other non-IPL teams from embarrassment if not from ultimate defeat but the one-sided final conveyed a BCCI intention of double dipping. The other question will be: there are plenty of domestic teams around the world to fill the IPL ranks, why do they need one from New Zealand? We only produce a few world-class players per generation they grab the current ones then use our dreadful League record to drop us for a few years like some kind of generational orchid

On a lighter note, my favourite county team Nottinghamshire have won the County Championship and former NZ player Andre Adams figured prominently as the highest wicket taker for the season (68 wickets @ 22.17). Here are the stats for the other kiwi players for the county season:
Hamish Marshall (First class and List A)
884 runs @ 35.36 with 7 fifties
333 runs @ 33.30 with 2 fifties
James Franklin (First class, List A and 2020)
862 runs @ 33.15 with 1 century and 4 fifties
466 runs @ 66.57 with 2 centuries and 2 fifties (SR: 86)
470 runs @ 130 SR with 2 fifties
46 wickets @ 23.54 with 1 5WH (First class)
Scott Styris (2020 only)
392 runs @ 162 SR with 1 century and 1 fifty
Ross Taylor (2020 only)
315 runs @ 173 SR with 2 fifties

NEWS

• Chris Moller will soon replace Alan Isaac as the Chairman for NZC
• Daniel Vettori received an honorary Masters in Science (sport and exercise science) from WINTEC in Hamilton
• Michael Sharpe will manage the Black Caps tour of Bangladesh after being manager of the NZ A team, Emerging Players team and the Under-19 team
• Justin Vaughan believes that NZ won’t be omitted from the Champions League next year and the IPL-first-pick rule won’t be changed.
• Chris Harris has applied to become the coach of the ZIM Under-19 team in a growing interest by NZC in ZIM cricket which I find to be opportunism at its worst.

RECENT RESULTS

• ENG beat PAK in the final ODI to take the series 3-2 - sadly this will be quickly forgotten in the wake of the controversies that dogged the entire tour

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now