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