'Please have mercy! Oh not tonight'

Hello and welcome back to my blog

This afternoon New Zealand will play Australia at the Gabba in the first of two test matches. The visitors will unleash a side possessing a great deal of confidence after their batsmen (1-6) all scored centuries in recent first class matches and the bowling attack boasts talent in Southee, Boult and Bracewell with Martin and Vettori as experience. They are due to play their first choice XI and have the form to throw all they have at Australia who are without most of the bowling attack that performed impressively in Sri Lanka and South Africa during the winter. Their batting line up is confused with Warner and Hughes to open and an aging Ponting at number 3. The wicket is set to be a fast, seamer and the back up bowlers that Australia will pick from to replace their wounded are the same ones that McCullum, Taylor and Ryder thrashed during the match against Australia A last week.

In my view these are the most even (if not favourable to NZ) circumstances to greet the Black Caps in many years. Although one should never underestimate an Australian sports team - they possess such strong individual and team character - but for once I feel confident that we can play at our best and truly test ourselves and our opponents. I am not the only commentator that has expressed as much but I have also heard people express regret that even if we are able to pull off a test or series victory, it would be diminished by the fact that Australia are fielding a weaker side than they would like. Are we to take advantage of injuries sustained while playing in other series? Do we attempt to kick our opponents while they're weak? Without reducing ourselves to the level of a carrion bird, I say yes we should.

It is the nature of the game. I want to see the team really try and crush the Australians if given half a chance, they have done the hard work and should have no hesitation in employing their full range of skills against a tough opponent. Would we expect any mercy if the situation was reversed? Well we need not guess because - as people quickly forget - the scenario presented to us today IS the reverse of all that have come before.

• In 2004 our bowling attack was lead by Martin and Franklin (both of little experience in such roles). We had them 4 down before this happened and we never recovered.


• In 2005 our side was so reduced we had to debut a long-haired Ian O'Brien (not nearly as established as the man who retired at the peak of his powers a couple seasons back) and saw good initial work undone yet again by Adam Gilchrist


• In 2008 our batting was still recovering from the retirements of Astle and Fleming and could not match the technique of the Australians


• In 2010 (remember the heavy roller moving in the wind?) a potential win in Hamilton was lost after some careless batting on Day two and a lack of penetration in the bowling

In fact one must go back to 2000/01 and 2001/02 to find a strong NZ side face off against a strong Australian side (and from those 6 tests, none resulted in victory). The problem then was that the Black Caps, strong as they were at the turn of the century, were no match for the greatest team of its time at the zenith of its rule. You may wish to notice that Shane Bond debuted in the latter series and did not play test cricket against Australia again. Who is complaining about injured bowlers?

Just to scale back the slightly tongue-in-cheek revenge talk, we should perhaps ask whether it is about being the 'better man' and take less joy in an opponent's weakness, beat them if we must but without the schadenfreude. I would argue that sport, certainly cricket, seldom affords the room for such luxury. To clarify, I mean that there is no problem taking joy and pride out of beating Australia just as long as the focus is correctly placed introspectively and not used to deride the opposition (even if Australia have been guilty of this in the past - see the late Peter Roebuck on the 2008 Sydney test match). I would also point out the importance of cricket teams taking whatever victory they can obtain because so seldom do two teams face one another at their peaks; 2005 was a fine example but that was a rare gem.

A lot of talk in this country will surround Kane Williamson (ignore the hype of Ryder's 16 6s - this is test cricket for goodness sake) and if he plays well then I will be pleased but he is not my focus - he plays, almost for his next series in Australia. It is McCullum and Taylor that are the key for me - especially if the pitch is a seaming wicket because one successful, aggressive innings in that environment can win the game. Overall I am encouraged by the following reality: for the first time in decades the Australian team won't have a hold on us; the Black Caps will have more freedom to play their own game without the pressure that the likes of Warne and McGrath use to apply.

All of this aside, I am looking forward to a really competitive series. However, if the team or its fans require any extra incentive to desire a New Zealand victory, just remember this horrible experience:

McGrath and Gillespie 100 run partnership and half centuries against NZ, Gabba 2004

If revenge was ever justified...

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

It's good bye for now

How quickly we forget: John Buchanan's insult to history and how it may cost New Zealand a great cricket team

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Jonathan Millmow wrote an article in the Dominion Post today covering the new selection policy to be followed for international, domestic and age-grade level cricket. It boils down to the following score-based analysis of players:

• Significant performance: 35%
• Consistent performance: 25%
• Contribution to the team: 15%
• Fitness: 10%
• Fielding: 10%
• Selector intuition: 5%

Now ignoring the regrettable writing style of Millmow (he actually uses the phrase "...the grand old days of the Richard Hadlee selection bolter have been hit for six") he does make one fine point and that is the surprisingly small percentage of influence the selector has compared to the statistical data- correctly pointing out that if stats were all that counted, we would not have benefited from one Jeremy Coney who captained winning sides in Australia and England in a 12 month period (and achieved much higher than his domestic averages would have suggested). John Buchanan is forgetting his cricket history, in my opinion, by going down this road; while the weight of statistics is important, there is still plenty of room for selector intuition. The two teams that Coney's cricket team beat in 1985/86 are appropriate given they can show us exactly how this 'new' system is flawed.

English cricket tried a purely performance based approach in the 1990s and it created an always-changing team that was constantly filled with players that scored heavily at domestic level/were performing well at the time, at the expense of players who, while out of form (perhaps), had the mental toughness and experience to play at the international level. In 1999 they lost a home series against New Zealand and were ranked the lowest test side in the world. Duncan Fletcher took over as coach with Nassar Hussain to captain and brought in central contracts and most importantly, a mind set that said there was more than just performing at the next level down - you had to show that your character was strong enough to help create a team capable of succeeding in the face of international pressures. It took a number of seasons but they reached number two in the world and beat Australia (2005) with batsmen who averaged 40-45 and bowlers who took wickets at 30 or more runs each. Now to reduce that victory to this simple fact is incorrect but the picking of players who could band together and meet the challenge presented by Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Gilchrist was quite clearly important.

The Australians themselves learnt that important lesson in 1980s after, again, New Zealand beat them at home. The selectors could see that to climb back up the rankings of cricket they had to invest in hard, young cricketers like Boon, Marsh, Waugh and Healy who could withstand the hard slog early in their career in order to build a fantastic team machine a decade later. It isn't just about numbers and calculations, there is something more that must be accounted for - a defiance, doggedness and determination that doesn't always construct first class averages of 50 but can do at international level.

Buchanan and company are ignoring this history and they risk negating what is one of the most potential-filled group of cricketers I have seen in a New Zealand setup. Fill your team with the Matthew Sinclairs, Mark Ramparakashs and Graeme Hicks of this world and see what happens when the heat is on them. John, you are too fond of your stats and computers and your contempt for your history and that of the team that is now beating you in the Ashes may cost this team more than a country of four million can afford to replace.

Next week I will preview the two-test series in Australia

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

It's good bye for now

Peter M. Roebuck (1956-2011): rest in peace?

Peter Roebuck was announced as deceased after an apparent suicide at a hotel in South Africa over the weekend and cricket has lost one of its most brilliant and mysterious commentators.

There have been many kind and sad words spoken and written about this master of cricket writing in the last 48 hours; in papers and blogs in equal measure. Although no one person seems to have a full grasp of the enigma that was Peter Roebuck, the sum of the pieces paints the picture of a brilliant thinker on the game, a fascinating person and yet flawed - to the last it seems. For me, I have lost my favourite cricket writer. One I discovered on cricinfo around the time I first began this blog and I have read or at least sampled every weekly entry he has published on that website since. As a blogger, Roebuck was my role model; I consistently agreed with him on key issues and appreciated his well-phrased, yet straightforward prose and ability to be either harsh or kind without ever reeking of bias or disrespect for the reader. When you read a person like that you don't really mind if you disagree with them, you respect that in those moments they are being genuine and are totally committed to their point even if, in your own mind, they appear to be wrong.

The reason my title questions the age old sign-off for those who depart the plain of the living is because the idea of such peaceful rest seems hardly appropriate on one hand and yet eerily so on the other. For, as I mentioned above, Roebuck was a mysterious man to say the least. Distant to many, a loner, convicted of assault in 2001 (after employing corporal punishment on young cricketers he was coaching) and the questions that remain unanswered surrounding his death. He played over 300 first class matches, amassed 17,500+ runs @ 37 but ruined his friendship with Sir Ian Botham after supporting the Somerset (the county he captained between 1986 and 1991) decision not to renew contracts for Sir Vivian Richards and Joel Garner. This was a man of many demons and yet such brilliant opinions on the game and those involved in it.

They say it isn't kind to speak ill of the dead but to ignore the flaws in ones heroes is a dangerous and certainly foolish habit. Not to mention inappropriate in the case of a writer who pulled no punches as in Australia (where he wrote for much of the last few decades) when he was especially scathing of the national team and Ponting in particular, after the victory at the SCG against India in 2007/08.

I have long said that my ideal blogging style, the one that I would most enjoy reading and that which I would most like to aspire to, is that created by Peter Roebuck in the last 30 years (with perhaps a touch of Zatlzman's humour) and that is the best tribute I can provide to the man who has helped guide me through my early days of writing about the sport that I and clearly, he loved more than any other. I would urge you to read some of his work, his books, articles or blog pieces and benefit from the best of the generation.

I'm not sure if Roebuck was ever capable of peaceful rest in life or if he could experience it in death but I would hope he could rest assured that his style, neutral, fearless-contrarian nature lives on in myself and others who enjoyed his vast contribution to cricket