My cricketing wish list for 2013

There’s nothing unique in penning one’s hopes for the year ahead though each list is distinctive. Different formats, numerous countries, international versus domestic – cricket has it all.  My hopes are simple; there are few dreams of grandeur. That’s not to say they’re achievable, but long-term change always needs a first step – or a catch, a wicket or a determined innings.

1. New Zealand Cricket acts like a significant national organisation not a Mum and Dad business
Many ardent New Zealand fans pinned their final hopes for NZC on the shoulders of David White – his ascension to the role previously held by Justin Vaughan was seen as a significant step forward in the corridors of cricketing power. If the diabolical handling of the change in captaincy is any guide, a number of the game’s faithful may now be looking for another summer pastime.

Six quick singles – the night watchman delivers

It was going to take a Herculean feat from Central Districts to recover from a poor first day – it never came. Will Young’s maiden century was lost in a heavy defeat, surpassed by a nonchalant innings from the talismanic Jesse Ryder and a maiden ton from Scott Kuggeleijn.  Cricket matches aren’t won or lost by the individual feats of one man, though CD management must be tempted to touch base with Tonya Harding’s husband, and bodyguard, prior to the sides’ next meeting.

Central Districts 260 (W Young 121, M Gillespie 3/56, S Kuggeleijn 3/53; 59.1 overs) and 389 (J How 51, J Raval 74, C Cachopa 90, P Trego 59, J Franklin 4/71, J Patel 3/66; 116.4 overs) lost to Wellington 403 (M Papps 117, J Ryder 162, A Lamb 3/76, A Patel 3/62; 98 overs) and 248/3 (M Papps 77*, S Kuggeleijn 142*; 66.4 overs) by 7 wickets at Karori Park, Wellington

Ryder set for domestic return

I'm going to come back stronger than ever and make an impact for Wellington. This is the first step in the next stage of my career and I'm going hard out - whatever happens in the future will happen. I want to play for New Zealand again, but I'm taking one step at a time.
           Jesse Ryder, Sunday Star Times (8 July, 2012)

Courtesy of FairFax NZ

I have tried in earnest to make this blog about cricket - what happens in the middle, not that which occurs outside my viewing or listening realm. Whilst I haven't always been successful, for the most part I have tried to remove personalities out of discussions - what relevance is the view of one looking inside out, without context? Should the personality of a cricketer, and what they do in their private lives, matter? No. It may provide a weak background to a cricketing story but for mine anyway, the two are separate issues, provided one does not impact on the other. Scribes and bloggers only seem interested when personal (read: off-field) issues affect the cricketer, and his cricket, and only when in an adverse way - it makes more compelling copy for the masses, I guess.

At the wicket with Iain O’Brien – the sequel

Part 2: A career post cricket

Test cricket deserves a three-piece suit

In the second part of a cricketing Buddha’s interview with cult figure Iain O’Brien we discuss life after a decade long playing career – Iain mixes light hearted banter with the some great cricketing insight. He talks openly about his battles with depression, spot-fixing, Jesse Ryder and his portrayal as a young Ron Snowden. He is candid about his dealings with the media and how it is now sitting on the other side of the fence. 

In a Donning the whites exclusive Iain puts the rumours of a career in nude modelling to bed, though he leaves the door open for his own underwear range.

XI lessons from a New Zealand summer (2)

Part 2: Accelerating through the middle order

In Part 1 I took a look back at the performances of the New Zealand top order through the 2011/12 season and discussed the key issues facing New Zealand cricket.

In the second of a three-part feature I move away from on field performance and reflect on matters concerning (and perpetuated by) the fans.

5. Fans turn quicker than Vettori: When Craig McMillan, along with a number of other prominent sports “journos” and emotional “fans”, berated Jesse Ryder for costing New Zealand a T20I series victory against South Africa I began to question whether I had returned to the United Kingdom and was listening to the vitriol of football tragics after England’s exit from another high-profile tournament.

Fans - critic or assassin?

"When we judge or criticise another person, it says nothing about that person; it merely says something about our own need to be critical" - Unknown

Jesse Ryder in full flow

Why is it that so many fans feel the need to be critical, bordering on the vitriolic? That's not to confuse constructive comment or well-reasoned and supported argument - more the conveyance of ownership and the personal attacks, not of sporting ability but character and personality. Are we so baseless that we take delight in the derision of our sporting 'heroes'?

The deciding New Zealand versus South Africa T20 brought such comment to the fore - the Black Caps capitulated as their African opponents have done at ICC tournaments in the past. For once, the clichéd choke is not too strong a word. With five overs to go New Zealand needed less than a run a ball with seven wickets in hand, and on a ground that only just accommodates a full sized rugby pitch, yet in the ensuing 24 hours comment centred solely on Jesse Ryder.

Ryder's an easy target. He has just returned from another injury layoff, enjoys a pint or 20 and thinks a steak and cheese pie is a well-balanced meal - but the man can wield the willow. He hit 52 at close to 125 and top scored for the match after not donning the black kit for the first time since New Zealand upset Australia in Hobart last December. Without question he made errors, big ones, but if you believe much of what has been written and preached he was the only Kiwi on the pitch. The condemnation has been direct, swift and condescending.

Little has been made of the soft dismissals of the other top order batsmen or the inability of capable middle order players to even lay bat on ball - scribes and punters lay the blame squarely at Ryder's feet. Yes, he fumbled his way through his last few runs but he has no track record of putting personal milestones above team outcomes - Twitter and talkback radio would tell you otherwise. Much of the comment was baseless at best; personal abuse at gutter level. But, the sentiment that struck me was from a former player, himself the target on too many occasions during a career that never quite reached the pinnacle of its true potential.

Craig McMillan, former Black Cap turned television commentator and radio pundit, was unerring in his criticism of Ryder and his pursuit of personal glory, whilst largely neglecting the mishaps of others. He's a paid 'expert' asked to give his considered opinion - no issues there. But, and it's one of JLo proportions, the crucifixion of Ryder is coming from a man who himself was widely criticised for his girth, his fitness and his propensity to throw it away in a blaze of glory. The same man who, when people questioned his form in test cricket near the sunset of his career, answered in the best way - with a test century but then commented that his innings should gag a few commentators - how quickly we forget about the glasshouses in which we all live.....

Whilst Ryder is so frequently the target of condescension and personal attacks, there are many others scattered throughout our great game. Brash South African, sorry - Englishman, Kevin Pietersen, Australian captain Michael Clarke and Brendon McCullum all suffer the same fate. Outspoken New Zealand wicketkeeper Adam Parore and the aforementioned McMillan were never far from the airwaves and column inches in their day either. But why is it that certain players draw unparalleled criticism whilst others seemingly walk on water, even when they have muddied them so frequently?

Why do 'fans' continually partake in the character assassination and unsupported criticism of our sporting 'heroes'? Is it our right? In the end are players, coaches, managers and teams accountable to the paying public? As we invest more heavily in inflated ticket prices, merchandise, sponsors' products and pay television, maybe they are - though that's for another day. Constructive comment and considered opinion are fair but why must we cross the boundary into personal attacks and vitriol - is it seen in any other endeavour (politics excepted)? Is it envy, jealousy or the unparalleled riches that players earn while the 'common man' (and fan) puts his nose to the grindstone in a 'real' job? It's an open question - I have no definitive answer....

Scribes and casual bloggers do it too; it's not just the domain of the man on the street. Unfortunately, emotion sells - would anyone buy a newspaper that leads with 'We lose - no one's to blame'? In a few short months of writing this blog I've realised it's easier to criticise on personal feelings than compose a considered argument.

In today’s digital, social media-obsessed world there are now endless avenues open for comment  – the issue is that most are anonymous, so balanced debate is often lacking. Most fans love to comment on the stars of their sport, especially in Aotearoa where most are easily accessible to the public. Twitter, Facebook, talkback radio (with SMS comment – I still don’t get it), blogs, forums and article comments, among others, all provide an endless source of unmitigated banter. But, here is the kicker – on most occasions, in New Zealand at least, when our side wins talkback, and most others, is often slow; when we lose to France at a RWC or are farcical in our efforts at the wicket, every couch critic wants his two cents and his pound of flesh – no matter the lack of logic in the argument, heated as it often is.

Most of us will never play at the highest level, or commentate or write about our great game to audiences too innumerable to count – more the pity. Why then do we confuse personal sporting performance with criticisms of personality - seldom do the two meet? Very few of us have insights into the players; their work ethic, attitude and personality. Our view is largely from the outside, yet fan comment often bases thoughts on what we see and our perceptions; not fact or reasoned opinion - a little context goes a long way. 

Many of us have love-hate relationships with our cricketing personalities – others simply love to hate them. Whatever your opinion, most fans are just that – they love their teams and want nothing more but for them to do well – sorry, WIN! The paradox is that a minority have a confused way of showing it. 

For all his faults in the decider, Ryder did not lose New Zealand the game – maybe South Africa should even get a little credit. Will the same punters who offered little more than baseless abuse jump back on the bandwagon if Ryder flays the South African quicks in the test series? Ryder appeared to have lost a little weight in his injury absence yet people still made comment about his running – did punters say the same things of the beer swilling Tasmanian, David Boon? No, the portly Boon still holds legend status for his Ashes tour drinking antics – he’s seen as the quintessential Aussie bloke.
Don’t get me wrong, I have little time for cheerleading either - Channel 9 are cringe worthy to all but a select groups of Aussie sycophants. Likewise, no-one wants to hear the Super Rugby player political correctness or the ‘netball was the winner on the day’ speech – as fans it’s about having an opinion, not a baseless rant.

If you think my ramblings are off the mark, I'm open to both destructive criticism and vitriol. Post a comment or hunt me down on Twitter (@aotearoaxi) - I don't live in the public eye, I prefer the anonymity of a faceless moniker. Let’s hope that irony is not lost…

This post also appears in the April edition of SPIN-off Cricket.

Kane Williamson - T20I or not?

Kane Williamson - tests or T20?

There is little doubt Kane Williamson will grow into one of the true stars of New Zealand cricket, helping his unfashionable band of grafters to triumphs throughout the cricketing world. The question remains whether his continued inclusion in the T20I side is hindering his rise to the upper echelons of the world game.

'Experts' and arm chair selectors alike are torn on what is best for Williamson and New Zealand cricket - not just in the now but for many fruitful years to come. There seems to be little middle ground in people's thinking - either Williamson must be a part of all New Zealand teams or he should be rested from the international T20 arena. Who's right will likely only bear out in seasons to come but the wrong move now could delay the young man's cricketing ascension.

Those who believe that Williamson's, and New Zealand's, best interests include the young Northern Districts whippet playing T20 internationals will point to his astonishing finishing in the final match against a struggling Zimbabwe. With New Zealand requiring 26 off the final two overs, both McCullum brothers were caught in the deep leaving nine balls to finish the innings and save Kiwi blushes - Williamson needed only five. He showed timing, placement and cricketing nous to score 20 and save New Zealand the embarrassment of a loss to Zimbabwe with 2 balls to spare. The innings was one that many thought would silence any doubters, but has it had the opposite effect?

In five matches Williamson averages 60 at a little over 140 in T20I but the numbers are deceptive - he's only compiled 120 international runs. In 40 matches at all levels Williamson averages below 20 at marginally over run a ball, on par with his efforts in this season's HRV Cup, but his batting seemed almost an afterthought in a Northern Districts side full of hitting options. The shining light was his economy rate in the 2011/12 domestic game at a miserly 5.74 - the competition's most economical bowler. The intriguing part is he has only bowled 30 balls for New Zealand.

While he can compete and help New Zealand, should he be part of the setup in the immediate future at least? Will his continued use in international hit and giggle affect his test game? At 21, Williamson has time on his side.

New Zealand is developing their spin stocks in McCullum, Hira and Nicol, and there is no shortage of batsmen if others do their job. With Taylor waiting in the wings after the South African series and Ryder back in the squad after another injury, Williamson's inclusion is not a necessity.

For all but jockeys, Williamson is a small man. He has shown impeccable timing but lacks the brute power of his peers so when caught a little short he can't muscle the ball to, and over, the boundary like McCullum or Guptill can, while still holding technical shape. He needs bottom hand to achieve any power whilst his game relies on batting's more subtle arts. As a result he is forced to hit to areas he would usually avoid. Over time will it prove detrimental to his test cricket development?

In a short test career Williamson has achieved only modest numbers but the manner of his play and obvious cricketing mind have shown all what is possible. A burgeoning test average a shade over 30 defies his test potential but he has his maiden test century, 131 against India on the subcontinent, and another three 50s to his name in just nine matches. Since his test debut as a baby faced 20 year old, Williamson has looked bound for greatness. His technique, though with the gaps of a man just starting his international journey, provides him with a base most senior players would envy and his temperament seems inclined towards the lengthy not the flashy. Not since Stephen Fleming has a young Kiwi looked to have the cricketing world as his feet – I discount the deeds of Ross Taylor for though he has amassed impressive numbers neither his technique nor mental ability have shown marked recent growth.

Given time to build on the early promise, and with a lot of hard work, the international game appears to open out before Williamson. Like Turner, Wright and Crowe before him, a stint in the daily grind of the County Championship would help the young pretender hone his undoubted batting talent in preparation for the fierce examination at test level. Coupled with Plunket Shield cricket and New Zealand’s test schedule, application to his craft will carry Williamson a long way – Martin Guptill’s growth in international cricket illustrates that. The volume of ODIs New Zealand plays will allow him to develop the attacking side of his game without the immediacy of T20 pressure – a challenge he has relished with two centuries at 36.20 in his first 19 outings.

The knowledge that comes with learning his game in the longer formats, without the confusion and urgency of T20 tactics, will not only aid in the test and ODI arenas but will give Williamson the cricketing introspection to excel in international T20 in the future.

I am a proud New Zealander who adores test cricket. My thoughts may appear lopsided but test cricket will forever remain the pinnacle of our great game. Regardless of whether Kane Williamson continues to play T20 internationals in his formative cricketing years, he will undoubtedly have a long and successful New Zealand career.

We quickly forget that today's greats such as Ponting, Kallis, Tendulkar, Dravid, and Sangakkara, among others, didn't have the pressure of T20 early in their careers. They spent time building an innings, fine tuning their technique and learning their game before joining the T20 circus.

The question will remain, as it does with young tyro Doug Bracewell, whether T20 will delay his ascension to his position among Crowe, Turner, Reid et al. – time will invariably bear that out. My views hold little weight; such influential decisions sit with John Wright and Kim Littlejohn, who are making steady progress and creating undoubted depth. Like most New Zealand supporters nothing would make me happier than to see Williamson lead his country in years to come and end his career among the game’s elite – time will tell.

If my writing seems a little confused this week, please blame my little princess. My wife gave birth to a little girl a few days ago so what you're reading are the sleep deprived ramblings of an exhausted but elated Daddy.

Run fat boy run!

Taylor limps off retired hurt

Friday, 27 January 2011; morning session, day 2 - only test versus Zimbabwe: New Zealand captain Ross Taylor hobbles off McLean Park, Napier, after a subdued but considered 122 against a Zimbabwe side still looking to qualify for an ICC test ranking.

As a New Zealand cricket supporter, that should be music to your ears, but for Ross Taylor who was walking off lame. Forced to retire hurt with a torn calf, Taylor will miss the rest of the Zimbabwe tour, if not the early stages of South Africa’s visit to our shores. It was also the first time, in New Zealand at least, that the error of the ICC’s decision to implement the no-runner rule came into focus, though in this instance it is unlikely to have a large effect on the final result. 

In essence, no, in actuality, the changes to the runner rule mean that at international level at least, an injured batsman is forced to either hit out or limp off - no runner is allowed so his wicket is lost. In Taylor’s case, he would likely have left the field anyway, but what if he had simply strained his calf as opposed to tearing it? What if Taylor had been on 22 instead of 122, and New Zealand were four or five down for under 100? Would the same indifference to the new rule have been shown then?

Prior to the introduction of the no-runner rule late last year, an injured batsman could call for a runner and continue his innings albeit that the opposing captain had to agree; generally that was little more than a formality. The ICC thought it was being manipulated and abused so changed the rule, yet the same power brokers previously implemented the 15 degree rule so now you have to throw a baseball pitch to be called for chucking! Double standards? An off spinners most deadly delivery is now the one that is delivered with a bent arm and goes the other way – has that not been abused as well?

A case for pinch runners?

There’s plenty of evidence that the runner rule has been exploited for years, but should a change exclude genuine injuries? Our own Jesse Ryder regularly took advantage of the loop holes in the rule, but not once did another captain show any leadership and question the runner’s use. There are numerous other offenders, Arjuna Ranatunga chief amongst them, who faked an injury and got a runner to compensate for their lack of physical prowess and couch potato fitness. Ranatunga would often get a serve from opposition players - I recall Ian Healy giving him a little Aussie mongrel in a spiteful ODI. However, Healy was happy to use a runner a couple of times in his career. Nothing unusual in that, but did David Boon, his physical equivalent, come to the crease? No, Dean Jones appeared in the middle - a thoroughbred replacing a Clydesdale?

The ICC’s decision was forced on them by a captain finally denying a batsman a runner. If such leadership had been shown more regularly, would those stretching the rules have tried so often? Many of the issues were caused by ill-prepared players getting cramps and asserting they needing running help – Andrew Strauss put an end to that.  He refused South Africa’s Graeme Smith, already having scored 100, a runner for cramp in the 2009 Champions Trophy, and more power to him. But as an isolated incident, his decision no doubt forced the ICC’s hand. Would it have caused the same change in the corridors of the ICC if Shakib Al Hasan had refused Brendan Taylor the same opportunity?

Cricket pundits the world over have varied views on the new rule – bowlers generally approve, batsmen not so much. Given how much the game has swayed in the batsmen’s’ favour in the past two decades that’s understandable. Jesse Ryder is not a fan. Given the comments of both John Wright and Ross Taylor his path back to international cricket could be a long one – no side can afford to carry an injury prone batsman anymore. But, does the no-runner rule unfairly disadvantage the batting side? Yes. If Taylor was in the early stages of his innings when the injury occurred and was unable to run, New Zealand have effectively lost his wicket. It also robs the paying public of entertainment; if injured players don’t retire hurt they can often do little else but stand and swing –I can turn on ESPN and watch the MLB if that was what I wanted from sport.

And to address the protestations of the bowling fraternity, no you don’t get a replacement, but in the modern game how many in the stands come to watch you? Bowlers with the genius of Warne, Marshall, Akram and Ambrose have largely disappeared from the game – none but a small minority would bring me, or other spectators, through the gates.

Players will always find loopholes in crickets laws, it's human nature – the 15 degree bowling law illustrates that, but should we penalise those who are legitimately injured? Should we force an injured batsman to retire and his side effectively lose a wicket? If he stays it's hardly a great watch when all he can do is try to bludgeon boundaries without any thought of running (much like T20, which given its current success might be what authorities want!) – that’s not what I want to see at test level. And if none of that resonates with you, surely the mayhem and confusion that ensued when runners were in the middle made the game a more interesting spectacle – comedy on the sporting stage?