***Official*** West Indies in New Zealand 2013/14

[ohnoitsyou]

isn't this is the third time we have had this discussion

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Just listened to that interview. Too right about the field placements. I remember being really annoyed when Panesar managed that single during the Eden Park Test because we had 9 catchers in, so he could just bump it to where mid off would have been.

Haha gold. Coney mentions Taylor being sent home from Sri Lanka tour to avoid being given the captaincy.

 

[Flem274*]

Tbf to McCullum in that situation, we needed the wicket there and then and if edged the ball could have gone anywhere. If he didn't have so many catchers in and the ball fell where an extra man around the bat would have been he would have been slammed for not being aggressive enough with an over or two left and one wicket to get. McCullum was damned if he did, damned if he didn't there unless New Zealand won.

 

[banquetbear]

but really criticize in private. Praise in public. He was very damning.

...surely you can't be serious. His job isn't to be a cheerleader. He was employed as a commentator and he was asked his opinion on something so he spoke his mind. As he should. You believe everything he says yet you think that he shouldn't be telling anyone?

 

[Hurricane]

...surely you can't be serious. His job isn't to be a cheerleader. He was employed as a commentator and he was asked his opinion on something so he spoke his mind. As he should. You believe everything he says yet you think that he shouldn't be telling anyone?

I believe his comments will be ineffective at securing change within NZC and will lessen his ability to have any other constructive input. I realise he doesn't work for them anymore but he is still connected. I think a few well timed behind closed doors comments from him could create change. If anything I think that his public comments will create a defensive reaction within NZC and will reinforce the negative behaviour he is criticizing.

In case that was tl;dr here is another version

NZC didn't give a **** about being criticized during the Ross situation and I met people who wrote personal letters to NZC asking heart felt questions and asking for explanations. NZC is immune to criticism and their solution to the flack was rather than changing was to hire a PR company to influence the media to influence us that they really are good guys. Open criticism just pushes them into a corner and they don't listen. You must have a sit down with them. And if they still won't listen then maybe we need some changes up top.

 

[Hurricane]

isn't this is the third time we have had this discussion

2nd time - I have written a novel in response to flem that I am trying to edit down as we speak.

 

[banquetbear]

I believe his comments will be ineffective at securing change within NZC and will lessen his ability to have any other constructive input.

...his job isn't to "secure change within NZC." His job is to provide his opinion, which is what he did. Do you think commentators should just cheerlead? Do you think they "owe a duty" to NZ Cricket?

I realise he doesn't work for them anymore but he is still connected. I think a few well timed behind closed doors comments from him could create change. If anything I think that his public comments will create a defensive reaction within NZC and will reinforce the negative behaviour he is criticizing.

You may have forgotten the events from last year. There is nothing that a few well timed comments from anyone behind closed doors would achieve. There is nothing to be achieved by doing and saying nothing.

In case that was tl;dr here is another version

NZC didn't give a **** about being criticized during the Ross situation and I met people who wrote personal letters to NZC asking heart felt questions and asking for explanations. NZC is immune to criticism and their solution to the flack was rather than changing was to hire a PR company to influence the media to influence us that they really are good guys. Open criticism just pushes them into a corner and they don't listen. You must have a sit down with them. And if they still won't listen then maybe we need some changes up top.

Utter tosh. It was obvious changes up top were needed last year during the Taylor debacle. People have had the "sit down and play nice" with them. Playing nice with NZ Cricket simply reinforced the idea that what they did last year and the direction they are going in now is the right one. People should speak their mind and they should speak it loudly. Turner and Coney are two of the best cricketing brains in the country. They shouldn't be muzzled.

 

[Hurricane]

...his job isn't to "secure change within NZC." His job is to provide his opinion, which is what he did. Do you think commentators should just cheerlead? Do you think they "owe a duty" to NZ Cricket?

You may have forgotten the events from last year. There is nothing that a few well timed comments from anyone behind closed doors would achieve. There is nothing to be achieved by doing and saying nothing.
Utter tosh. It was obvious changes up top were needed last year during the Taylor debacle. People have had the "sit down and play nice" with them. Playing nice with NZ Cricket simply reinforced the idea that what they did last year and the direction they are going in now is the right one. People should speak their mind and they should speak it loudly. Turner and Coney are two of the best cricketing brains in the country. They shouldn't be muzzled.

Glen Turner is not Simon Doull. He is not simply a commentator. He is one of the finest batsman we have ever produced and has mana and esteem in the cricketing community that "a commentator" does not have. If it was Simon Doull who said this I might have the same concerns but they wouldn't be as grave. Glenn Turner needs to influence change and not just provide meaningless sound bites that only hard core cricket fans will listen to.

Look lets find some common ground here. I have read enough of your posts to know you think Ross was badly shafted. If you have read any posts by me you will know I am in your camp. I only called off the dogs off McHesson after our Otago members felt we were getting stuck into baz and hess lad too much.

There are a lot of comments I didn't make on this forum as I didn't want to go there in print. But me and various colleagues of mine were very saddened by some of the motives for the change of captaincy.

However, if people want change they need to do something about it. Leaders need to lead. And people need to be brave. Glenn Turner is a leader and not a commentator and he needs to act like one. Jeremy Coney is a former captain of New Zealand and he needs to act like one as well. As misguided as John Parkers stink memo was - he tried to do something. He was trying to show leadership and that impressed me.

 

[Hurricane]

@Flem on goal setting and choosing to aim for number 1.

"Your mind can achieve anything that you believe." Quote Earl nightingale. Quote Napoleon Hill. Quote Brian Tracey.

That phrase is the cornerstone of positive thinking. The meaning of this quote is that you can only achieve things that you believe. You can not set yourself a goal that is extremely difficult because you won't believe in your heart of hearts it is possible.
The theory of goal setting is that you are supposed to set goals that are just out of your grasp.

Look I don't want you to capitulate and agree with me keep your view Flem - but accept this.

Your view on the role of a goal is different than mine. And I believe your view is consistent with NZCs. I believe you and NZC believe a goal should be a vision and a motivating factor for the players. Something that should energize and motivate them just to read it alone.

My views on goals are quite different. I believe that goals should be a challenge that you should make a point of actually achieving. I don't care about their motivational value. I just want to check them off as being complete in 5 years. That is success for me. Achieving the goals I set for myself. I achieve every goal I set for myself. So the disagreement here is a difference over what is the role of goal setting for a team I believe. NZC believes it should be for motivation I believe it should be something that they really want to accomplish and will put plans and $s in place to get there.

I will take this from another angle. What is the point of setting a goal of being number 1 in the world when we don't have the dollars or resources necessary to execute a tactical plan to get us there. It is just a pipe dream and words on a piece of paper. In that case Bangers and Zimbos should also have a goal of being number 1 if they also don't care what is realistic given their country's resources or past sucess rate.

My other point is this - NZ blackcaps have an overly positive attitude and an unrealistic appraisal of their own abilities. We should regard ourselves as the underdog for every game and pick and appropriates strategy.

Prime example of our over belief in ourself:
Lets bat first against SA in South Africa

All this said i want to note that I do think we can win the 50 over world cup.

 

[Flem274*]

Maybe Glenn Turner, like the rest of us, believes the best way to enact change in an organisation which cbf is to go on the attack in public using fair and constructive criticism as often as possible?

I know you have experience in business leadershippy things and stuff so this will sound real dickish but I think you're being a bit naive. NZC would love nothing more than for Turner to go to them and never air his opinions in public because then NZC can just continue their "in one ear, out the other and it never happened" policy. Turner, Coney etc might think they have two options - go to the media or work their way up the NZC heirachy into influential positions. A lot of people aren't suited to or simply don't want (for a variety of reasons) to be big managers in a national sporting body. It isn't a job for just anyone. Turner has already had a crack as a national coach and in a few other roles. His stint as the national coach was a disaster. He's a pretty cool commentator though, so maybe he feels he can do more good in the media.

 

[banquetbear]

Glen Turner is not Simon Doull. He is not simply a commentator.

...I'm sorry, but I'm sure that the pay check radio sport gives him says that he is. And I'm sure they aren't paying him to not express his opinion when asked.

He is one of the finest batsman we have ever produced and has mana and esteem in the cricketing community that "a commentator" does not have. If it was Simon Doull who said this I might have the same concerns but they wouldn't be as grave. Glenn Turner needs to influence change and not just provide meaningless sound bites that only hard core cricket fans will listen to.

And that is why it is important that people like Turner speak out. He has mana and esteem in the cricketing community: something that guys like Doull don't have. You can't influence change by not speaking out.

Look lets find some common ground here. I have read enough of your posts to know you think Ross was badly shafted. If you have read any posts by me you will know I am in your camp. I only called off the dogs off McHesson after our Otago members felt we were getting stuck into baz and hess lad too much.

There are a lot of comments I didn't make on this forum as I didn't want to go there in print. But me and various colleagues of mine were very saddened by some of the motives for the change of captaincy.

However, if people want change they need to do something about it. Leaders need to lead. And people need to be brave. Glenn Turner is a leader and not a commentator and he needs to act like one. Jeremy Coney is a former captain of New Zealand and he needs to act like one as well. As misguided as John Parkers stink memo was - he tried to do something. He was trying to show leadership and that impressed me.

The people paying Turner his pay cheque think otherwise. He is a commentator: even if you want to pretend that he isn't. He is paid money to provide his opinions which is what he is doing. Jeremy Coney is paid money to provide his opinions as well. You think these guys should be self-censoring: I think if they did that they would not be doing the game or their employers justice. If I think that an apple tastes rotten I have no issue telling the world that the apple is rotten. If Turner and Coney have opinions: then they should express them. If you think people shouldn't have a right to say what they want to say we might as well close these forums and tell everyone to stop posting.

 

[Hurricane]

@flem Its a 11 o'clock so this will be short and not proof read so forgive me if it is hard hitting and machiavellian - its not every day I get told I am naive by the way - I would like to think I know a thing or two from twenty years of experience but I am not above criticism.

I don't think I am incorrect however and if we are going to point out personal faults to each other I will mention you havn't worked for a large organisation before so know very little of how they work. If Glen Turner wants to influence change and he knows that the head of NZC won't listen to him. His next best bet is to lobby against him. And I warned you this post would be machiavellian. All he has to do is go to those newly appointed directors and ask for an audience with them and make a few well chosen comments about the need for change at the top.

one way or another he can do more damage behind closed doors than through the media.

And if I am wrong - that really it has gotten to the point that no one in NZC will give him the time of day and the media is his only option. Then tell him to go hard or go home. This interview was heard by what 2-3000 people tops. Tell him to go on a real campaign.

i am off the bed now.

Cheers

 

[Flem274*]

@Flem on goal setting and choosing to aim for number 1.

"Your mind can achieve anything that you believe." Quote Earl nightingale. Quote Napoleon Hill. Quote Brian Tracey.

That phrase is the cornerstone of positive thinking. The meaning of this quote is that you can only achieve things that you believe. You can not set yourself a goal that is extremely difficult because you won't believe in your heart of hearts it is possible.
The theory of goal setting is that you are supposed to set goals that are just out of your grasp.

Look I don't want you to capitulate and agree with me keep your view Flem - but accept this.

Your view on the role of a goal is different than mine. And I believe your view is consistent with NZCs. I believe you and NZC believe a goal should be a vision and a motivating factor for the players. Something that should energize and motivate them just to read it alone.

My views on goals are quite different. I believe that goals should be a challenge that you should make a point of actually achieving. I don't care about their motivational value. I just want to check them off as being complete in 5 years. That is success for me. Achieving the goals I set for myself. I achieve every goal I set for myself. So the disagreement here is a difference over what is the role of goal setting for a team I believe. NZC believes it should be for motivation I believe it should be something that they really want to accomplish and will put plans and $s in place to get there.

I will take this from another angle. What is the point of setting a goal of being number 1 in the world when we don't have the dollars or resources necessary to execute a tactical plan to get us there. It is just a pipe dream and words on a piece of paper. In that case Bangers and Zimbos should also have a goal of being number 1 if they also don't care what is realistic given their country's resources or past sucess rate.

My other point is this - NZ blackcaps have an overly positive attitude and an unrealistic appraisal of their own abilities. We should regard ourselves as the underdog for every game and pick and appropriates strategy.

Prime example of our over belief in ourself:
Lets bat first against SA in South Africa

All this said i want to note that I do think we can win the 50 over world cup.

We're on the same page for the first half of your post I think. Basically I look at it like this:

shortest term goal - win the next test/ODI/whatever
short term goal - win the series
medium term - string some series wins together, climb rankings
long term/dream - be the best in the world

I agree goals should be set just out of reach - those are the short to medium term goals. Achieving them feels good and spurs you on, but the long term goal is still there and you get to it with the smaller milestones. Every cricketer dreams of winning games for his team and being a part of the best team, and the goals get you there.

On the dollars and resources - well there's definitely a lot of flaws in cricket here that are not the players fault, but something only NZC can address. A lot of those flaws are due to NZC themselves. I found it both sad and interesting our bowlers fitness and general talent depth has improved since NZC closed the academy and took the hands off approach. Instead the bowlers seem to be doing it themselves, building their actions and skills at lower levels like school and club cricket and consulting specialist coaches like Shane Bond and Vaughan Johnson. On one hand this isn't surprising since it has always been about what you're learning rather than how much money and camps and whatever are being fired in your direction, but on the other it's disappointing NZC couldn't bring the best of everything together in one package.

So I guess I partly agree with you about the resources, but we can definitely do better. I'm not sure if your post is including the population/second to rugby/small pool thing or not (if not skip this paragraph). If it is well you know what I think about those arguments. If population mattered India would have dominated since their first test, and the West Indies and Australia would never have risen to such heights. Yes the cricketing culture isn't as strong in New Zealand as it was in the West Indies or Australia during their great periods, but culture isn't set in stone. Culture can change. My opinion is New Zealanders have a deeply ingrained inferiority mentality when it comes to cricket that isn't present in any other sport we play, even ones where we're totally ****ed from the outset half the time like football. We certainly don't have it in my number one sport despite the odds being against us a lot more than in cricket and some other issues which I won't touch on a public forum, and in one discipline (admittedly the least popular one globally by miles) we are the best in the world. Cricket has always been our summer game and gets a lot of time in the media. New Zealand loves the game despite being terrible most of the time, and we still pretend no one in the country cares about it which is our excuse for being bad. It's a really weird phenomenon. (Edit: India have both a massive population and an obsession with the game, and they were only the best once and for a short time).

The underdog comment is interesting. I view teams revelling in the underdog tag as a kind of "oh well, we were expected to lose anyway" mental crutch because it's an artificial way of taking the pressure off ourselves to win or put in a decent performance. It's a crutch which needs to go if we're to move up the rankings because even if you're mid table you're expected to beat the teams below you. It also reminds me of Hadlee telling Bond off for being too confident in a press conference because "New Zealanders' don't do that" (I would find the exact quote but my copy of Bond's book is at my parents). Bond ignored him and I think he was right to do so.

I think McCullum's bat first decision was less to do with being ****y and more to do with either a misread of the pitch or not wanting to bat last, believing the pitch would just get worse.

 

[banquetbear]

@flem Its a 11 o'clock so this will be short and not proof read so forgive me if it is hard hitting and machiavellian - its not every day I get told I am naive by the way - I would like to think I know a thing or two from twenty years of experience but I am not above criticism.

I don't think I am incorrect however and if we are going to point out personal faults to each other I will mention you havn't worked for a large organisation before so know very little of how they work. If Glen Turner wants to influence change and he knows that the head of NZC won't listen to him. His next best bet is to lobby against him. And I warned you this post would be machiavellian. All he has to do is go to those newly appointed directors and ask for an audience with them and make a few well chosen comments about the need for change at the top.

one way or another he can do more damage behind closed doors than through the media.

And if I am wrong - that really it has gotten to the point that no one in NZC will give him the time of day and the media is his only option. Then tell him to go hard or go home. This interview was heard by what 2-3000 people tops. Tell him to go on a real campaign.

i am off the bed now.

Cheers

...I know that this is addressed at Flem, but I think you are missing the point. Turner isn't being paid to "influence change" by Radio Sport. He is being paid to give his opinion. His comments weren't made to "influence change." they were his honest answers to the questions he was asked. His comments may well influence change: but that would simply a consequence of his comments, not the intent. Turner has a duty to his employers, in this case Radio Sport, to give his opinion.

 

[BeeGee]

Couple of comments here. Glenn Turner is publicly criticizing his former employer in this interview. And Coney is not far behind. For those who havn't listened to this you really should.

I think Glenn Turner will suffer some repercussions for his comments here - possibly some non invitations to some events he might otherwise have been invited to etc. I don't think that was astute of him. And I have a harsh comment to make about it. I think that sort of criticism is public shows inexperience by him despite the fact that he is an old guy.

There are times to criticize NZC and I agree with Crowe getting fired up to a point over the Ross issue (although the blazer burning was comical) but really criticize in private. Praise in public. He was very damning.

I can't believe what he revealed. Seriously. That post tour reviews are a joke and that if you ask tough questions you don't get invited to the next one. That he disagrees with the coach of the blackcaps picking his own team and having too much power. That Brendon McCullum doesn't want to learn anything and thinks he knows it all.

People who call a spade a spade never survive in complex organisations, not at senior levels anyway. You can get by in an entry level position. I am not surprised he was squeezed out. Still I believe everything he has said. The blackcaps do seem to have an obsession with positive thinking rather than realism. Such as their future success plan that called for being the number 1 team in the world within 5 years even though number 4 or 5 would be more achievable and still an accomplishment. We chose to aim for number 1 as that sounded more positive. And Turners comments that only positive comments were welcome at the post tour review seems to ring true with that positive thinking bias.

Do you work for the NZC, or are you just hoping for a job there?

This utter BS is exactly why cricket in NZ is ****ed.

p.s. I have worked for big organisations before and I fight every day against people with these kinds of attitudes. People who are more concerned with their own image and position than what is best for the company that pays their salary. I'm fighting against one now, which is why this post pisses me off so much.

 

[WindieWeathers]

So erm...about this test series!!...does the next track take spin?

It's gonna be very interesting to see how NZ handle Narine and Shillingford..it really is .

Ideally we win the toss, bat first against an already tired attack and then set NZ something decent to chase on a 5th day pitch..

 

[_Ed_]

Black Caps draw 'close to perfect' - Hesson - Cricket News | TVNZ

Seriously?

 

[hendrix]

So erm...about this test series!!...does the next track take spin?

It does take a bit. It also usually has a nice strong breeze which creates a bit of movement in the air for the spinners who toss it up, which can make spin very tough to play.

Harbhajan destroyed us in Wellington.

 

[hendrix]

Black Caps draw 'close to perfect' - Hesson - Cricket News | TVNZ

Seriously?

I completely agree with him.

There wasn't much we did wrong in this test. Wagner was poor I suppose. That couldn't have been predicted after Bangladesh.

Really, we just have to give credit to the opposition.

 

[hendrix]

Actually I think his comments are very mature.

How could you go about beating up the team after that performance? It was a good performance. Darren Bravo played one of the best innings I've ever seen.