**Official** South Africa in New Zealand

[SteveNZ]

I'm not ruling out Jesse playing in the WC just yet, he has this summer to show he deserves to be in the team. The thing is with Jesse, we're not talking about his performances on the field, we're talking about how he acts off the park.

I agree, but turning down the North South game gives me a fairly good indication of the likelihood of it happening. Plus I can't see his Renegades contract being cut short,

 

[kiwiviktor81]

1. Ryder
2. Guptill
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. McCullum
6. Anderson
7. Ronchi
8. Vettori
9. Southee
10. Boult
11. McClenagahan

is what I'd like to see. That team would have every chance of doing as well as the 92 team.

 

[anil1405]

How good has Vettori been since his comeback? Would he be an automatic choice in starting 11 during WC based on current form? Would NZ play two spinners in the latter stages of the WC or on pitches like Adelaide oval if needed?

 

[Mike5181]

Vettori's in my starting XI. He does have to perform, though. McCullum offers a lot more in the field, and probably more with the bat now.

 

[social]

Everything I've heard seems to indicate Ryder wasn't 'controlled' at Essex. They just let him get on with it and play cricket. If he wanted to have a few beers at the local pub then it wasn't a problem and no one recognised him anyway. There was enough cricket in the County season that he always had something to do. Plus he performed so Essex obviously had no complaints. I believe he's treated much the same way at Otago.

New Zealand cricket just can't take that risk though. He's got too much history with them and the situation is different. They've stipulated that he has to be willing to buy into the culture if he wants back in the team, which is fair enough. So really this is all on Ryder, and it seems he's not particularly desperate to change just to play international cricket. It just isn't that important to him.

"Buying into the culture" is just bs management speak and enough to drive anyone to drink

The alternatives simply aren't good enough and it will be NZ's loss if that is the attitude

 

[SteveNZ]

"Buying into the culture" is just bs management speak and enough to drive anyone to drink

The alternatives simply aren't good enough and it will be NZ's loss if that is the attitude

So runs are the only currency and we let him do whatever he pleases? Interested as to your approach for a guy who wants to go out drinking when injured, drinking when in a squad, drinking before an ODI, get into fights (not referring to the CHCH attack) etc

 

[Hurricane]

"Buying into the culture" is just bs management speak and enough to drive anyone to drink

The alternatives simply aren't good enough and it will be NZ's loss if that is the attitude

This is going to get me labelled as a WW by Dan because I am taking your location into account when I say "where do you stand on Andrew Symonds then, should he still be playing"

 

[Prince EWS]

This is going to get me labelled as a WW by Dan because I am taking your location into account when I say "where do you stand on Andrew Symonds then, should he still be playing"

Social was actually very vocal on this forum in criticising the handling of Symonds. He's being entirely consistent here.

 

[Prince EWS]

So runs are the only currency and we let him do whatever he pleases? Interested as to your approach for a guy who wants to go out drinking when injured, drinking when in a squad, drinking before an ODI, get into fights (not referring to the CHCH attack) etc

If the team is more likely to win with him in it then out of it, then yes he should absolutely be playing regardless of what his preparation is like. Obviously you could make an argument to suggest that his antics would be an overall detriment to the performance of the team, and if he'd detract more through that to team performance than his runs would add then he shouldn't be picked.. but team morale is just a means to an end (winning/not losing) in professional sport; it shouldn't be a standalone consideration.

 

[Hurricane]

If the team is more likely to win with him in it then out of it, then yes he should absolutely be playing regardless of what his preparation is like. Obviously you could make an argument to suggest that his antics would be an overall detriment to the performance of the team, and if he'd detract more through that to team performance than his runs would add then he shouldn't be picked.. but team morale is just a means to an end (winning/not losing) in professional sport; it shouldn't be a standalone consideration.

I don't know what my position is on the matter really, I would love for him to play but I think the stuff you were saying PEWS about if he'd detract more from the team performance than he would add - I think the general consensus is that he would. And that is the governing bodies position.

Remember there are 10 other guys on the team so it doesn't take much for his externalities to offset his run producing. TL;DR version of that sentence is that he can't win games by himself so the team is always more important than him.

BTW I disagree with the essence of your post - I think moral standards and behaviour can be a goal post by themselves that can get someone kicked off a team. Winning is not the only objective of a team.

 

[hendrix]

Hurricane and PEWS are going to be at opposite ends of this spectrum. I wouldn't say team culture is a complete means to an end, because I do like to see a positive attitude in all aspects of life - work, relationships, hobbies etc. But that's probably also a means to an end itself in that enjoyable work makes work much easier...

TBF Ryder has never seemed like someone who'd negatively impact the team culture in the way that it's been claimed that KP did. But yeah, drinking the night before a test when you're the reserve is straight up not good enough.

 

[social]

Hurricane and PEWS are going to be at opposite ends of this spectrum. I wouldn't say team culture is a complete means to an end, because I do like to see a positive attitude in all aspects of life - work, relationships, hobbies etc. But that's probably also a means to an end itself in that enjoyable work makes work much easier...

TBF Ryder has never seemed like someone who'd negatively impact the team culture in the way that it's been claimed that KP did. But yeah, drinking the night before a test when you're the reserve is straight up not good enough.

Doug Walters used to drink a beer or 2 in the dressing room before batting in a test match

Man management is not about treating everybody in exactly the same way and NZ are doing themselves a disservice if that is the approach that they are taking with Ryder

 

[Flem274*]

When you're in a team you want the people around you to be reliable. There is nothing worse than having "what if" in the back of your mind. You also want them to take being a part of the team seriously. That doesn't mean being a frowny face goody two shoes, but it does mean having some respect for your position and what you represent.

Players who are really good at living in a bubble and focusing on themselves could cope with Ryder. Players who are more tuned into the environment around them would be driven mad by him. That's not a thing players can just change about themselves overnight either, or ever. Hesson and McCullum have probably made a judgement call here and decided Ryder's dribble takes away more from the team than he provides, and if Ryder goes off the deep end before or during the world cup it just delays the search for an opener that we're having now. Personally, I would also add the "bubble" players shouldn't have to cope with a team member in the first place.

You don't have to be chums to work together in a team but you do need to have mutual respect for each others ability and the understanding and communication to work towards a common goal you all desperately want. Jesse Ryder doesn't fit into that.

 

[Dan]

If the team is more likely to win with him in it then out of it, then yes he should absolutely be playing regardless of what his preparation is like. Obviously you could make an argument to suggest that his antics would be an overall detriment to the performance of the team, and if he'd detract more through that to team performance than his runs would add then he shouldn't be picked.. but team morale is just a means to an end (winning/not losing) in professional sport; it shouldn't be a standalone consideration.

Unfortunately, none of this is actually measurable to allow that calculation to occur.

 

[Prince EWS]

Unfortunately, none of this is actually measurable to allow that calculation to occur.

People make decisions based on unmeasurable calculations thousands of times a day. You've got to make a judgement call or whether you think the team will be more or less likely to win with him than not; that's why selection is still a human process and not made by automatic measurable calculations.

If the selectors genuinely believe the team will be more likely to perform without Ryder in spite of the fact that he's a better batsman than his replacement then I've got no issue with that; they're in a better position to make that call. However, that has to be the reason why; not muh one-size-fits-all preparation standards or muh team morale. They're just means to an end as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kippax]

Cricket: Brownlie believes positivity the key - Sport - NZ Herald News

New Zealand are expected to give seamer Matt Henry his first chance of the series today, and may opt for just one spinner, Nathan McCullum, giving Dan Vettori the day off.

 

[Hurricane]

Goodness feels like semantics.

Even if for arguments sake they are a means to an end, which there is a decent argument that they are, the selectors and analysts are not going to say he was dropped because after a doing a calculation to compare his negative effects with his additional runs we decided to drop him. They are just going to keep it simple, as we are all doing, and name the negative effects - team morale or compromising managements ability to enforce team protocols and standards or whatever.

Thus for discussion purposes the reason why he is dropped for ease of reference is the reasons you don't subscribe to.

 

[Kippax]

Boult not playing; there you go. Henry and Southee ftw.

 

[Bahnz]

Dreadful first over from Henry. C'mon lad, sort your line out!

 

[hendrix]

my tv is playing NFL