The NZR+ numbers are the perfect example of NZRs delusion about the appeal of their product. I would love to be in the meetings and hear all the justifications the suits are giving for the poor performance.
Great column Dylan, and brilliant take on the Henry Nicholls situation, I’d hazard a guess you completely nailed it!
Moving on to the NZC governance issue, this issue has nudged me out of hiding, as I’ve become bemused at the governance focus of our major sporting bodies...
I’m more than slightly cynical that the notion of director independence will lead us to the promised land even though I’m old enough to remember the cronyism and horse trading of the old days when the MAs had the run of the farm. The argument that independence is a) simpler better and b) opens up a broader pool of talent is arguable. There are two reasons for this:
1. Independents have zero skin in the game.
2. They (mostly) have no subject matter expertise.
Whilst I’ve been a fierce critic of incompetence at the MA level, there is a strong argument that as the six constituent parts effectively making cricket work in NZ they have a far greater claim to places at the board table than robots who have done the right courses at the IoD and say all the right things before they shuffle off to their next board meeting, again in someone else’s organisation.
Your earlier piece Dylan about David White’s departure and fierce focus on revenue generated by the BCs and high performance was enlightening - I suspect that approach acted as a buffer against motherhood and apple pie governance. What happens now he’s gone? Our player pool and fundamentals are not sufficiently strong that we can remain competitive at the international level if our governance isn’t right, maybe that’s what the MAs are concerned about?
The role and importance of the media is perfectly summed up in the Nicholls incident. Because it has been covered in so little detail and with no urgency, NZC were under no pressure to a) take it seriously or b) have Nicholls or them properly explain what was going on. 20 years ago, if a stalwart of the Test team was accused of ball tampering (and this was by umpires and Auckland) it would've been front page/lead item news. 10 years ago, it would have been big. Now, it gets a cursory glance and a 'meh, who cares'. The sandpaper fiasco got its own book, documentaries, year bans etc, and whilst I'm not saying Nicholls is 100% guilty, it just seems outrageous that something that looks as suspect as this gets a buried article or two on Stuff, then game over.
'Player's actions were unlikely to alter the condition of the ball' is ridiculous. Then tell us why he did it? Is he naive, or not good at it, or what? The word I've heard is that Canterbury claim he was using the sweat from the helmet to polish the ball...but that doesn't marry up with the NZC release and legal justification of no action. We should've heard from Nicholls on this.
I remember NZR+ being mentioned previously but I just assumed it would not be available outside of NZ. But what's this I see? "What countries is NZR+ available? All countries except for: North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, Syria, Iran, and Argentina."
The NZR+ numbers are the perfect example of NZRs delusion about the appeal of their product. I would love to be in the meetings and hear all the justifications the suits are giving for the poor performance.
Great column Dylan, and brilliant take on the Henry Nicholls situation, I’d hazard a guess you completely nailed it!
Moving on to the NZC governance issue, this issue has nudged me out of hiding, as I’ve become bemused at the governance focus of our major sporting bodies...
I’m more than slightly cynical that the notion of director independence will lead us to the promised land even though I’m old enough to remember the cronyism and horse trading of the old days when the MAs had the run of the farm. The argument that independence is a) simpler better and b) opens up a broader pool of talent is arguable. There are two reasons for this:
1. Independents have zero skin in the game.
2. They (mostly) have no subject matter expertise.
Whilst I’ve been a fierce critic of incompetence at the MA level, there is a strong argument that as the six constituent parts effectively making cricket work in NZ they have a far greater claim to places at the board table than robots who have done the right courses at the IoD and say all the right things before they shuffle off to their next board meeting, again in someone else’s organisation.
Your earlier piece Dylan about David White’s departure and fierce focus on revenue generated by the BCs and high performance was enlightening - I suspect that approach acted as a buffer against motherhood and apple pie governance. What happens now he’s gone? Our player pool and fundamentals are not sufficiently strong that we can remain competitive at the international level if our governance isn’t right, maybe that’s what the MAs are concerned about?
The role and importance of the media is perfectly summed up in the Nicholls incident. Because it has been covered in so little detail and with no urgency, NZC were under no pressure to a) take it seriously or b) have Nicholls or them properly explain what was going on. 20 years ago, if a stalwart of the Test team was accused of ball tampering (and this was by umpires and Auckland) it would've been front page/lead item news. 10 years ago, it would have been big. Now, it gets a cursory glance and a 'meh, who cares'. The sandpaper fiasco got its own book, documentaries, year bans etc, and whilst I'm not saying Nicholls is 100% guilty, it just seems outrageous that something that looks as suspect as this gets a buried article or two on Stuff, then game over.
'Player's actions were unlikely to alter the condition of the ball' is ridiculous. Then tell us why he did it? Is he naive, or not good at it, or what? The word I've heard is that Canterbury claim he was using the sweat from the helmet to polish the ball...but that doesn't marry up with the NZC release and legal justification of no action. We should've heard from Nicholls on this.
Can I give this an airing on the BYC?
Yep no problem, honoured to be involved
I remember NZR+ being mentioned previously but I just assumed it would not be available outside of NZ. But what's this I see? "What countries is NZR+ available? All countries except for: North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, Syria, Iran, and Argentina."
Have signed up for it now.
!!?? Argentina must be wondering what it did to deserve to be in that group…