More great grist for the mill Dylan, the NZRU thing is getting big. That said I do disagree with a few things you say including this:
“.....hellbent of propagating the idea that independence means the game will be run by a bunch of uptown lawyers and, worse, women, who spend their weekends driving EVs to vegan cafes where they drink oatmilk chai lattes and scroll through the bauhaus website looking for a side table for their Point Wells getaway...”
I think this is to be a bit dismissive and to stereotype the “nays”. As a neutral outsider with some governance experience I don’t think the clamour for independent boards or board members over recent years has been an unqualified success. In the first instance they are a symptom of organisations growing further away from their base. To present the flip side to your statement above what makes you so sure an independent board will have all the answers? I’m not mounting a defence of the old system of patronage and favours, you won’t find a stauncher opponent of the toxic elements of old school rugby culture than me, but I will say this: grassroots and elite rugby is played on the ground, in the regions of this country, not in the rarified ether of independent board land. Accordingly I think it would be unwise to glibly cast aside geographic representation of some kind. Why not have one board slot for each super franchise and four others with other entry criteria? I know there will be people saying “no, let’s have a provincial advisory group instead” but if you’re not on the board you’re not on the board.
The other issue I want to cover the point you make about how NZRU needs to cover a wider group of people and that being “progressive” is not something that’s having a negative effect. Respectfully I think this issue is more complex at the very least. There’s no point “expanding your audience” if your attempts at doing so alienate and/or fail to resonate with your loyal base. The loyal base is leaving rugby in droves right now. No point trying to attract people with no track record of commitment to the game if you lose the ones that do.
Thanks for the platform to comment - and to disagree from time to time!
With regard to to this summer’s tv cricket commentary, is there anyone out there who thinks the frequent,annoying crosses to James Tito’s banal, random,completely innocuous interviews with punters attending the game add anything other than absolute, bloody annoyance to the viewing public
Love hearing from Andrew Webster. He and Chiefy Nix have been far more insightful to hear from than many other coaches. Gary Stead is one example, but even more so the comments we get from the White Ferns leadership in particular... It is marked and while there's prob an element of training/natural ease in there, is it also indicative of the environment inside the camp as well?
Good intel Dylan. You forgot to mention possibly the greatest one day classic/monument in all cycling! Paris-Roubiax and Sky seemed to have missed the boat. Life is tough in NZ if your a cycling fan since GCN departed
Aw shucks, thanks for the mention Dylan. Appreciate the space to vent :)
There are a group of past players/managers/administrators who keep banging their heads on the NZC and MA wall about the issues in women's cricket - more appropriate for them to talk on this, can put you in touch. The much touted Beaman Report (remember that?) is basically given lip-service; other reviews and recommendations are tabled then filed in the bottom of a metaphorical drawer.
It almost boils down to just one issue for me - women and girls are not just smaller men and boys. The culture of female cricket is different; doing what works for males wont just work for females. (Specifically - there isn't the population of past players to take on vital volunteer roles).
Our Associations need a better understanding of that, and need also to spend more time on management and planning skills for staff, including understanding your audience/customers, rather than on cricket skills.
Plans are great but "culture eats strategy for breakfast". The culture in women and girls' cricket in NZ is unhappy, confused and confusing - you can see this in the White Ferns. People are playing favourites from top to bottom (and that happens in boys cricket too, but there is less resilience to it when you don't have the aforementioned population of families involved).
More great grist for the mill Dylan, the NZRU thing is getting big. That said I do disagree with a few things you say including this:
“.....hellbent of propagating the idea that independence means the game will be run by a bunch of uptown lawyers and, worse, women, who spend their weekends driving EVs to vegan cafes where they drink oatmilk chai lattes and scroll through the bauhaus website looking for a side table for their Point Wells getaway...”
I think this is to be a bit dismissive and to stereotype the “nays”. As a neutral outsider with some governance experience I don’t think the clamour for independent boards or board members over recent years has been an unqualified success. In the first instance they are a symptom of organisations growing further away from their base. To present the flip side to your statement above what makes you so sure an independent board will have all the answers? I’m not mounting a defence of the old system of patronage and favours, you won’t find a stauncher opponent of the toxic elements of old school rugby culture than me, but I will say this: grassroots and elite rugby is played on the ground, in the regions of this country, not in the rarified ether of independent board land. Accordingly I think it would be unwise to glibly cast aside geographic representation of some kind. Why not have one board slot for each super franchise and four others with other entry criteria? I know there will be people saying “no, let’s have a provincial advisory group instead” but if you’re not on the board you’re not on the board.
The other issue I want to cover the point you make about how NZRU needs to cover a wider group of people and that being “progressive” is not something that’s having a negative effect. Respectfully I think this issue is more complex at the very least. There’s no point “expanding your audience” if your attempts at doing so alienate and/or fail to resonate with your loyal base. The loyal base is leaving rugby in droves right now. No point trying to attract people with no track record of commitment to the game if you lose the ones that do.
Thanks for the platform to comment - and to disagree from time to time!
With regard to to this summer’s tv cricket commentary, is there anyone out there who thinks the frequent,annoying crosses to James Tito’s banal, random,completely innocuous interviews with punters attending the game add anything other than absolute, bloody annoyance to the viewing public
Love hearing from Andrew Webster. He and Chiefy Nix have been far more insightful to hear from than many other coaches. Gary Stead is one example, but even more so the comments we get from the White Ferns leadership in particular... It is marked and while there's prob an element of training/natural ease in there, is it also indicative of the environment inside the camp as well?
Good intel Dylan. You forgot to mention possibly the greatest one day classic/monument in all cycling! Paris-Roubiax and Sky seemed to have missed the boat. Life is tough in NZ if your a cycling fan since GCN departed
Here is the Billy Guyton segment on Sunday last night
https://youtu.be/4FU9FOqLR8M?si=FRSvlTTRfX1ybjcN
Aw shucks, thanks for the mention Dylan. Appreciate the space to vent :)
There are a group of past players/managers/administrators who keep banging their heads on the NZC and MA wall about the issues in women's cricket - more appropriate for them to talk on this, can put you in touch. The much touted Beaman Report (remember that?) is basically given lip-service; other reviews and recommendations are tabled then filed in the bottom of a metaphorical drawer.
It almost boils down to just one issue for me - women and girls are not just smaller men and boys. The culture of female cricket is different; doing what works for males wont just work for females. (Specifically - there isn't the population of past players to take on vital volunteer roles).
Our Associations need a better understanding of that, and need also to spend more time on management and planning skills for staff, including understanding your audience/customers, rather than on cricket skills.
Plans are great but "culture eats strategy for breakfast". The culture in women and girls' cricket in NZ is unhappy, confused and confusing - you can see this in the White Ferns. People are playing favourites from top to bottom (and that happens in boys cricket too, but there is less resilience to it when you don't have the aforementioned population of families involved).