NB. Apologies for a really messy few pars in the lead item today (including a missing word or two). I made some changes while doing something else and proved the point nicely that I am not built for multitasking.
I found the "cultural issues and nice-to-haves" point interesting. Whether they should be focussing on such things (and how much) is obviously open to debate, but if it has indeed been such a high priority for them, how on Earth were they so tone-deaf in their handling of the Scott Kuggeleijn case?
He was not guilty in a court of law. None of us liked it, the evidence was disgusting but who are NZC to go against the court and open themselves up to employment litigation? An awful situation all round
Very interesting piece on NZC Dylan, I learned more in five minutes reading that than I’ve gleaned in years. I’ve not been a huge fan of White, but there’s a bit in there going in his favour, including one that’s hard to argue with - results. I kind of saw him as a cricket version of Steve Tew - conspicuously old world, and to me uninspiring. I may have been a bit unfair on him in hindsight. However, the second main theme in the piece is of much more concern to me and that’s the loss of focus occurring in the boardroom - unsurprising as it’s manifested in various political stands NZC has taken in recent years. Directly related to that - and make no mistake - is the fully independent board. Nowadays I am very cynical about the clones doing the independent board circuit, usually coming with endorsement from the Institute of Directors. They cycle through the system collecting their board fees, serving the fashionable ideology, and have no skin in the game of the organisations they serve. I feel exactly the same about Raelene Castle, she does the same shuffle and her CV says so. In that role management and leadership skills are bottom lines, obviously, but there’s a couple of things that are massively underrated in board / management roles nowadays - subject matter expertise and skin in the game.
I think you have to differentiate between Men’s and Women’s cricket though, Dylan. White Ferns have gone backwards in about the same degree the Black Caps went forward.
That’s not surprising from what I hear - White seemed to view female cricket as just one of those ‘community’ roles rather than a core one.
When England, India and Australia all progressed the game for females recently, it’s an indictment on the CEO that NZ did the opposite.
Agree Oscar - the women’s game overseas seems to be making great strides, whereas ours is going backwards at pace. The Bangladesh board recently announced that they would focus on red ball cricket for their women’s team so they can play test cricket in the future. NZC actively chose to focus on white ball only for the NZ team, from memory basically dismissing the long form as a too expensive, a “nice to have” (a phrase I don’t like due to its patronising tone!). I didn’t know I needed to feel anxious about the governance of NZC but I was obviously not paying enough attention.
Gods, this line from that article on PlayHQ that you linked is deeply, darkly funny.
'"We're very happy with the rollout of the PlayHQ platform," [NZC] said.
"It should be fully-operational by the first week of next month [November 22], as planned - with all the bells and whistles, including full, live scoreboards."'
Not once have they actually apologised. Hope it made them a lot of money.
Remember Nick Mallett? He was the Bok coach between August 1997 and December 2000. Under Mallett's guidance, the Springboks went on a record winning streak of 17 consecutive test wins starting when he was appointed and ending August 1997. He remains one of the most successful Bok coaches, ever.
Mallett maintains a high media profile on matters rugby. He was recently asked about the injury to Bok Captain Siya Kolisi at a time when his availability was unknown due to injury concerns. He was emphatic: "I don't care whether Kolisi is fit or not. He must be reappointed captain and join the tour. If he manages to get on the field it would be a bonus, but tour he must and as captain."
Mallett went on to explain the biggest regret of his coaching life was his dropping of then regular number 8 and captain Gary Teichmann by not including him in his RWC squad of 1999. "That cost us team unity and leadership at that tournament that we never recovered from. My worst coaching error by far. I cannot overstress the importance of Kolisi's presence at RWC 2023, fit or not."
Now, consider Fast Eddie's naming of the French-based lock, Will Skelton, as captain. A player whose knowledge of his playing partners will be limited, and more importantly, has never captained a senior or professional team before. What price the experience, loyalty and utmost respect given to his most experienced player/captain Hooper? This is his biggest selection blunder, but there are others.
To take just one specialist fly-half to a RWC tournament is tantamount to taking just one half-back or hooker. And a rookie at that. Wow! And to think the ABs were on fly-half number four when they finally won the RWC in 2011. But Fast Eddie knows better.
A significant number - 25 - of the squad named have not been to a RWC tournament before. In addition, it includes three uncapped players. Three!
Interesting points David. I get Mallett’s point but I reckon it has limits. The Aussies used to have a saying “you don’t pick crocks” and I have some sympathy. I guess it’s a net benefit test, but I’m not massively keen on guys just hanging around if they can’t make a contribution. Re the Wallabies, is it all a sign of how far they’ve fallen? I couldn’t believe my eyes when a 35 year old Quade Cooper appeared last week. All the Quade politics aside, he has his confidence destroyed by the ABs in 2011 and was never the same player after that, exacerbated by his horrific knee injury. He hasn’t been test class for years, and he’s not getting better in his mid thirties. I can’t see them being anything resembling a contender at the RWC.
Phil Mickelson and his gambling is legendry among US golfing circles. I recall when he won the Masters - I can't remember which one - then immediately chose a new club supplier. In short, he got rid of the clubs with which he had just won one of golf's biggest prizes, and promptly chose a new sponsor, This change of clubs - nothing is as close to a professional golfer than his/her clubs - coming on the heels of his Masters win caused some stir. Most in the know put it down to his gambling, speculating that he needed the cash to pay for his latest loss. His conversion to LIV Golf was more or less guaranteed, for the same reason, which Norman would have known for sure.
NB. Apologies for a really messy few pars in the lead item today (including a missing word or two). I made some changes while doing something else and proved the point nicely that I am not built for multitasking.
I found the "cultural issues and nice-to-haves" point interesting. Whether they should be focussing on such things (and how much) is obviously open to debate, but if it has indeed been such a high priority for them, how on Earth were they so tone-deaf in their handling of the Scott Kuggeleijn case?
Very different back then I think. Would have to check.
He was not guilty in a court of law. None of us liked it, the evidence was disgusting but who are NZC to go against the court and open themselves up to employment litigation? An awful situation all round
Very interesting piece on NZC Dylan, I learned more in five minutes reading that than I’ve gleaned in years. I’ve not been a huge fan of White, but there’s a bit in there going in his favour, including one that’s hard to argue with - results. I kind of saw him as a cricket version of Steve Tew - conspicuously old world, and to me uninspiring. I may have been a bit unfair on him in hindsight. However, the second main theme in the piece is of much more concern to me and that’s the loss of focus occurring in the boardroom - unsurprising as it’s manifested in various political stands NZC has taken in recent years. Directly related to that - and make no mistake - is the fully independent board. Nowadays I am very cynical about the clones doing the independent board circuit, usually coming with endorsement from the Institute of Directors. They cycle through the system collecting their board fees, serving the fashionable ideology, and have no skin in the game of the organisations they serve. I feel exactly the same about Raelene Castle, she does the same shuffle and her CV says so. In that role management and leadership skills are bottom lines, obviously, but there’s a couple of things that are massively underrated in board / management roles nowadays - subject matter expertise and skin in the game.
I think you have to differentiate between Men’s and Women’s cricket though, Dylan. White Ferns have gone backwards in about the same degree the Black Caps went forward.
That’s not surprising from what I hear - White seemed to view female cricket as just one of those ‘community’ roles rather than a core one.
When England, India and Australia all progressed the game for females recently, it’s an indictment on the CEO that NZ did the opposite.
And PlayHQ is unforgivable.
Agree Oscar - the women’s game overseas seems to be making great strides, whereas ours is going backwards at pace. The Bangladesh board recently announced that they would focus on red ball cricket for their women’s team so they can play test cricket in the future. NZC actively chose to focus on white ball only for the NZ team, from memory basically dismissing the long form as a too expensive, a “nice to have” (a phrase I don’t like due to its patronising tone!). I didn’t know I needed to feel anxious about the governance of NZC but I was obviously not paying enough attention.
Gods, this line from that article on PlayHQ that you linked is deeply, darkly funny.
'"We're very happy with the rollout of the PlayHQ platform," [NZC] said.
"It should be fully-operational by the first week of next month [November 22], as planned - with all the bells and whistles, including full, live scoreboards."'
Not once have they actually apologised. Hope it made them a lot of money.
A comment or two on the Wallabies RWC squad:
Remember Nick Mallett? He was the Bok coach between August 1997 and December 2000. Under Mallett's guidance, the Springboks went on a record winning streak of 17 consecutive test wins starting when he was appointed and ending August 1997. He remains one of the most successful Bok coaches, ever.
Mallett maintains a high media profile on matters rugby. He was recently asked about the injury to Bok Captain Siya Kolisi at a time when his availability was unknown due to injury concerns. He was emphatic: "I don't care whether Kolisi is fit or not. He must be reappointed captain and join the tour. If he manages to get on the field it would be a bonus, but tour he must and as captain."
Mallett went on to explain the biggest regret of his coaching life was his dropping of then regular number 8 and captain Gary Teichmann by not including him in his RWC squad of 1999. "That cost us team unity and leadership at that tournament that we never recovered from. My worst coaching error by far. I cannot overstress the importance of Kolisi's presence at RWC 2023, fit or not."
Now, consider Fast Eddie's naming of the French-based lock, Will Skelton, as captain. A player whose knowledge of his playing partners will be limited, and more importantly, has never captained a senior or professional team before. What price the experience, loyalty and utmost respect given to his most experienced player/captain Hooper? This is his biggest selection blunder, but there are others.
To take just one specialist fly-half to a RWC tournament is tantamount to taking just one half-back or hooker. And a rookie at that. Wow! And to think the ABs were on fly-half number four when they finally won the RWC in 2011. But Fast Eddie knows better.
A significant number - 25 - of the squad named have not been to a RWC tournament before. In addition, it includes three uncapped players. Three!
Hubris in spades.
Interesting points David. I get Mallett’s point but I reckon it has limits. The Aussies used to have a saying “you don’t pick crocks” and I have some sympathy. I guess it’s a net benefit test, but I’m not massively keen on guys just hanging around if they can’t make a contribution. Re the Wallabies, is it all a sign of how far they’ve fallen? I couldn’t believe my eyes when a 35 year old Quade Cooper appeared last week. All the Quade politics aside, he has his confidence destroyed by the ABs in 2011 and was never the same player after that, exacerbated by his horrific knee injury. He hasn’t been test class for years, and he’s not getting better in his mid thirties. I can’t see them being anything resembling a contender at the RWC.
Phil Mickelson and his gambling is legendry among US golfing circles. I recall when he won the Masters - I can't remember which one - then immediately chose a new club supplier. In short, he got rid of the clubs with which he had just won one of golf's biggest prizes, and promptly chose a new sponsor, This change of clubs - nothing is as close to a professional golfer than his/her clubs - coming on the heels of his Masters win caused some stir. Most in the know put it down to his gambling, speculating that he needed the cash to pay for his latest loss. His conversion to LIV Golf was more or less guaranteed, for the same reason, which Norman would have known for sure.