Dylan, I reckon you're a bit more learned and considered than I...so can you make any sense of why NZ are touring Bangladesh without most of their full strength XI, in subcontinent conditions that might somewhat mirror World Cup pitches, just over a week before the tournament starts? The glucose levels and generally energy of these guys seem to fizz during the North American T20 swing and cash-in window, but need replenishing in the lead-in to a huge international tournament?
Lots to digest there Dylan. My first impressions reading the report are that whereas in the old days the NZRU catered to a chosen few,
the opposite could be argued now. Whilst it is undoubtedly important to cater to the broad stakeholder base somehow, I can’t see how the organisation can be effective when so many different groups are separately identified as needing their own special treatment. The “chosen few” philosophy of yore is synonymous with the old boys club, and that’s not something that sat comfortably with me, but I’m sure the narrow focus benefited the ABs. I can’t honestly see how the ABs can remain a dominant force when the governance environment has so many objectives and is so confused. And I can’t even decipher what’s more confused, the existing situation or the report itself. What I’m wondering if I’m seeing is the moment in time when the NZRU became such public property that its obligations to its social license now override its commitment to high performance. Every empire has its end, maybe this is it for the NZRU?
Dylan, I reckon you're a bit more learned and considered than I...so can you make any sense of why NZ are touring Bangladesh without most of their full strength XI, in subcontinent conditions that might somewhat mirror World Cup pitches, just over a week before the tournament starts? The glucose levels and generally energy of these guys seem to fizz during the North American T20 swing and cash-in window, but need replenishing in the lead-in to a huge international tournament?
Lots to digest there Dylan. My first impressions reading the report are that whereas in the old days the NZRU catered to a chosen few,
the opposite could be argued now. Whilst it is undoubtedly important to cater to the broad stakeholder base somehow, I can’t see how the organisation can be effective when so many different groups are separately identified as needing their own special treatment. The “chosen few” philosophy of yore is synonymous with the old boys club, and that’s not something that sat comfortably with me, but I’m sure the narrow focus benefited the ABs. I can’t honestly see how the ABs can remain a dominant force when the governance environment has so many objectives and is so confused. And I can’t even decipher what’s more confused, the existing situation or the report itself. What I’m wondering if I’m seeing is the moment in time when the NZRU became such public property that its obligations to its social license now override its commitment to high performance. Every empire has its end, maybe this is it for the NZRU?