messy. messier. new zealand cricket.

It's been a while. Since I last updated, and since what I'm about to write about actually took place. Regarding the former, I just didn't feel too particularly inspired to write, and regarding the latter, I must admit that it took me the better part of a week to calm down enough to not just end up randomly stringing profanities together when it came to the matter of the quite spectacular omnishambles that is New Zealand Cricket.

When rumours of Ross Taylor's imminent demotion and Brendon McCullum's promotion started making the rounds, I wasn't as surprised as I probably should've been, given that this was still NZC we were dealing with, the very same think tank full of geniuses who was responsible for the John Wright Cock-Up, and who were never held accountable for it. If anybody would find a way to humiliate the captain after winning a Test in Sri Lanka, including a man of the match performance by Taylor himself, and make the situation so unbearable for him he'd end up taking a break from cricket, it would have to be New Zealand Cricket.

The end result itself, Brendon McCullum being the captain now, doesn't really bother me (though one could argue that his recent performances don't necessarily warrant his continued selection as a specialist batsman, let alone a specialist top order batsman), but the way we've got there was utterly disrespectful towards Taylor and simply horrendous. Taylor's position in the team and inside the NZC setup was never a strong one to begin with, not only because of his rather obvious shortcomings as a leader, motivator, tactician and slip fielder, but also because of the well-known fact that the majority of the team didn't want him but McCullum as captain.

My opinion on Ross Taylor as a captain was obviously never the best, to put it very mildly. Back then, when NZC ran New Zealand's Next Top Model, err, I mean NZC's Search For The Next Test Captain, I did not only not rate him as a leader, but also took into account that they were forcing a captain upon a team that was used to having way too much power, and therefore expected this ~experiment to not work out in the long run. That it shouldn't be the team's, let alone only certain parts of the team's, decision who's being made captain and who succeeds as captain, well, that's an entirely different matter. But the Boys Club members tend to get their way, and the current, frustratingly incompetent administration wasn't going to change that.

Even if I were only thinking the very best of Brendon McCullum, even if he didn't actively contribute to what happened to Ross Taylor, there will always be a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths when they see him in his new role. Personally, I do wonder why he didn't refuse the captaincy, and forced Hesson to look elsewhere (Williamson or, more left-field, Ryder). No matter how badly he may have wanted it, and we all remember how devastated he was when he was overlooked last year, he shouldn't have accepted it given what went down leading up to it, given how badly Taylor was treated (and clearly undeservedly so), because now, regardless of how often and vehemently he denies any involvement, McCullum seems like a war profiteer, and I'm fairly certain that that's not the look he was going for.

When Mike Hesson took over as headcoach from John Wright (which in itself was another disaster altogether), was there an opportunity for him to hand the captaincy to Brendon McCullum, and riding out the calls of nepotism or favouritism or partisanship or whatever fancy words the Kiwi press would've come up with? I don't think it's illegitimate for a new coach to look at the captain and a possible leadership group upon his arrival and make changes if he sees fit, and Hesson should've just made that decision and dealt with it, instead of letting this simmer on for as long as it did. It always seemed like he just inherited Taylor from John Wright, and was never that willing to find common ground and a way to work together for the good of the team and the good of cricket in New Zealand.

I criticised Ross Taylor very heavily for having brought up Hesson's relationship with McCullum during their first meetings, when they were still trying to get to know each other, trying to find out if and how they could work together, and also accused him of showing a good dose of paranoia by focusing too much on an existing relationship between the new coach and his team-mate, instead of focusing on building one of his own with him. Looking at what happened since then - was he really paranoid? Or did he simply know what was coming?

That's probably the most depressing thing about this whole mess, the inevitability of it all. From the day Hesson arrived, something like this was bound to happen. Actually, from the day Ross Taylor was handed the captaincy, it was bound to end in tears. Or earlier, when Pie Chart MC™ John Buchanan was hired on a four-year-contract and brought along Lawn Bowls Nobody™ Kim Littlejohn to play selector for the Blackcaps, his philosophy (or lack thereof) was bound to lead to conflicts with John Wright - and his subsequent departure, because apparently pie charts are more important than a promising and widely accepted headcoach. Or even earlier than that, when somebody decided to hand windbag clowns like Justin Vaughan & Co. the power to make decisions on behalf of the future of cricket in New Zealand.


And the saddest part is, those who are solely responsible for the situation the Blackcaps have found themselves in now - heading to South Africa without their captain and best player, and also still without Jesse Ryder (and who can blame him, who would want to return to an environment as toxic as this) - are still sitting happily in their ergonomic office chairs, running a sports federation they clearly have no clue about nor any passion for, and people who may have made mistakes or have had their individual weaknesses to deal with but whose commitment you could never question, are being hung out to dry, like John Wright earlier in the year and now Ross Taylor. Cricket is struggling enough as it is in New Zealand, ugly displays like these are only going to drive more fans further away from the game. Shame.

~~~

That said, hopefully someone somewhere is close enough to Ross Taylor to tell him to shut the hell up now. He's got the public on his side, enough people couldn't stand Brendon McCullum already before all of this went down, enough people weren't behind the appointment of Mike Hesson, and pretty much everyone has called for the heads of NZC chairman Chris Moller and CEO David White - he really doesn't need to convince anyone of how badly he was shafted. He should do what he announced last week, spending time with his young family, clearing his head and preparing himself for facing England home and away in the new year. Airing more dirty laundry isn't going to do him nor his team-mates who've just arrived in South Africa to face one of their toughest challenges of recent times any favours whatsoever.

shining a light 'cause they wanted it seen.

This past weekend (plus Friday and Monday) was overall a bit odd. First Ross Taylor scored an actually quite beautiful century in Bangalore, then Jade Dernbach bowled Hashim Amla at the Oval, then Kruger van Wyk scored runs, then Ravi Bopara bowled Hashim Amla at Lord's, then Craig Kieswetter remembered how to keep wicket, then Brendon McCullum clearly forgot how to keep wicket - and all of that topped off by the sinusitis from hell. Lovely.

In all seriousness though, that was quite the knock from Ross Taylor. Yes, it was about time he delivered something significant, and I'm still not sold on him (and I probably never will), but he certainly deserves credit for discovering his off-side (67 of 113 runs scored on the off-side) and more importantly for getting up after the thrashing in Hyderabad. The whole team actually deserves all the credit in the world for that, because them getting through this second Test with their heads held high was not only not a given, but also something only the eternal rose-tinted-glasses-wearers among us (yes, they still exist) would've dared to hope for.

I'm usually not the type of person to bask in the glory of having been right about something, but didn't I say after the Caribbean Adventures Tour that Trent Boult and Tim Southee should be certain starters and the remaining bowlers had to fight for the remaining places? Boult's performances, while unlucky to not pick up more wickets, in both Tests in India and Southee's staggering numbers of 7-64 in Bangalore speak their own language, don't they? It's been an overall more than commendable effort from all bowlers, and while the sentimental part of me doesn't want to see the back of neither Chris Martin nor Daniel Vettori (the bowler) just yet, I wouldn't be too upset if we were to stick with these four for the foreseeable future.

Naturally, there were still a lot of things that could've been done better, and while I appreciate the runs both Kruger van Wyk and Daniel Flynn have contributed, I still don't really understand the continued omission of BJ Watling. For starters. The batting order isn't right, but I'm annoyed at myself for continuing to moan about the opener of all openers, Brendon McCullum, so I won't even start this time around, my thoughts on that subject are well-known.

New Zealand posted a good first innings total, though probably still a bit below par given the state of the wicket, but then allowed India to score way too many middle-order runs. When you have a team at 80-4, especially after you've put a respectable total on the board, you put your foot down and bowl them out, you don't allow the 5-8 batsmen to score 252 runs between them. And with the inevitable return of the brain explosions in New Zealand's second innings, they failed to post a defendable total. Chasing down 260 on that wicket with almost six sessions to go wasn't that big a task on that wicket, and even less so with the head start the bowlers gave Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir to lay a good foundation for the incoming batsmen.

And again, maybe even the 260 could've been defended, if the Blackcaps had a captain who appears to know what he's doing and why. Sometimes he gets lucky, a decision he's made actually pays off, but surely that's not enough? His bowling changes and field settings overall are so clueless, he makes Alastair Cook look like Steve Waugh. Who allows two new batsmen to get comfortable via easy singles by failing to bring the field up, when he's only got 100 runs to work with? The bowlers struck after a rain-break right away, India lost three wickets for only 14 runs, and he allowed Virat Kohli and MS Dhoni to settle and repeat their first innings heroics.

If you lack world class players in your team, you can't also afford to carry a hapless captain along with you, just because The Blazers didn't want to give the captaincy to Brendon McCullum. All this talk about Ross Taylor needing more time and more advice and more help from McCullum ‒ no, what Taylor needs is to not be captain. It'll give him the much needed opportunity to focus on his batting, and the team is more inclined to follow McCullum anyway.

That said, they should all be very proud of their efforts. Being this pleased about a defeat by five wickets with more than a day left in the game says an awful lot about what we've grown accustomed to, especially after the disastrous outings in the West Indies and most recently in Hyderabad. But at this point it isn't really about winning, it's about adopting the right mentality, about wanting to improve, and a win here and there will come sooner or later. I can handle losing, it's part and parcel of following sports, and it seems to be the norm when following New Zealand cricket, but what I can't handle is a team capitulating and players looking like they couldn't care less, and I know I'm not alone in that. Watching them during this Test and witnessing an obvious 180° change in attitude and body language was great ‒ and all of a sudden the Test became interesting and was nowhere near as one-sided as we had to deal with in the past, who would've thought? You might be on the right path here, boys!

(Title taken from "Future Love Paradise" by Seal.)

how do you get up from an all time low?

Yes, it's come to that. I'm quoting The Wanted. I don't even know whom I'm referring to here, the Blackcaps or myself, because as horrific as their performance has been once more, I find myself weighed down by a strange mix of rage and apathy, which shouldn't even be possible.

Losing the first Test didn't come as a surprise to me (nor to all semi-realistic cricket viewers and Blackcaps supporters), and to be honest, neither did losing the first Test by an innings and 115 runs. The tour of the West Indies had been pretty close to catastrophic, and with Wright's departure and Hesson's arrival and no warming-up period, you would have to have been beyond deluded to expect a positive outcome from said first Test and the tour as a whole.

Of course, there were some positives again. I was again very impressed with Trent Boult's bowling, Kane Williamson at l(e)ast showed some grit and some determination in (parts of) his both innings and got to 50 once, and someone managed to shame/bully/whip Brendon McCullum into not batting like a complete idiot in the second innings (unlike the magnificent ugliness he delivered in the first innings), but is that enough? Can you build a team, a team culture, around two or three tiny rays of lights per match? Surely not.

"You have to have self-responsibility and be accountable for your actions in the middle. You just can’t come off [after being dismissed] and wave it away with phrases like ‘that’s the way I play’ and ‘I didn’t quite execute’."

(John Wright, former Blackcaps headcoach)

The experienced players have to start delivering consistently and quit basking in the questionable glory of each having played a more or less memorable innings a year or two ago, acting like their contribution to New Zealand cricket is complete already. Not one member of this current Blackcaps team nor the fringe players genuinely lack talent, they are all capable of playing cricket, some even a bit better than the average domestic cricketer. But they're lacking in attitude, application and certainly in the necessary ability to self-assess and improve.
 
Instead of talking turkey for once and calling the entire team out for what was again an embarrassing performance, the Test itself has thrown quite convenient excuses New Zealand's way. There's DRS to cry for, lack of warm-up games to blame, supporters who clearly have misunderstood the concept of 'support'  and who go on and on and on about that call against McCullum and talk up Team India's performance ‒ which wasn't all that. They played well(ish), but nothing about their efforts justified yet another capitulation like this, not even remotely.

If this had been a limited overs game, and New Zealand had been chasing and ended up losing by 20 runs (and I'm being very generous here), I'd understand the moaning a bit more and probably even join in the chorus. But this was a Test match in which the Blackcaps had been forced to follow on, and when McCullum was dismissed, New Zealand were 98-2 and still trailing by 181 runs. I accept that his dismissal gave India momentum, no doubt about it, but realistically speaking, how many more runs would McCullum have made until the next inevitable brain fart? And would these runs have made a difference in the end? Hardly.

Being inferior to your opponent is one thing and surely something New Zealand cricketers should be used to for generations now, but even with that in mind, I'd expect a team to at least get the basics straight, especially after the near-apocalyptic experience that was the West Indies tour. The basics that don't have anything to do with a small talent pool or no warm-up games ‒ energetic fielding, held catches, no fishing after deliveries as wide as the Grand Canyon and no sweeping. India most certainly still would've won, but at least New Zealand would've saved face and prevented to look like either incapable or disinterested hobby cricketers.

But maybe all of this could've been dealt with if the Blackcaps weren't stuck with a captain who rather speaks of the advantages of Rahul Dravid's and VVS Laxman's absence, who wants us to believe that a few more days at home are as good a preparation for a subcontinental tour as warm-up matches, with West Indian and Indian conditions being very similar anyway (because the Blackcaps were so on top of their game in the Caribbean), and who sweats his insecurity over the close relationship between Mike Hesson and Brendon McCullum out of every pore ‒ instead of focusing on selecting the right squad, picking the right playing XI (though congratulations on picking Boult, I didn't expect that), applying the right tactics and maybe even bothering to perform a bit better himself too, both with the bat and in the slip cordon.

And you know what the saddest part is? I feel like I have written this blog post before.

*****

 
PS: Dear Mike, I know it's tough being Mike Hesson and all, and I don't blame you for anything that's happened in that first Test, I actually pity you, but please stay out of the third/match umpires' box in the future, it's unbecoming of a grown man. Thanks in advance. Love, me.

(Title taken from "All Time Low" by The Wanted.)

life is what you make it.

Yesterday, the unthinkable happened. England dropped Kevin Pietersen. For now only for the third Test of the series against South Africa, and we'll have to wait and see where both parties go from here, but I believe it'll be tough for him to come back from this and to regain a place in this team which he's felt increasingly isolated in. Hearing the news yesterday has quite surprised me, because I would've expected those in charge to cave. To fall for his Youtube sob story trap and cave, as they've done numerous times in the past. Instead, they've finally made a decision, which couldn't have been easy for them, and I can only respect them for it.

Pietersen apologists continue to throw the ~fact that he was dropped because of texts, and texts only, at you when you dare to agree with his omission, citing a clear breach of trust for these private conversations to even have come to the ECB's knowledge. Call me crazy, but is the important thing really how they know or that they know? He was asked to provide the ECB with proof that he hadn't sent texts containing derogatory remarks about his captain to members of the opposition team (texts containing derogatory remarks, not just plain "hey, how's it going? i'm bored bru" texts) inside a clear timeframe, which the ECB also prolonged by a couple of hours to give him every opportunity to at least repair some of the damage, or even deny sending them altogether. He did neither, which implies he was in the wrong, and couldn't possibly be understood in any different way by Flower, Strauss and the ECB.

For me personally, those texts alone would've been reason enough to drop him, to at least suspend him for a Test or series. (And let's just remind ourselves again, that it's not about texting opposition players, but about the content of those texts.) But he also could've gotten the boot after his pathetic press conference at Headingley last Monday, where he blamed basically everyone and his dog for his misfortunes, when he's brought this all on himself. Or after he'd asked to play the full IPL and miss out on Test matches, while maintaining it wasn't about the money. Or after his retirement from one-day cricket. Or when he decided he didn't want to sign a contract with a county anymore. Or actually after the Moores affair back in 2009. Do we see a pattern here? Or is that my well-known reputation as a "KP hater" speaking?

According to Jonathan Agnew, publishing his interview on Youtube was a violation of his central contract, and ECB officials had actually asked him not to go ahead with it, yet he did it anyway ‒ retracting and contradicting literally everything he's said before (how credible), and for what? A lame last-ditch effort to get the public on his side, so they can run with the "he was dropped for texting" story. And judging by some of the comments in the past 24 hours, all I can say is: despite a regrettable lack of tears and wobbling bottom lips in the video, it's working.

The fact that the comments from Hugh Morris clearly identify the texts as one key point, indicating that there were others ‒ let's ignore that. Let's also ignore all his previous well-publicised transgressions that would barely fit on a toilet paper roll, especially and most recently his embarrassing press conference after the second Test in Leeds; let's ignore that he was told not to publish his self-serving PR stunt joke of a video interview but did it anyway; let's ignore that he did not only screw Peter Moores but also tried to screw Andy Flower with him; let's ignore that the majority of the team seem to not trust nor respect him anymore.

Actually, let's ignore everything and just focus on the fact that England have dropped their arguably best batsman for being able to operate a mobile phone after his arguably best innings at Headingley for the must-win Test at Lord's. Which, according to the overly dramatic Pietersen apologists, England are certain to lose, now that Pietersen is not playing. Just like the first Test at the Oval, which England lost by an innings and 12 runs without KP. Oh wait...

~

Having said all that, both sides have handled this mess in the worst possible way, and the ECB is heavily at fault as well, and has been for quite some time. They should've either reigned him in earlier or got rid of him earlier; letting him get away with all his antics and then sitting there thinking "We've created a monster!" reeks of The Sorcerer's Apprentice, and they should've known better. They should've known that this was never the right way to go about dealing with someone like Pietersen ‒ obviously a genius, obviously a flawed character. 

It's evident that Pietersen wasn't cut from the squad for Lord's over the texts only, and people who believe that are beyond naïve and should maybe consider getting real, but the ECB are clearly lacking the balls to come out and tell it like it really is. "We've overlooked all your crap, used you and your blatantly obvious, extraordinary talent for as long as we could, squeezed you like a lemon, and now that neither the team nor staff nor us armchair poopers can be bothered to put up with you anymore ‒ there's the door.", and maybe accompany that statement with a list of all the beautiful things Kevin Pietersen has put them through in the past eight years.

Wherever Kevin Pietersen went, controversy has been following him around. Fortunately, I'm not as blinkered to think that people haven't treated him wrongly during his career too (Swann's remarks, for example), but hearing him complain about the last couple of days having been demoralising for him and his family makes me cringe, because ‒ who caused this again? He called for coaches to be sacked, he put his signature under a central contract and retired from one-day cricket anyway knowing what the rules were, he listens to his celebrity friends more than to common sense, he couldn't get enough fame and glory and money and kept on demanding more, while completely overlooking that people like Andy Flower (or just recently Matt Prior) kept on bending over backwards to accommodate him and his Everest-sized ego, and he decided to burn the last of the already wonky bridges on August 6 at Headingley.

Love him or hate him, but staying true to himself, staying true to Kevin Pietersen always doing what's best for Kevin Pietersen, he should've wished for a different (preliminary) end to his England career than this soap opera. He should've wished to leave with a bang, a bang like his Leeds innings, a bang like clawing back the Test series against South Africa of all countries and holding on to the #1 spot ‒ a bang befitting of his talent and his larger-than-life persona.

west indies 8 new zealand 1.

Before tropical storm 'Ernesto' could hit Sabina Park, the West Indies managed to wrap up the second Test and the series, and even though one could argue that New Zealand still haven't really arrived in the Caribbean, Darren Sammy and his team will be very content with finishing off the tour 8-1. (And I'm still not totally convinced that that one loss wasn't the result of the West Indies taking pity on the Blackcaps, because that's how they roll. And who wouldn't take pity on an out of place NZ captain who is the size of Chris Gayle's breakfast?)

While I understand that this tour was clearly doomed from the start with New Zealand Cricket letting John Wright hang out to dry by refusing to release funds to prepare the team properly for this series (or as Jeremy Coney said "they sold him out"), the team's performances throughout these five very painful weeks have been inexcusable, not helped by their attitude, a dangerous mixture of helplessness and "we beat Australia and almost beat South Africa" arrogance, obviously underestimating the West Indies. Yes, there has been the occasional ray of light ‒ namely Trent Boult, and the way Martin Guptill and Tim Southee managed to pull themselves together ‒ but beyond that, it was nothing short of embarrassing, and an insult to John Wright, who deserved a better send-off from his players than being humiliated like this.

~

Captain Craptastic was certainly on to something when he said that only centuries and not 40s, 50s, 60s will win you Test matches, but when your six specialist batsmen all contributed between 40 and 60, you could have a more than decent score on the board, especially when your bowlers chip in with a further 69 runs between them, as they did in the first innings in Kingston. Instead the specialist batsmen bar Guptill threw their wickets away, time and time again, and Ross Taylor and Kane Williamson in particular should offer to carry their team-mates home as a way of apologizing for their hapless and abysmal performances.

Complaining about Taylor (and Brendon McCullum, for that matter) has become a bit of a hobby for me, but it's not like I don't have my reasons. How can the captain bat like an absolute donkey in the first Test, call himself out on it in his post-match interview, give us the "100s win Tests" speech ‒ and then come up with that at Sabina Park, the same pathetic way of dismissal in both innings (1 and 2)? It's a massive cliché, but shouldn't the captain lead by example? If a batsman loses his wicket to a stunning delivery he couldn't do much about, then so be it, but that right there was a lack of application, a lack of patience ‒ a lack of everything, really.

~

Despite all my justified rage about Taylor, McCullum & Co., nothing can compete with how disappointed I am with Kane Williamson's performances throughout the series, but especially during the Test matches. After his Wellington heroics, I had this West Indies tour earmarked as his opportunity to score consistently and to score big, to cement his place in the Blackcaps side(s) as a reliable and stylish run-scorer, and not only make a proper name for himself but actually grow as an international batsman. And I know I wasn't alone in that.

He certainly hasn't had the easiest of series, with having to play all three formats (which I will never support, regardless of how successful he may be in T20), being stuck with the captaincy in an ill-prepared and malfunctioning team, having to deal with numerous injuries and frankly ridiculous squad picks and the Wright situation hanging over their heads. But as soon as it was Test match time and Taylor had taken back over the reigns, I expected him, a player who is so keen to play Test cricket, to do his thing, to show off his classy batting technique, to score runs.

Instead, he showed the world that he's got no spine whatsoever by using a nightwatchman twice, and then threw his wickets away in a mortifying and incompetent manner, unbecoming of him and his immense talent. He managed to produce the exact same hideous dismissal in both innings in Kingston (1 and 2, once more, happy cringing) by trying to drive deliveries through the covers that were so wide, they wouldn't even have hit a third set of stumps.

When he first popped up on the scene, people were impressed by his undoubtable talent, enviable cricket brain and desirable work ethic, and he managed to surf on the "prolific talent with a century on debut" wave for quite some time, when he didn't immediately follow up his first Test exploits with equally formidable performances. I presume he will be able to survive until the India tour on the back of his innings at the Basin, but he is in desperate need of not only stringing some performances together but showing the cricket world and probably first and foremost himself that he's not just another boy with too much talent and too little heart.

~

Looking at the squad, recent performances and the India series looming, you'd think that some decisions need to be made, but how? The pond to fish from is rather small, and neither of the current batsmen is genuinely lacking in quality anyway, they're lacking in attitude, patience and application. With Daniel Vettori almost certainly missing the Test series against India ‒ spinners don't really grow on trees anywhere in the world, let alone in New Zealand, and Williamson and his action shouldn't have to shoulder the responsibility of being the prime spinner in the subcontinent, even less so when he's struggling with his batting. So, Patel? N McCullum? B Martin? Or Williamson and Guptill, and to hell with the consequences?

And what about the ~fast bowlers? Had Mark Gillespie not been injured, the two by far best bowlers in the Caribbean, Boult and Southee, wouldn't even have been in the squad for the Test series against the West Indies, let alone in the playing XI. Surely there's something wrong there? As for Wagner, while you can't fault his effort and attitude, I'm not so sure that his performances warranted all the drama just yet. He's bowled medium pace at best, and appeared to be unable to hit the seam, which made it impossible for his team-mates to shine the ball, because he hit whichever side of the ball at random. That might be good enough for domestic cricket (with all due respect to the Plunket Shield), but it won't cut it in international cricket. For mine, only Boult and Southee are automatic picks for India, and everyone else, regardless of whether the Blackcaps play three or four seamers, would have to fight for it.

~

Thankfully, Ross Taylor has used his post-match interview at Sabina Park for some Taylorisms à la "winning is a habit", but also managed to warn us about the short turn-around already, which might've been his way of telling us poor, dumb Blackcaps supporters that they're going to get thrashed again anyway, and we'll just have to deal with it. No preparation, no warm-up matches, no nothing for the tour to India, a new coach in Mike Hesson who has his work more than cut out for him ‒ and an uninspiring, uninspired captain who is so insecure about his standing in the team and Hesson's relationship with Brendon McCullum, he had to interrogate him about it during his job interview.  Yeah, this India series is going to be great.

black caps. or the gift that just keeps on giving.

Admittedly, after the Black Caps' recent performances in the Caribbean, I felt so very tempted to compose an entry full of links to my blog posts from March (see sidebar), maybe replace a few names or two here and there with their West Indian counterparts, and end the link festival with a string of curses and a couple of "I told you so" - but that would be tedious, right?

But then again, don't tedious performances deserve tedious blogs as reward punishment? Yes, Martin Guptill finally scored some runs at the top of the order (before throwing his wickets away), Brendon McCullum finally managed to not bat like a complete dick (though only in the second innings), and you can't fault Neil Wagner's and Kruger van Wyk's efforts (though in vain); but beyond that, this entire Test match was a celebration of poor attitude, poor fielding, poor bowling and poor batting, clearly not helped by wrong tactics and wrong selection. How was a batting line-up this shaky paired up with two more or less hit-and-miss bowlers, good ol' Chris Martin and a struggling Vettori going to deal with Hurricane Gayle?

We know Mr Hobart will always feature in the playing XI, whether he deserves it or not, simply because he's Mr Hobart, and Chris Martin has been New Zealand's only reliable wicket-taker for quite some time now, so he naturally can't be left out. Given the well-known and well-publicized condition of the wicket, should Neil Wagner have made his debut on a pitch this uncooperative? Maybe not. But given the build-up and the four years and the ICC enquiry, those in charge probably felt like he had to play, regardless of whether this was going to end well or not. If Trent Boult had been fit, he definitely wouldn't have played for the reasons above, even though he and the perfectly healthy, on-the-up-again Tim Southee were the only bowlers who looked like troubling Chris Gayle in the one-day series.

Had BJ Watling been fit, he may have come into the team, but at the expense of Kruger van Wyk instead of Dean Brownlie or Daniel Flynn. Only in New Zealand would an opening batsman be forced to be the keeper-batsman down at #6 while the middle-order batsman is forced to open. Dean Brownlie has been hopelessly out of form for a rather long while now, and he honestly doesn't add too much at the moment, neither with bat nor ball nor in the field. That alone - apart from the state of the wicket - would've been reason enough to select Tarun Nethula instead of Brownlie, because he could've given Daniel Vettori a much needed hand and would've probably scored as many runs as Brownlie too, if not more. Personally, I'm not one to get overly excited over someone just because he can bowl a bit of legspin, so I would've gone with Tim Southee, meaning four seamers and Vettori, to at least give New Zealand the semblance of a chance to bowl the opposition out.

New Zealand clearly can't afford to leave out Daniel Vettori, the batsman. But what are they going to do about Daniel Vettori, the bowler? New spinning blood is scarce, I know, but can they afford to play a spin bowler that makes Gayle's grandpa spin look effective? Especially when Daniel Vettori, the batsman, hasn't even been scoring that many runs either?

The responsibility of bowling some half-decent spin shouldn't also be laid on Kane Williamson, even less so when it's only a matter of time before his action will be looked at by the ICC. He's certainly got talent as a spinner, and the Black Caps could do a lot worse in the part-time department than him, but you do have to ask yourself why nobody has worked on fixing his action before, which is - while adorable to watch and quite effective - absolutely ridiculous.

Which leads me to my next problem. Kane Williamson and his personal nightwatchman, Neil Wagner. We know I believe he can do no wrong, but him using a nightwatchman twice really disappointed me. Not only do I expect more from him, especially after he dealt with Steyn & Co. so well, and simply hold him to a much higher standard than most other batsmen (in NZ anyway, but also in world cricket), but it also visibly unsettled both Martin Guptill and Ross Taylor. It shouldn't have been Neil Wagner's job to try and shepherd Guptill through to a century, and it certainly shouldn't have been his job to warm the crease for the captain-to-be. You could see Kemar Roach licking his lips when Williamson finally came out to bat; he might as well hold up a sign the next time "I'm crapping myself, guys!", it'd be equally as effective. If I were him, I would've been ashamed to see Wagner not only survive to the next day, but actually bat through to lunch, whereas I, as the future of New Zealand cricket, not only chickened out twice like a little wuss, but also managed to contribute pretty much nothing to the score.

On top of that, we have a captain who to me was the wrong choice from the start, whom the majority of the team didn't want, whom I would consider to be an irresponsible and overrated batsman, especially in Test cricket, and who also appears to be trying to win a "Dumbest Comment" competition - and ending up occupying places 1 to 10 himself. New Zealand got thrashed in the T20 and ODI series (bar that one win, coincidentally during Kane Williamson's short tenure as stand-in captain), played badly in the warm-up game leading up to the Test series, yet he said he didn't care about warm-ups anyway and was happy with the team's performances. Then he also informed us that Sunil Narine poses no threat in Tests, because "you don't have to play him". Sunil Narine ended up taking just the eight wickets, including a five-fer in the first innings, on a pitch where Daniel Vettori genuinely couldn't buy a wicket.

New Zealand went from 223-2 to 233-4 (or rather 233-5 because of Wagner - or rather 233-6 because of Wagner and Martin), yet the captain of all captains thought they were still on top. Scyld Berry anybody? They were bowled out twice in more or less bloodcurdling circumstances on a pitch that was "difficult to bat on" - West Indies scored just the 522 runs in their first innings, won by nine wickets and Shivnarine Chanderpaul didn't even score. To be honest, they seem to love talking to the media a bit too much. Martin Guptill was particularly outstanding after stumps on Day 4, New Zealand were basically 28-3 (or rather 28-5 because of Wagner and Martin), and he was totally confident they'd manage to salvage a draw, because they had still plenty of batting to come with Taylor and Williamson. Safe to say, that worked out brilliantly. (Honourable mention to Jacob Oram though for saying the West Indies had to watch out. Oh.)

And if all that wasn't enough, their body language and overall attitude left a lot to be desired. A blatantly obvious case of ball tampering by Mr Hobart Doug Bracewell, plus unimaginative, one-dimensional bowling (which lead to me tweeting "black caps, are you england in disguise?" at one point, I'm not even sorry), a performance in the field you'd call 'sloppy' if you were being nice, but which can only be described as disinterested and at times even insulting, dropped dollies, and their usual approach to batting, lacking application and a sense of responsibility, lead by someone whose face indicates that he couldn't care less - no wonder West Indies didn't even have to work that hard to beat this New Zealand side.

Luckily for me (and unlike the majority of NZ media and a lot of supporters), I've gotten over Hobart way back in December already, and I didn't really expect anything from the Black Caps on this tour, so the outcome so far hasn't particularly surprised me. The manner in which they lost the vast majority of their matches though, the fact that it appears that neither team nor coaches are doing much to prevent these frankly embarrassing results, and that it seems like there's no end to this ordeal in sight, well, that's something else entirely.

Somebody just make it stop, please.

Since writing the above, Vettori and Flynn have been ruled out of the second Test. This is going to be fun.

being german.

(Getty Images)

Cricket isn't that big in Germany. I'm sure there are people who have all kinds of fancy numbers at the ready and could tell you exactly how not "that big" cricket really is, but even without those numbers I can safely say that it thankfully still ranks above dry swimming and sitting shot put, but far behind our Volkssport football, cycling, swimming or the ever so popular winter sports. Most active cricketers in this country are either British soldiers stationed here or originally hail from the subcontinent, with cricket automatically being part of their lives despite the omnipresence of football and co.

So with me being neither a British soldier nor of subcontinental origin, how did I end up watching cricket? First of all, I've been a huge rugby (union and league) and Aussie Rules football fan, and cricket is (as far as the Southern Hemisphere is concerned) what's being played when the rugby and footy seasons are over, and I guess I was curious and wanted to check it out for myself. And secondly, and probably more importantly, I refused to accept that I couldn't read, understand and interpret the cricket scores in the Guardian (my English-language newspaper of choice), so I pretty much forced myself to watch some cricket and learn the rules on the way.


But this also means that I don't have any special stories to tell about how my grandfather took me to the cricket for the first time or how we all used to come together to sit around the radio, listening to England having Ashes series defeat after Ashes series defeat handed to them, or how it felt when I picked up a bat for the first time or bowled my maiden over of really ugly offspin in the park. There's no allegiance, no nostalgia, no tradition, no "back in the day" component to my following of the game. I stumbled upon it for rather stupid reasons, via other sports and because I wanted to learn more about it, and in the end I came to love it so much more than I could ever have imagined.


Coming from a non-cricketing country means that I can watch the game without any patriotic feelings neither clouding nor brightening up my view, and support a team, for example, because I admire a certain player, not because loyalty tells me to. At the same time this also opens the door for a catalogue of annoying questions à la "Why do you like the Black Caps?", "Why do you not like Swanny?", "If you support England in the Ashes, how come you like Ponting so much?" - because we all know, nobody who isn't actually Kiwi would voluntarily support the Black Caps in all their average glory, let alone publicly admit to it; Swann is the greatest and funniest bloke on earth and also the genius behind a bowling style we now call offspin; and supporting England has to include hating on a legend of our game.


Of course, not everyone in the Test cricket playing nations is a die-hard cricket fan, but overall the access to trivial things such as live broadcasts, newspapers, books, merchandise and live events is so much easier and so much more comfortable - if you're into cricket you will find like-minded people as well as the tools to feed and live out your passion for leather and willow.


It might be a bit of a luxury to be able to just watch cricket for the game's sake, but at the same time I can't help but be envious of those who live in the "right" countries, who can watch cricket on regular TVs (Pay TV nonetheless) and don't have to sit crammed in front of a computer day after day, hoping that Giles Clarke hasn't followed through with his Crusade Against Streaming™ just yet. Those who can watch it live at the most beautiful grounds without having to sell their mothers for it and sacrificing several goats at the altar of the rain gods, who don't have to pay a small fortune for magazine subscriptions that arrive two weeks late anyway, and who in school, at university or at work, among their friends and families, have people whom they can talk shop with.


Following cricket (as well as rugby union and league and Australian Rules football) and keeping up with news, developments and current live games everywhere can turn a time-consuming hobby into an unpaid full-time job. When you find yourself driving up to your allegedly international airport (I've been told planes do fly to destinations outside of Germany from here, but who knows) to get at least the Guardian or the Times in order to have some kind of a fix for your obsession in print, it may well be time to step away from Twitter and StatsGuru and everything in between and get a life.


Despite the time, emotions and even genuine tears I put into following cricket from abroad, I still feel like an outcast among our (online) cricket community at times. When I look around, there are people chatting away about going to Lord's, having been to Newlands or looking forward to going to the G next Southern summer, telling each other anecdotes about that time they fell down the stairs at Trent Bridge, that time they ran into Player X or that time Player Z was rude to their granny - and while being a fan shouldn't be a competition, people quite easily turn it into one, and can get quite condescending towards someone who can't chip in with similar stories.


They can even make you feel like you're not a "real fan" because of geographical challenges. Which raises the question - what is a "real fan" anyway? Is it about dedication or proximity, devotion or live attendance? Me and my shoddy streams and my dependance on mediocre, and at times shockingly ill-informed, coverage on Cricinfo and BBC Radio, we can't quite compete with the majority of cricket fans if hailing from the same country as a more or less successful Test side is the major criterion, no matter how well versed in the sport I believe myself to be.


Of course I'd love to attend as many games as possible (or just one game, for starters), of course I'd love to be able to meet up with cricket aficionados everywhere and feel part of the family and of course I'd love to not be stared at like a creature from outer space just for liking cricket and arranging my social life around it - but at the same time I am proud of my efforts, proud of my knowledge, proud of being so enamoured with this great game. And when nobody's looking, I ask myself whether those of us who live abroad, who accidentally came across cricket and who don't have access to anything might not actually be the biggest fans out there after all.


My supporting of cricket went from an experiment to a hobby to an almost tragic passion, albeit with a few obstacles. But it's worth it, every second of it, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

(originally penned for @aotearoaxi's blog, originally published here.)

self-absorbed. adjective. absorbed in your own interests.

Little addition to my piece on Kevin Pietersen's retirement from one-day cricket.

"I'd had enough of the schedule. I can't carry on doing everything. I play every single form of cricket that there is. I play the IPL and I've the Champions League in October. Apart from MS Dhoni, I've played the most days of international cricket over the past seven years. There comes a time when some form of the game has to be taken out of my schedule. One-day cricket was it.

It is a shame, but that is schedules we have. If the schedules weren't like that, or I played for another country where you had months and months occasionally to rest and recuperate, or if I had the opportunities to be rested things might be different. But you don't get those opportunities when you play for England. So I had to make a decision. You know what that decision is." (Source)

(Kevin Pietersen. Keeping It Real Since 1980.)

I'd like to work in a job where I get paid millions to travel all over the world and hit a ball around, where my biggest problem is that I don't get months off work. Apart from that, it isn't the ECB's problem that KP™ is playing in the IPL and Champions League (and it should never be). As far as I know, England had the months of November, December, February and almost the entire month of March off. So technically he's done a bit in January and at the end of March and then went to India to participate in the IPL where he's being paid ~$125,000 per week.

Yeah, I feel so sorry for you, you greedy sack of shit.

selfish. adjective. thinking only of oneself.

Those who follow me on Twitter will know that I harbour nothing but negative feelings towards Kevin Pietersen, and that I'm certainly happy to have him spoil only Test cricket for me in the future instead of all three formats. The entertainment value he allegedly adds to the game never managed to overshadow my intense dislike of him and his stinker attitude. Despite all that, if the timing of KP's sudden retirement of international one-day cricket - or as I like to call it "KP doing whatever it takes to be the #1 trending topic worldwide" - hadn't been so peculiar, I'd may well be saying that we should let the man earn his cash if he's gagging for it this badly. But since he mistimed his actions so spectacularly, I can't find it in me to be this generous.

Let's think the best of him, against every fibre of my being, and assume he did ask the ECB to be rested from the ODI series against Australia (if the players even wash up on the UK shores), and they turned him down. Seems highly unlikely, since the Blazers usually do anything for KP, but let's roll with it. The Blazers then told him to either play through the summer or retire - couldn't he have gutsed it out (if playing one-dayers really is such a hardship), participated in the T20 World Cup and then retired directly into the CLT20 and the Big Bash?

Instead, it seems as if he wanted to screw the ECB for how they handled the Moores affair and his Twitter outbursts, as if he wanted to settle who's whose daddy in this never-ending soap opera once and for all. Regardless of whether the ECB's ruling of players having to be available for all limited over formats or none makes sense or not, he knew about said ruling all along - and he retired from one-day cricket anyway. Probably with the petty intention of testing whether the ECB were willing to make the umpteenth concession to the Great KP and His Even Greater Ego, because moving Craig Kieswetter down the order to give His Highness more time at the crease (and to Kieswetter's clear disadvantage) simply wasn't enough. And even though it meant depriving England of their prime limited-overs batsman, this time around someone decided to stand his ground (for now) and let him go.

Yes, English cricket has profited from his contributions over the years, but those benefits definitely went and still go both ways. Was playing a dozen one-day matches this summer for the country that welcomed him and the organization that's been been bending over backwards for him and allowed him to turn his indisputable talent and c*nty persona into millions (!) of pounds really too much to ask? I don't think so. Yet, he decided to go down this road, and he and his camp will simply need to deal with the consequences for the brand KP™, step away from Twitter and stop blaming others for a choice he made of his own free will.

For some inexplicable reason, I've never quite rated him as a team player, and by acting like this, he's only proved to me that he's exactly the selfish knob I always believed him to be. With the vast majority of players, especially players who are already on the wrong side of 30, I wouldn't begrudge them wanting to earn big(ger) money for a second. But when it comes to KP, all his slightly desperate and slightly worthless declarations of loyalty and love and whatever else to the cause of English cricket not to mention the damn tattoo spring to mind, which makes his clearly non-essential (i.e. not forced by injury) retirement so impossible to deal with.

Way too many people, fans and journalists alike, complain about the ECB treating 20- and 50-over cricket as basically the same - and completely miss the point. The ECB are trying to protect the one-day game by making sure that their most talented players don't opt out of playing it, which as long as it's still around and World Cups are being held, is what every board should be doing and what supporters should be encouraging. Sure, Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott don't play Twenty20 cricket, but they've never retired from the shortest form and are technically still available - they're just not being selected due to their more conservative approach to batting not being required in Twenty20. And if people don't want to get that, they should buy a Melbourne Renegades Membership - KP will turn out for them next winter.

Whether there's too much cricket being played or not, whether there's too much one-day cricket being played or not, that's a discussion for another day. People can believe that KP did what he had to do for a higher cause, that he sacrificed himself for the greater good of English cricket, and that it had nothing to do with money whatsoever, but I'm never going to buy into it; and thankfully, I'm not alone in that. Kevin Pietersen only ever thinks of what's best for Kevin Pietersen, and his decision to retire now and throw England's limited overs teams and their inexperienced captains to the wolves in the lead-up to the T20 World Cup and a possible title defence is yet another act of a self-serving prima donna, who is now free to go and earn his cash wherever he wants to buy himself all the lip balm and loafers in the world.


(And I sincerely hope the door hit him on his way out.)

johnny, we're sorry. won't you come on home?

It's been a long time coming, and if you've read closely between the lines during the past couple of months, it hardly came as that big a shock. John Wright has declined to extend his contract as head coach of the Black Caps - he will step down after the West Indies tour - which is nothing short of a disaster for New Zealand Cricket going forward. Who's to blame for it though? The board? Director of Cricket, John Buchanan? Kim Littlejohn? Justin Vaughan, who left NZC in a terrible state and who made the mistake of signing on John Buchanan (and not John Wright) on a lucrative long-term deal? Buchanan's pie charts? All the above?

In countries with bloated domestic cricket competitions like England, having a team of selectors makes sense, as the England head coach couldn't possibly watch all those players who are being considered for a call-up in the nearer future up and down the country, all at the same time. Compared to that, the New Zealand head coach surely would be able to keep track of every single more or less talented and in-form player in the Plunket Shield, Ford Trophy and HRV Cup without encountering too many scheduling problems.

Why is it so hard to understand that a coach would like to have a major say, the major say in the selection process? He's the one who has to work with these players, he's the one who has to turn a bunch of individuals into a (hopefully) winning team, so why can't he also be the one who selects them? Especially someone with the cricketing nous and instincts such as Wright's. After all, he's the one who brought in Dean Brownlie, he's the one who picked Doug Bracewell, and he's the one who re-called BJ Watling and handed him the gloves.

What did Buchanan do during this time? Pies. Judging by Wright's comments, I'd say Buchanan's made his life miserable. (Which by the way isn't the first time that a coach has found it impossible to work with Buchanan, make of that what you will.) And instead of letting the head coach, his assistants and senior players decide whom they would've liked to see replacing Daniel Vettori as the captain of the Black Caps, Buchanan also managed to cock that one up quite spectacularly by turning it into a special cycle of New Zealand's Next Top Model™.

Without wanting to put down New Zealand loving Australians everywhere, do people really think an Australian in Director of Cricket John Buchanan and another Australian in National Selector Manager Kim Littlejohn have New Zealand Cricket's and the Black Caps' best interest at heart? These men are being paid to make decisions on behalf of a cricket board that's in direct competition to their home board. How is it possible for officials (including Justin Vaughan back in the day) to prefer someone's bought 'passion' over the genuine fervour and blood, sweat and tears of a veteran servant  to New Zealand cricket in John Wright?

Keyboard warriors who comment on articles on the more or less relevant cricket websites, appear to have not too much of an idea of actual cricket these days, I've been resigned to that for a while now. But having to read comments by some of these muppets, calling on Buchanan & Co. to find a new coach who'll be willing to work for whatever sum Wright was being paid for his services, really upsets me, as those remarks imply that John Wright didn't want to re-sign with New Zealand Cricket for financial reasons, which is not only completely untrue but also an insult to him, his character and the work he's done.

He didn't ask for more money or paid vacations or diamond studded breakfast cutlery. All he wanted was free reign over how he manages and coaches the team, including the selection of players. The nerve! How dare he wants to pick the players he has to work with and whom he wants to mould into a well-functioning, successful team? Wanting to do one's job in peace and without being dictated by Buchanan, Littlejohn and brethren on what to do and with whom certainly isn't too much ask, is it?

Sure, there are some realists or even cynics (like myself) out there who have moved on, but overall NZ journalists, commentators, fans, players and officials never fail to mention that win over Australia on that ridiculous wicket in Hobart at any given opportunity, regardless of whether mentioning it actually fits the current discussion or not. But if these people really care so much about Hobart, they need to remind themselves that it wasn't John Buchanan or Kim Littlejohn or that toxic clown Justin Vaughan who made that happen, but John Wright.

Naturally, I'm sad to see him go, but I can only applaud him for refusing to compromise his ideas, his opinions at the hands of cricket bureaucrats, and for staying true to himself, even if that is only possible at the expense of a team in desperate need of his guidance as well as of disillusioned, exhausted Black Caps supporters whom he finally gave some hope.

We'll miss you, Wrighty, thanks for the memories.

(Title taken from "Johnny Come Home" by the Fine Young Cannibals.)

an ode to kane williamson.

Usually, this would be the time to post a more or less balanced and presumably well-informed review of the series, pointing out what both teams can take out of playing these three Test matches, the pleasant surprises, the huge disappointments, the "I told you so!" awards, a look to the future and so on and so forth. 

But this time around, I just can't be bothered. And not because I've already said it all (even though I genuinely have, and you know it) or because it depresses or enrages me too much. No, I can't be bothered to review the series because for once in my cricket-supporting life I'm going to be unreasonable and happy and giddy and proud and everything in between and beyond - and all because of this boy.

(Getty Images)

I don't care about the dropped catches, nor about whether Alviro Petersen caught that cleanly or not. I don't care about the weather having been a massive disadvantage to South Africa, who would've wrapped up this series in half the time if the sun had been out more. I don't care about Smith and Amla not having been out. And even though it's hard, I also don't care about the Black Caps' abysmal bowling in the second innings, accompanied by equally abysmal captaincy by perma-stand-in-captain, Brendon McCullum.

What I care about is that Kane Williamson stood his ground; that he took being chirped at abused all day on the chin and just focused on his batting; that he got his balls smashed and his box cracked, and he still soldiered on; that he didn't allow himself to be thrown off by his batting partners departing one after the other; that he dug deep and found the character and strength in him to apply himself, to just keep going.

Not to mention that (with all due respect) this wasn't Zimbabwe or Bangladesh or even his own slightly non-threatening New Zealand bowling attack he had to deal with. This was and is the by far best bowling attack in the world, and they were hurling wicket-worthy or even lethal balls at him with almost every delivery. A bowling attack the majority of his older and more experienced team-mates were unable or unwilling to take on.

He should never have been put in the position to come in to bat and fight for a draw at 1-2 and with 76 overs left in this third and last Test match, but complaining about top-order failures seems to be the flavour of the season, so why should New Zealand's second innings have been any different? His performance showed everyone not only what is possible even against the best bowlers in the world when you just put your mind to it, it also showed everyone what he as a person and a cricketer is made of.

People who like to call themselves 'experts' were already calling for his head, they were claiming he was playing for his spot in the team after shaky performances in Australia (where only him and Reece Young failed to get runs, I know), and yet, he showed them all up. He gutsed it out like a man, like the champion and superstar in the making that he is.

Supporting a player that unconditionally, believing in him, his abilities and his character so fervently is a beautiful and at times overwhelming if not scary feeling in itself, even in times of disappointment and ducks and run-outs inflicted upon him by others. But watching him grow and succeed like this, I couldn't possibly be any prouder of him.

Maybe, just maybe, you really are the Tom Graveney to my Jonathan Smith. 

Without the brilliance on my side, of course.

mccullum knew what they were doing.

Another day of Test cricket, another New Zealand batting collapse, including another handful of delightfully thrown away wickets, another six-fer for Vernon Philander and another disappointing performance by the men in the Rembrandt suits commentary box. If I wasn't convinced that we actually are at the Basin - beautiful scenery, wind, seagulls, oh my - I could swear we've never left Hamilton.

Judging by previous posts and by what's about to come, it may sound like I hate Brendon McCullum, but it's actually quite the opposite. But I love Baz for being Baz, and not for that guy that looks like him and plays like him but still pretends to be a top-order batsman. He loves the pull-shot, fine, but so does Ricky Ponting, for example. Though unlike McCullum, Ponting not only executes it flawlessly, no, he also knows when to play it. And trailing by 338 runs in the first innings with the world's best bowler steaming in certainly isn't the right time for trying to be fancy. 

When he was dismissed for 31, after yet another start, Ian Smith said "I think Mccullum knew what they were doing, and he still did it. Because that's Brendon McCullum. Old dogs, new tricks." - that remark perfectly highlights what the problem is.

Brendon McCullum should play like Brendon McCullum, he should play aggressive shots, he should take risks, he should play his "natural game" (even though I hate that phrase), which is what he's good at. Pretending to be something he's not won't get him nor the Black Caps anywhere, and makes him look like a much worse player than what he actually is. Brendon McCullum can be Brendon McCullum all he wants, but please not at the top of the order, unless he changes something about his approach. It's not like he genuinely lacks the cricket brain, he just doesn't apply himself.

Which pretty much sums it all up, doesn't it? Application, boys, application is the magic word. Scoring 30 runs is very beautiful, and compared to me who wouldn't even score one run, it's also rather impressive, but that's not enough. They know that's not enough, yet it seems that nobody's doing anything about it, neither players nor coaches. Instead Brendon McCullum is just Brendon McCullum and Ross Taylor is just Ross Taylor and Martin Guptill is just Martin Guptill; and Kane Williamson starts to throw his wickets away now too, fishing outside off-stump, while Daniel Flynn, doomed to fail by the media prior to this match, made an almost unnoticed, certainly unpraised, hard-fought and patient opening-batsman-esque return to Test cricket - and Trent Boult is still nowhere to be seen.

Whenever a discussion about squad selections and line-ups comes up, many supporters and friends of New Zealand cricket are very quick to throw the "But, but, but - we don't have anybody else!" line at you, which by itself certainly is a valid(ish) argument. There's no denying the facts that New Zealand is a small country and that they don't have the depth of England, South Africa or Australia, let alone India or Pakistan; and they also have to deal with heavy competition for young talents from the various football codes.

But being a small country with a small talent pool shouldn't give you the right to play wild west cricket, it shouldn't give you the right to check your brain at the door and play untimely or even incompetent shots, just because of a false sense of security and the knowledge that coaches and selectors have nobody else to turn to, and it shouldn't make supporters justify said incompetence by playing the "he's the best we've got" card. Even in cricket, you can make up for a lack of technical finesse by using your brain, by learning how to defend properly, and (wait for it) by applying yourself. If anything, being part of a cricket-playing minority should make you treat representing your country with even more respect, it should make you want to hone your skills even more, and it certainly shouldn't make you throw games away just because you want to hit sixes or look good.

Regardless of the actual results, South Africa will leave the Land of the Long White Cloud feeling like winners, like they've come out well and truly on top. They thrashed New Zealand easily in Hamilton, they would've won in Dunedin had it not been for the rain  - everyone who claims otherwise, try the honesty thing I was going on about - and if the weather in Wellington had been just a bit kinder to us, we probably wouldn't have gone into a fourth day, let alone a fifth. All the awards to Vernon Philander and his team-mate, middle-order batsman Patience Application. Both had an absolute ripper of a Test series.

Best wishes to Ross Taylor for a speedy and hopefully smooth recovery.

smithy, i was doing some deep thinking last night.

So, New Zealand lost. Again. How unexpected. Not that it's not frustrating to watch at times (read: way too often), but you can only be really disappointed if you've let yourself be fooled before by a clean-sweep over - Zimbabwe. If you've enjoyed those games but remained realistic, these results against South Africa are hardly coming as a shock.

The Proteas themselves weren't exactly burning down batting fireworks on this still rather mysterious Seddon Park wicket, but you can't fault that bowling attack nor the ability of their tail to focus on putting the bad deliveries away, building valuable partnerships with the recognized batsman at the crease and scoring precious runs.

Pointing out that unstable batting was hurting NZ is giving "stating the bloody obvious" a whole new meaning, but let's roll with it. What makes absolutely no sense whatsoever though is pointing out the failures of the two openers, McCullum then practically having to face the new ball and struggling with it. If Brownlie wasn't injured, McCullum would still be opening the batting, so what exactly is the point?

He shouldn't be opening the batting, he should be batting at 6. But pushing him down the order means that Watling would have to open the batting and keep wicket, and that'd be just plain irresponsible. NZ could well afford to be a batsman short against Zimbabwe, it's an entirely different story against a world class bowling attack though.

Irrespective of conditions and opposition, New Zealand Cricket and Ross Taylor seem obsessed with the idea of playing four seamers plus Vettori - looking at the contributions from Southee in Dunedin and Arnel in Hamilton, you'd have to be stupid (or Ross Taylor) to not think that spot would've been better filled by for example Daniel Flynn.

Apart from half a spell here and there, I wasn't too impressed with the Kiwi bowlers, but wickets still fell, and runs simply have to come from somewhere. If your experienced batsmen can't be bothered to focus for long enough and things are being left to your still very young future captain (who played a very classy, very mature second innings) and your bowler of an ex-captain, maybe it's time to make a cut and bring in another batsman. Not just bringing in a fit again Brownlie for Nicol, that should be a given, but bringing in Flynn for one of the four seamers and having him open the batting.

An extra batsman won't magically turn this Black Caps side into a world class outfit, and they certainly won't beat South Africa at the Basin Reserve either, especially when they keep dropping players like Boult for no apparent reason (he did look good carrying the drinks though), but it could at least help them scrap a slightly more respectable score together and not fold like a group of super cheap cameras again.

As for South Africa, well, the 3-0 series win and the #1 mace are out of reach, thanks to the Dunedin weather, but their batting overall hasn't been up to their usual standard, and while they were never in genuine danger of losing either Test, I'm sure they'd like to put a properly dominant performance together. Oh, and Vernon Philander? Six matches, five five-fers, two ten-wicket-hauls, 45 wickets @ 13.60? Sweet as, bro.

the tale of the green top continues.

It should be a given to talk about Mark Gillespie today, right? About him taking a five-fer, about him waltzing over the South African batsmen, and about him getting New Zealand into a surprisingly excellent position before lunch.

Instead, the Black Caps being the Black Caps, I am again left complaining about yet another (though hardly surprising) batting collapse, yet another failure of the NZ top order, yet another wasted opportunity to not just make up for the disastrous first innings, but to set themselves up to even win this Test match.

Nicol was unlucky, but the dismissals of Guptill, McCullum and Taylor were all once more either poorly selected or poorly executed shots from batsmen who should know better. Williamson (42*), Vettori (0*) and van Wyk (dnb) could score some more runs and build up a bit of a lead, but New Zealand are already 4 wickets down and still trail by 3 runs.

And a day's play wouldn't be a proper day's play without me complaining about NZ media again, with them claiming that South Africa's first innings was a success for the Black Caps, because the wicket looked very easy to bat on in the morning, and South Africa were unable to get a really big score. What they all failed to acknowledge was the fact that New Zealand already had them 88-6 down at lunch. 

Regardless of the individual brilliance of a certain Abraham de Villiers, never ever should the Proteas have been allowed to bring their total up to 253. Philander's quite good with the bat, fine, but usually Morkel and Tahir are the type of players whom you feel you have to tell how to hold a bat. How and by whom were they granted 65 runs between them?

It appears as if this Test is going to be remembered rather as a batting failure parade than for great bowling. That allegedly super green wicket's browned off so quickly our heads spun (no pun intended), and while we should commend the bowlers for their efforts on a wicket that didn't offer them anything, we can only blame overall shoddy batting for the number of wickets that have fallen on this slightly hectic Day 2.

At the end of the day, you can take wickets all you want - they mean nothing if your batsmen don't score runs as well. Cricket can be so simple sometimes, can it not?

day 1 on that not-so-green-top.

That green top didn't turn out to be anyhere near as green and spicy as the players themselves, coaches, journalists and commentators as well as my most humble self expected, all thanks to a bright and sunny Wednesday in the Tron. Had there not been a thick cloud cover this morning, who knows, maybe the toss-winning captain would've been tempted to have a bat first.

While New Zealand were surely rather pleased with being only two wickets down at lunch,  looking at the state of the wicket, they should've scored more runs than the 62 they've managed to come up with. And they certainly shouldn't have lost their openers to a wide delivery a toddler would've left alone (Nicol) and to yet another fugly, dragged-on, pseudo-defence shot (Guptill).

Personally, I believe NZC would be much healthier and play much better cricket, if journalists, commentators, ex-players and current players alike, would just get out of Ross Taylor's and Brendon McCullum's backsides, and stopped praising them like God's gifts to New Zealand (or even world) cricket for basically only doing their jobs - and throwing their wickets away. 

Yes, players like Guptill and Williamson aren't the finished products just yet (and they're both well aware of that), but listening to the gentlemen Doull, Richardson and McMillan hack away at them while salivating over every single thing McCullum and Taylor did, praising accidental shots like they were of a Vivian Richards quality just because they ended up going for a boundary, is more than just infuriating. 

But then again, what do I expect of people who don't know how many runs Rahul Dravid has scored, who are unable to read a graphic telling them that Jacques Rudolph hasn't scored that many Test runs between 2006 and 2011 because he wasn't playing any Test cricket during that time, who think that because they weren't nine wickets down at lunch the Test is as good as theirs, and who call Williamson's technique "unorthodox"? 

Watching New Zealand just wouldn't feel right without a good New Zealand collapse, and the boys certainly didn't disappoint. Going from 133-2 to 133-7 and ultimately 185 all out is quite the achievement, but also shows the quality bowling attack South Africa have on display, who despite a slightly underwhelming first session, clawed their way back in and applied themselves. A foreign concept to New Zealand batsmen since 1832.

New Zealand have always accepted the fact that they effectively only have nine wickets in hand, but it remains to be seen whether they can afford a tail that long plus Chris Martin plus the absolutely bizarre dropping of Trent Boult (a left-armer more than capable with the bat, at his home ground). Not that I was expecting them to win anything during this Test series, but surely "Oldest Possible XI" isn't a viable tactic, no?

New Zealand 185, South Africa 27-2, Smith and Steyn the dismissed batsmen.

green tops are so 2011.

 

(Getty Images)

Preparing a wicket that green to suit the New Zealand bowlers, or rather to suit Doug Bracewell and his Hobart Exploits, is all fair and good, apart from the tiny hitch that it also means preparing a wicket that will suit the South African bowlers as well, who are (no disrespect) much better bowlers than anything the Black Caps have to offer.

Funnily enough, this wicket would’ve suited Tim Southee quite well. Not that I disagree with his omission, but the timing of it has been more than peculiar, as he could’ve been left out of the squad for Australia, and should’ve been left out of the squads for both the Zimbabwe Test as well as the first Test against South Africa. They’ve brought in Mark Gillespie (which I find so insulting on Southee’s behalf, I’m quite speechless) and Tarun Nethula - who could’ve been an option in Dunedin, who may be an option in Wellington, and who could now be helpful by bowling at his mates in the nets to prepare them for Imran Tahir. The thing is, Seddon Park hasn’t been too kind to spinners in recent times, and will be even unkinder to them looking at that wicket, so it’s to be expected that neither Tahir nor Nethula will play.

The Proteas will then (probably) have an all-seam attack consisting of Steyn, Philander, Morkel and de Lange plus Kallis, coached by White Lightning. Which NZ will counter with Martin, Bracewell, Boult and err - Gillespie? Yeah right. Andrew Ellis then. The bowler who bats a bit? The batsman who bowls a bit? Where the hell is James Franklin? Brent Arnel has been in good form lately, and he knows this ground inside out, so there’d definitely be a case to bring him in and take Southee’s spot, but good form in the Plunket Shield is not exactly the same as having to bowl to Smith, Petersen, Amla, Kallis, de Villiers, Rudolph. I knew this would happen, I knew some moron would be moronic enough to ask for a green(ish) top, just because it came off in Hobart against a shaken-up Australia side. If New Zealand have to bat first and the wicket doesn't brown off, this is going to be a massacre, so get the popcorn and tissues ready, kids.