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.)

thirty-two weeks.

There is something about the Northampton Saints that rubs people the wrong way, some of it certainly justified and definitely our players' and club's own doing, while some of it also seems to have been born out of thin air. The negative sentiments the Calum Clark 'incident' has brought up were to be expected, and Calum Clark himself and the club are getting what they deserve. As I mentioned on Twitter last night, I don't think the Saints are doing themselves any favours by saying that they're concerned and disappointed at the length of the ban imposed upon Clark.

32 weeks may sound like a lot, but given the fact that there's a considerable amount of off-season included in those 32 weeks, it's actually not that harsh a sentence anymore. I can't for the life of me figure out why match bans still haven't made their way into rugby, because players being able to tick off their bans during holidays, off-season or international breaks makes a bit of a farce of the entire system. 

Part of the Saints' disappointment over the length of the ban stems from the judiciary not reducing the ban even more, even though Clark had shown remorse for his actions. Excuse me, but shouldn't that be a given? Personally, I believe showing remorse and apologizing to the victim shouldn't have any influence on the length of a ban, unless a player doesn't show any remorse at all, then judiciary panels are free to add to the ban.

As for the length itself, it could've been and frankly should've been a longer ban. Had the judiciary panel banned him for the entire 2012/13 season or even for life, I certainly wouldn't be complaining about it either, for the very simple fact that actions like Clark's have no place in rugby - or in life, for that matter. And as a Saints supporter, I also don't want to be associated with brutality like that.

Because that's what it was to me. An act of brutality. What he did wasn't only against the spirit of good sportsmanship, it was against the spirit of humanity. He hasn't failed as a sportsman in that situation, he has failed as a decent human being first and foremost, which is one more reason why I believe the ban to be too lenient. Just because it happened on a rugby field between two people competing in a contact sport, where injuries are part of the deal, doesn't make it any less horrific.

What I'm a bit concerned by is the judiciary panel apparently deeming the injury unintentional and unfortunate. Sure, Clark probably didn't set out to hurt Rob Hawkins from the get-go, but saying afterwards that you're sorry and didn't want to hurt him? Oh really? We're not talking about a tackle that went slightly wrong, slid higher and landed the player in a hospital with a slipped disk or even a broken neck.

We're talking about a premeditated action, we're talking about someone intentionally grabbing someone else's arm and intentionally twisting it. In that case, how can the injury be called genuinely unintentional and unfortunate, when the player in question wilfully accepted the other player's injury? Isn't that intention by default, if being aware of the horrible consequences doesn't stop him from doing it?

Defendants usually say "I didn't want to kill him/her.", but when the victim in question has been stabbed 43 times, it's a bit difficult to make too much of that assertion. In the same way as Clark can't grab someone's arm and twist it like that, and not just for a fraction of a second but actually for a good moment, even though Hawkins was already screaming in pain, and then sit back and expect me to believe that he didn't mean to hurt him.

He's always been a bit short-fused, and maybe this ban is necessary to make him learn the hard way that there are certain things you just cannot do on the rugby field - as well as off it. Let's face it, had that happened down at the pub, he'd be sentenced to pay damages and maybe even sent to jail. I'm sure he's kicking himself silly right now and for the next 32 weeks, because he probably isn't a bad person after all. He's made a horrible decision, and I hope he's going to take it like a man, and not allow the club to appeal and drag this out even more. As I said, the ban is too lax in my opinion, an appeal could see him banned for an even longer period of time, and both player and club just need to accept that.

All the best to Rob Hawkins for a quick and smooth recovery.

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.

about being a sports fan with a twitter account.

What does being a fan, a supporter of a club or a player or an individual athlete even mean? Standing by them through good and bad times, for sure, but beyond that? Does being a supporter mean you're not allowed to criticize the object of your affections?

Where exactly do people get off calling me (and I'm not alone in this) a nihilist, an idiot or a bitch just because I point out a horrible cricket shot, a dropped catch, a missed tackle, an ugly throw-in or an ignored overlap? Isn't watching the game and noticing quality as well as an obvious lack thereof part of being a fan? Or have I missed the memo where we were all told that being a fan means praising everything your favourite player does, even though it just cost you a try or even a game, a wicket or even an entire test?

Or are these supporters rather people we commonly call "fangirls" or "fanboys", who generally don't watch the game for the game's sake, who don't even need their team to win, who just need to see their guru on screen, regardless of how bad he did in that particular match? Who would rather see their player score a hundred or three tries and have the team lose the game than admit that he had a crappy game but celebrate a win?

It's so very easy to be fapping over someone new and fresh and exciting, and I'm obviously not immune to that either. But more often than not, in time, I find myself discovering more about that person, and not just disapproving of things I hear or read, no, I feel genuinely repulsed by them sometimes. Do I have to continue to stick up for that player, even though I'm unable to identify myself with him anymore, because being unreasonable and narrow-minded is what "real fans" do?

Does being a supporter, a fan, mean that you have to adore all players of a team alike, because they accidentally landed in that team you've taken a liking to? Are you not allowed to dislike certain individuals, or to say "Look, I don't think Player X deserves to start given his current form." or "Player Z doesn't really add anything and hasn't been doing so for a while, maybe it's time to look elsewhere." these days? Why does saying things like that, even when it's about someone you like, make people call you names?

Of course I'm not claiming to be unbiased at all times - that would not only be a blatant lie but also rather inhuman. Of course I have my favourites too, I even appreciate some of them on a more superficial level as well, but if something's going wrong, I'll say it. Several times even. And I welcome people with genuine influence putting their more qualified fingers into the obvious wounds as well, because personally I'd like players (especially my favourites) to become the best players they can possibly be. And not a herd of cotton-wooled douches with massive egos - and without the right attitude.

Naturally, there's a big difference between having/voicing an opinion and being plain nasty (out of jealousy, ignorance or just for nastiness' sake). Unfortunately a lot of journalists, commentators and bloggers cross the "nasty" line way too often for my liking, and I wish there was a way we could discuss the sports and teams and players we love, hate or love to hate without drifting off into unpleasant and offensive territory.

Even though we tend to act like the world's about to end when our team loses or our favourite player leaves or we can't find a decent stream, following sports remains something rather profane, something obviously not vitally important. 

But a bit of honesty here and there goes a long way. Whether that'd be in sports or in life.

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?