Imagine you’ve just been dismissed for only a handful of runs towards the end of play in a tough Test. After you recover your bat from the corner of the dressing room, where you’ve thrown it in disgust, showered and dressed, you’re handed an assessment form on which you have to note down what you think of your own performance and that of your team-mates.
Imagine that this happens at the end of every day in all the Tests you play in.
This is what the New Zealand cricket side had to do during the ‘mad scientist’ coaching reign of John Bracewell. This reign is now – finally – ended with New Zealand, once a gritty and hard to defeat Test side, ranked eighth in world, only ahead of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
A fearless prediction: with Bracewell and his control freak ‘mad scientist’ style of coaching now out of the picture, New Zealand will start to become the stubborn, difficult, ornery side of the past, beginning with the Test series starting in Dunedin this week against the West Indies.
Martin Crowe, arguably one of New Zealand’s finest Test batsmen and a shrewd thinker and commentator on the game, exposed the peer assessment nonsense that totally demoralised the New Zealand Test side.
“In the dressing room there is a bunch of consultants called Leading Teams handing out forms at the end of each day’s play. They don’t know anything about cricket, by the way, but they are asking players to fill in forms assessing each other’s behaviour and then have a peer assessment … I find it quite sickening to be honest.”
And, of course, Crowe is right.
He did not direct his fire totally at the peer assessment system. He argued that the biomechanics theories put in place at the New Zealand Cricket Academy “have ruined over the last ten years” the batting techniques of virtually all the New Zealand batsmen.
Mark Richardson, the slow-coach batsman, who transformed himself from a left-arm spinner and number ten batsman into an opener – admittedly without too many strokes – with one of the highest batting average any New Zealand Test player has achieved, was on New Zealand television recently going through the batting techniques of the New Zealanders after their batting collapse against Australia at Brisbane.
Their techniques are “crap” he insisted, and he showed pictures to prove his point.
So much for the Academy and its theories of biomechanics.
These are the same sort of theories that would have proved that Shane Warne could not possibly bowl long hard spinning spells with the ball with a run-up of just a couple of paces, or that Bill O’Reilly could not possibly bowl his top-spinners and leg breaks at the medium pace of his normal delivery, or that Don Bradman’s penchant for cross bat shots could not possibly succeed on seaming English wickets.
They are the same sort of theories that have lead to virtually all the New Zealand medium-pace and fast bowlers breaking down all the time.
Richard Boock, an excellent New Zealand cricket writer, interviewed Dr Regena Mitchell, a management expert, on the implications of the peer assessment program for the New Zealand cricket team. “The danger is,” she insisted, “you might get artificial harmony, and it could quite likely come at the expense of the internal competitivess.”
This judgment was supported by an incident described by the forthright, hard-hitting New Zealand batsman Craig McMillan in his recent biography. His peer assessment described him as “obstinate,” “competitive” and “self-centered.”
These comments were intended to be derogatory and designed to force a change of behaviour into a more docile and harmonious style.
But when you look at it, all the best cricketers have been imbued with obstinacy, competitiveness and an intense self-centered approach.
John Bracewell’s success in purging the New Zealand cricket side of its obstinance, competiveness and self-centered approach was matched by a corresponding lack of success in terms of results where these qualities are necessary if sides and individuals in them are to succeed in becoming consistent winners.
As the old sporting adage says, nice guys finish last.
Jerry
Guest
I don't think Bruce himself actually had much connection to NZ, other than his cricketing cousin. I know he was born in Aus, but don't know about where his parents were from. NZ's done alright with Australian born cricketers in recent years though, Lou Vincent, Scott Styris and Matthew Sinclair were all born in Aus from memory (and all scored centuries in their test debuts coincidentally). The "Reid and Write" pun signs were pretty much ubiquitous at test matches in NZ in the early to mid 80's - much like signs with "You have been WARNED and now it's WAUGH!" seemed to be at every test match in Aus in the late 90's/early 00's.
sheek
Guest
Jerry, What if NZ were able to procure the services of Bruce Reid in the 80s? Their already strong team would have been even stronger. Also Brendon Julian in the 90s. While he was an occasional appearer for the aussies, he would have got a longer run with the Kiwis. And not to mention Clarrie Grimmett. Gee, wouldn't he have given the kiwis some thump in 30s. And it would have been a severe loss to the Aussies. Can't help myself (with help of old english) - Hadlee (had he) done any Reading (Read) & writing (Wright)? Howarth (how are) your R's & W's? Don't come the Coney (con) with me. Oh dear, must stop now!!!
Jerry
Guest
"John Reid (snr)' I'm sure some will be aware, but the two John Reids that have played for NZ were not actually father and son or in fact related at all. The great John Reid (J.R.Reid) referred to above did have a son who played for NZ but his name was Richard Reid (he's now the CEO of the Otago Rugby Union). Just to confuse things, while the John Reid who played in the 1980s (J.F.Reid) was no relation to J.R.Reid, he was a cousin of former Austrailian fast bowler Bruce Reid. Also, as he was in the team at the same time as John Wright, his presence meant there were loads of terrible puns based on the "Reading and Writing" theme.
sheek
Guest
Spiro, This is where primary sources leave stats for dead! I thank you for adding to my knowledge of NZ cricket. So Sutcliffe at #3, Fleming to 12th man, & Reid gets the captaincy back!!! And back to coaching, there's that simple, basic stuff again. Play what you see, play what's in front of you.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Sheek, Just to continue the off-topic, Nathan Astle, despite scoring the fastest double century in Test history, could not compare as an all-rounder with John Reid (snr). Reid could open the bowling with fast zinging swingers and then bowl tight, accurate off-cutters and spinners. He could keep wickets if needed. And his batting, especially towards the end of his career when he had some support could often be explosive. I saw him at the Basin Reserve hit 16 sixers in a first class inning against Northern Districts, a side that had a tidy bowling attack. Also Stephen Fleming could not be compared as an elegant and effective first-drop batsman with Bert Sutcliffe. Until he got hit on the head in South Africa, in the no helmet days, Sutcliffe was arguably on the best batsmen in the world. Getting back to coaching, John Reid (snr) was my first cricket coach. He taught us to move across to the off-stump just as the bowler delivered the ball, watch it carefully, and then try to hit it and score runs. For a left-arm spinner he emhasised bowling a line just outside the off stump, to a packed offside field. In other words, simple basic stuff and nothing over complicated or too theoretical. foale
sheek
Guest
James B, Quick correction if I may. Steve Fleming must be at 3 for his leadership, solid batting & slip fielding. He's captain also. Jones goes to 12th man. Could also argue Nathan Astle in for Reid. And is Brendon McCullum's keeping good enough to displace Smith?
sheek
Guest
James B, I didn't mention Turner simply because he got more opportunities also, than the two I mentioned. Agreed we probably didn't see the very best of Crowe on a consistent basis. He led the team so well during the World Cup of 1992. They were unlucky to come up against an even hotter Pakistan (eventual winners) led by Imran Khan in the semi-final. I think you definitely CAN compare players across different eras, providing you're willing to do the leg work, which usually means a lot of cross-referencing. I'm sure Spiro would relate to that. NZ can put a pretty mean top XI together from their history 1930-present. Glenn Turner, Stu Dempster, Andrew Jones, Martin Crowe, Martin Donnelly, John Reid snr(c), Chris Cairns, Ian Smith(k), Richard Hadlee, Danny Vettori, Jack Cowie. Bert Sutcliffe (12th). Plenty of batting depth down to Vettori at #10. Vettori also lone spinner, with a 4 pronged pace attack - Hadlee, Cowie, Cairns & Reid. Cowie, an outstanding fast bowler, was also affected by WW2. Apologies to Spiro for getting off-topic!
James B
Guest
Sheek, You are quite right, they didn't have many opportunities or play as many tests, but I've always been of the view its difficult to compare eras. Of course you also forgot to mention Glen Turner, also one who had limited opportunities for various reasons. Crowe's test average suffered because he was thrown in the deep end very young (against some brillant fast bowlers from Australia & England), and towards the end of his career suffered from injuries, otherwise he would have averaged 50-55. There was always a feeling with Crowe that we never saw his best consistantly enough, and that he always had more to offer. He peaked in 1987 with a wonderful series against the Windes and broke all domestic records in NZ, and I even pulled a few sickies as a 17 year old to watch him practise at the Basin Reserve nets just before the first test against the Windes that year. The NZ team was practising against quick bowling with a tennis ball machine located 3/4 down the pitch. All the NZ batsman were at sea with the pace, except Crowe who just seemed to have all the time in the world. It was a joy to see a world class batsman at his peak close up. I also used to judge a batsman on the anticipation or excitement you felt as they strode to the crease, and in Crowe's case he was right up there with the best oozing with class and style.
sheek
Guest
JamesB, Martin Crowe is NZ's greatest batsman statistically & opportunity-wise, no risk. But spare a thought for two other NZ batsman thwarted by the times they lived in. Stu Dempster was 26 when NZ played its first test in early 1930. He played 10 tests 1930-33 (out of a possible 11). He averaged 65.7 in 10 tests with 4 centuries. By the time NZ played another test -1937 - he was domiciled in England. Martin Donnelly was 20 when he went to England in 1937. He played in 3 tests, then had to wait until 1946 to play another test. Some thing called World War 2 interrupted his career for 9 years, his best 9 years! On return, he played 4 tests, including his only test century, 206 against England. he averaged 52.9 in 7 tests. Crowe's 1st class average (56) is way ahead of Dempster (45) or Donnelly (47). However, both Dempster & Donnelly played a lot of their cricket for English counties, on grounds of variable quality due to weather & over-use. Thus, averages around the mid-40s are excellent. One can only wonder for example, what Dempster (1920s & 30s) & Donnelly (1930s, 40s, 50s) might have achieved, had they enjoyed the same opportunities as their Aussie cousins across the Tasman Sea. As an Aussie, Dempster would have had available to him 44 tests between 1926-38 (age 23 to 35). As an Aussie, Donnelly would have had available to him 45 tests between 1938-53 (age 21 to 36). As it was, NZ played only 14 tests between 1930-37, & another 12 between 1946-53. Crowe was great, no doubt about it. But compared to the other 2, he also had opportunity. Spades of it!
Brett McKay
Expert
Spiro et al, While I agree that Bracewell has done few favours for the New Zealand players, don't be so sure the peer assement system is completely gone. It was reported at or around the time Martin Crowe made his comments (and I thought it was on CricInfo, but haven't been able to find the link in a quick search), that Andy Moles has also employed the Leading Teams assesments from time-to-time at Northern Districts. So they may not be as dead as you think or hope..
sheek
Guest
Spiro, I'm with you, "Hawthorn probably succeeded in spite of the system, rather than because of it". At ground level, I recall a young Don Bradman kindly disregarding the advice of first-ever test centurion Charles Bannerman, when they met briefly. Bradman was astute enough to work out that what may have worked for Bannerman, won't necessarily work for him. Many years later, Douggie Walters resisted attempts to correct perceived flaws in his batting. Well, he may have become more consistent like say, Ian Redpath (batt. av. 43.5) but he wouldn't have been the Douggie we all love (batt.av 48.3). There are of course, so many other examples. David Campese believes he wouldn't have played many tests for England because of his maverick style. To play for England, even today, requires a strict adherence to the 'formula' - style over substance. Heaven forbid, Mark Ella may not have been selected either had he been English! Clive Woodward's Lions support staff army of 2005 was a sad joke on humanity, let alone rugby union. How not to run an organisation! With so many people sticking their fingers in the pie, the players only got confused. And those support staff jostled each other to prove their position in the scheme of things was valuable. In other words, these people spent too much time justifying their existence, which in the main part, did little to create clarity of thought among the employees. In this case, the players. I hope Robbie Deans has long-term success for no other reason than celebrating a return to common sense, practical, empower the individual, the team's the thing, leadership.
James B
Guest
Martin Crowe was the greatest batsman NZ has ever produced, not arguably.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Greg.The best fearless predictions are those they are riskless. I take your point about the niceties of the peer assessment system. I would argue that Hawthorn probably succeeded in spite of the system, rather than because of it. My gripe really is that people get appointed to coach a team and then dispense with coaching and become managers. They invent things they have to manage, like peer assessment systems and the supervision of all the other coaches. Meanwhile the players become over-coached and find it difficult to adjust to all the conflicting advice and also to work things out when they are in trouble on the field. John Bracewell is one example of this. Martin Johnson, England's new rugby coach who has turned the job into a manager's job, is another example. The likelihood is that Johnson will be as unsuccessful as Bracewell, even though in theory he has more talent at his disposal than Bracewell ever had. Graham Henry specifically does the defence for the All Blacks because he found that he wasn't actually doing much coaching with the other specialist coaches on board. Robbie Deans is even more hands-on. He is clearing the decks of most of the ancillary coaches and doing most of it himself, as you see when you observe a Wallaby training run. The insight that too many coaches spoil the system was exemplified in 1995 with the failed Wallaby RWC campaign when there were more coaches than players it seemed on the field, and in 2005 with Clive Woodward's failed Lions campaign when, again, the coaches and support staff nearly out-numbered the huge players' roster. If expert coaching for specific things like how to gedt reverse swing etc is needed by all means bring in the expert. But the bulk of the coaching should be done by the head coach and not by other supporting coaches. Otherwise why have a head coach?
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Spiro, Of course I agree with you (and Martin Crowe), but things are not quite as black and white as it is easy to make out: * Crowe himself admitted during his radio interview that Leading Teams worked with Hawthorn this year and the Swans in 2005, i.e., the premiership years of these teams. On the other hand, Crowe said that LT worked with South Sydney during the first 12 rounds of the 2008 NRL season, which saw Souths lose 11 times. * It has been said in response to Crowe that LT only did their surveys at the end of each test, not at the end of each day. * Bracewell has said that LT were kept on not at his own insistence, but at the insistence of the players. Vettori and Oram have come out on NZ radio and said that Crowe had a lot of things wrong in his interview. They were also highly supportive of Bracewell. Given that they were doing this both spontaneously and after Bracewell's departure, one has to think they were genuine, because they certainly did not need to curry favor with Braces any more. My own 10 cents worth is that the real mistake of Bracewell was to shift the captain (Fleming) aside as the center of operations and assume that role himself. Fleming took a long time to establish the Australian modus operandi, and having at last done this, along came Bracewell. Incidentally, Bracewell is commonly blamed for Fleming's departure, but by now it is public knowledge that it was selectors Dion Nash and Glenn Turner who wanted Fleming removed as captain after the 2007 World Cup, with Bracewell being outvoted by them. I think Bracewell's other big mistake was to stay in the job for too long. There was no reason for him to stay on beyond his 4 years to the end of the 2007 WC - it is since then that things have turned really ugly for New Zealand. And so to Spiro's fearless prediction: it is also riskless, because there is only one way NZ can go now that they are ranked 8th - effectively last - in test cricket!
Rickety Knees
Guest
On the money again Spiro. It is in everybody's interest to have NZ strong in Cricket. What you have pointed out is the lack of leadership understanding displayed by Bracewell. A good leader unites and empowers his players. What Bracewll did was the opposite. As an aside - I believe that NZ should play two teams in the toughest 1st Class Cricket competition - the Sheffield Shield, a team from North Island and one from South Island. Australian Rugby has benefited greatly from continually playing NZ - so would NZ Cricket greatly benefit from regularly playing against Australians at the 1st Class level.
sheek
Guest
Spiro - micro managers suck! Far from being the efficient managers only themselves believe they are, they are actually 'retarders' to efficiency & progress. Regrettably, the world is too full of them. As a fire fighter, I was once given this simple piece of advice by an old hand - "small fire - small water; big fire - big water; if smoke - wear BA (breathing apparatus)". In over 20 years, despite changes in fire-fighting technology & dangers from composite materials, this simple ditty still remains remarkably true. In spite of the efforts of those people trying to constantly 're-invent' the wheel. Another old boss once observed to me, with great prescience, "don't ever confuse lots of activity with productivity". This was in response to micro-managers issuing proclamation after proclamation designed more at justifying their own existence than any good for the majority, or the service. Guys like Deans & Bennett are successful, because firstly, they are mentors & great people-managers, & secondly, they adhere to the K-I-S-S principle..........Keep It Simple Stupid"! Ahhhh..........I feel better now.
sledgeross
Guest
Nice assessment Spiro. I really liked the way the Kiwis played under Steve Rixon, hope they can emulate some of the toughness from that era!
Darryl
Guest
ha ha, yes that's a very bold prediction.