New Zealand prove size is not everything (22 August 1999)
England and New Zealand have something in common beyond being smallish islands with a similar genetic make-up
22-Aug-1999
22 August 1999
New Zealand prove size is not everything
Scyld Berry
England and New Zealand have something in common beyond being
smallish islands with a similar genetic make-up. Five years ago
they both had poor cricket teams. The difference is New Zealand
have reformed their game so that the players, if not successful,
now at least make the most of themselves.
In 1994-95, New Zealand toured South Africa under the captaincy
of Ken Rutherford as an ill-disciplined bunch. After the tour
Stephen Fleming and Dion Nash of the present team were found
guilty of a drugs offence, while another player suddenly
disappeared after another incident. They had lost their two
world-class players, Richard Hadlee and Martin Crowe; cricket's
status as a peripheral pastime in the country seemed assured.
Glenn Turner was brought in as coach to inculcate some
discipline, only for matters to go from bad to worse. It was like
England appointing Geoff Boycott as coach, or Raymond
Illingworth, as they actually did at the same time. Turner was an
expert, a world No 1 on anything technical. On handling players
and man-management he batted at the other end of the order.
New Zealand's tour of the West Indies in 1995 ended in some
disarray. Chris Cairns was not performing as New Zealand's one
world-class player should have been. He preferred to represent
Nottinghamshire, who did care for him and told him so, than his
own country. Turner was sacked, but all the problems remained and
dissatisfaction multiplied.
As John Graham, New Zealand's tour manager explains, the first
reform came at the top. The board had been run by mainly old and
entirely well-meaning amateurs with an old-fashioned value system
which held that you played Test cricket out of patriotism and
love of the game. Money did not come to it, as the board's
parlous financial state all too clearly showed.
Compelled by the threat of bankruptcy, if not public ridicule,
the old board reformed themselves into a business as New Zealand
Cricket. Every area of the game, including women's cricket, was
taken under their umbrella, just as the ECB have done.
The difference is that New Zealand Cricket, according to Graham,
is run by a management board of eight. The chairman of NZC, Sir
John Anderson, is no cricketer but like Lord MacLaurin, he
supplies leadership and expertise in other fields. The one paid
member of NZC is Chris Doig, the chief executive, a man who
enjoys wielding power and is free to do so.
Doig, too, is no cricketer in first-class or Test match terms,
but he did play for Auckland Grammar's first XI, which is
probably the next best thing that the country can offer. Graham,
who was the school's headmaster at the time (after being a
distinguished All Black), says that Doig's CV also includes
"common sense, which does go a long way".
Subsequently, New Zealand's cricket has become the small but
streamlined and efficient beast which we know today and which has
so embarrassed England, with its infinitely greater resources,
this summer - not only in the Test series, irrespective of the
result, but by reaching the World Cup semi-finals.
The parallels between a large organisation like English cricket
and between a small entity like New Zealand's should not be taken
too far. But whatever the size of a country's cricket, the ruling
management board should not be too big: and the ECB's management
board, comprising 15 members, is too unwieldy, even before the
powers of veto exercised by the First-Class Forum come into play.
David Graveney, increasingly exposed as England's chairman of
selectors after Graham Gooch and Mike Gatting have paid the price
for failure, can take heart from the fact that New Zealand's
chairman of selectors, Ross Dykes, never played Test cricket
either (he was a wicketkeeper for Auckland). So that is no
prerequisite for success, even the modest success which New
Zealand have achieved.
What is essential is the realisation that the transformation of a
country's cricket begins off the field with a board's
constitution and administrative structure. Great cricketers, as
West Indies proved in the eras of Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards,
can paper over the cracks for a while but, once they go, the
failings of a system are exposed.
Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)