The Moles debate

Given Andy Moles' resignation as New Zealand coach, Mark Richardson in the Herald on Sunday believes the team is not mature enough for a back-seat co-ordinator. In fact, he says the players need someone with not just CEO-style skills but a highly tuned cricket brain as well.

If NZC wants to take the approach of selecting up-and-coming coaches then they must look very carefully or risk taking a punt.

Perhaps they would do better not to advertise the role but just target the ones they want - to avoid the scenario that may have occurred had they said no to Moles even though he was the final applicant in the race.

Writing in the same paper, Dylan Cleaver claims New Zealand Cricket did not have a lot of luck in their search for John Bracewell's successor, as the IPL brought about a number of highly-paid roles that did not require the fulltime attention that helming New Zealand would.

It is all very well being wise after the event but there was disquiet almost from the get-go. Why didn't they appoint an interim coach - John Wright was under their noses (on the appointments panel, no less) - and wait until they had a compelling candidate?

Instead, they took the path of least resistance, only to find a year into the journey they ran into a rather large obstacle in the form of an emboldened Daniel Vettori, as influential a figure in New Zealand cricket as any before him.

Rather than a mutiny, Moles' ouster has been more like an SOS; and one that New Zealand Cricket couldn't help but answer, writes Richard Boock in the Sunday Star Times.

Moles supporters might have considered some non-committal NZC press releases over the past few days as a reason for hope, but such optimism was always misplaced. To publicly offer any comment apart from support during an employment process would be to effectively premeditate an outcome. That's why so many English football managers are sacked only days after being endorsed by their chairmen. It is the kiss of death.