In terms of a constructive review, the things that stand out glaringly
-Development Review: Big time problems with taking outstanding development prospects, finishing their skill sets off at first class level and then bringing them internationally when they are ready. I'd review the entire first class system and the resources that go into polishing off these young players. The players I refer to here are the likes of Tim Southee, Brendan McCullum and Ross Taylor. All three have come through the youth system as outstanding talents. None of them have the consistency required. Why? I compare Tim Southee to being in the same career stage as Mohamad Amir. One can bowl sides out. The other looks like he's blowing a gasket after 5 overs. Why? McCullum's point about batting from a juniors perspective has some value, in youth internationals he was scintillating. But he's never been a consistent first class bat, and that is where his logic falls flat on its face. A guy like McCullum needs to take more ownership and make less demands of a meagre team, in the same vain as someone like Andy Flower. The fact that McCullum is being outbatted internationally by the likes of Matt Prior is particularly pathetic on his behalf.
-Coaching review: It is clear in my mind that Greatbatch is not the right choice. For this particular structure, he is a very odd choice. In the 1993/94 England tour, Greatbatch's interpersonal skills with the rest of the team were so poor that he hired his own van to travel between games. He only met with the team at training, official functions, and the matches. The system to me says they are really after a Warren Lees type character. Warren Lees was the master at adding on the final touch and man management. Mark Greatbatch has never been that. Greatbatch was in someways a caustic type individual particularly on that tour. To me, adding Greatbatch to play a basic man management role would be akin to putting either Hadlee or Crowe in that role. That's not where their strengths lie. Infact, its major weaknesses for all three.
New Zealand is not technically proficient enough to delegate coaching skills roles to a current player. I wouldn't even necessarily say Vettori is a great technical player. I would say he's a gritty player who hangs in better than most. To my way of thinking, they need to reconsider Steve Rixon for his drive in fielding drills. Fielding can be something of a differentiation. Rixon turned ordinary cricketers into very good out cricketers. The other one who comes to light is John Wright. Wright started the cultural revolution in India ten years ago that places them where they are. The politics in the Indian dressing room were massive, Wright managed them all and made significant improvements in their out cricket.
-Selectorial structure: I think New Zealand needs to stop the fascination with bits and pieces players batting in the top 6 at either ODI or test level. Players like Grant Elliott and Daniel Vettori from a batting perspective fill excellent roles in the ODI team. But only when they're in their rightful role. I've spoken about this before, but guys like Neil Broom, Shanan Stewart and the like should not be batting below these guys, providing a support funnel for their failures. It should be the other way around. Cricketers it is true are multi dimensional and adaptable in today's era. However, if a player plays his entire career in the top 4 provincially setting his side up for big innings, and another player is used to batting down the order to finish things off, then these are the roles they should continue to play internationally. I genuinely feel sorry for someone like Broom, I still feel 30 odd ODIs in we don't know anything about his ability to craft an innings because we haven't allowed him to do so often enough. The only time a bits and pieces player should come into the top six is if they are sent up to pinch hit in the opening role.
-Stephen Fleming: In my mind, Fleming still has a big role to play in NZC. I know he's not keen on full time coaching. He's keen on cash grabs, who can blame him? My only bias against this idea is that he is a player manager of Brendan McCullum, so he has a bit of a conflict of interests. The other issue is how strained is the relationship with NZC and particularly Vettori over the way he was axed.
Nevertheless, Fleming was an astute leader of men. Not only was he a calming influence, but he knew how to make people tick. The treatment he gave to Graeme Smith a few times was excellent. He knew it'd rile him. It did. But most importantly, he was a tactical master. I think he needs to be involved in a leadership consultancy role. A go to man. The other positive to Fleming being involved in some capacity would be that I'm sure there's tension in the dressing room regarding what happened to him, it would go a way to appease that.
