New Zealands big problem and a possible solution

[Flem274*]

We've known for years now that NZ have a semi-final problem. We just don't turn up to these games. I and most likely many others believe it is a mental problem. A great idea to solve this would be to send the team to Outward Bound. For those who do not know, it is located in the south island bush in the middle of no where and is a self discovery and team building 3 week camp that changes many people for the rest of their lives. I've had friends go down there and they've returned better, more positive, mentally tougher, more confident then ever before. It really has a great influence on people. If the Black Caps went their, all 22 contracted players, they would return better men than before and I'm sure this would flow on into their cricket. Your thoughts?

 

[Unattainableguy]

NZ's problem is that they play semi decent sides in the earlier part of a tournament, and when they come up against a good team in a semi-final( 3 times against PAK and 1 time against SL), they end up losing obviously. It's not a mental problem or anything, maybe lack of talent, the only real star they have is Shane Bond. They work hard as a unit, but to beat good teams you need more than hard work.

 

[Flem274*]

NZ's problem is that they play semi decent sides in the earlier part of a tournament, and when they come up against a good team in a semi-final( 3 times against PAK and 1 time against SL), they end up losing obviously. It's not a mental problem or anything, maybe lack of talent, the only real star they have is Shane Bond. They work hard as a unit, but to beat good teams you need more than hard work.

You just used the one big myth of NZ cricket. The 90's are over, that was the workers with little talent. This lot have talent. Look at Taylor as an example. Huge talent but see how he handled pressure? Peter Fulton did the same. McMillan is another with extreme talent. Couldn't save us today. Vettori has talent, he did okay but not top standard which is what we expect. Do I have to go through the rest? It is a mental problem, that is obvious.

 

[Scaly piscine]

NZ aren't good enough, that's the problem. Every country has their wasted talent, NZ just don't have that much talent to start with because they're a small nation.

I've yet to see what the fuss is about Taylor, looks a fairly average batsman who can slog a bit on roads. Fulton looks like he could be a decent, solid batsman but by no means a world beater.

Personally I think NZ will go downhill when they lose their older generation of players.

 

[Flem274*]

NZ aren't good enough, that's the problem. Every country has their wasted talent, NZ just don't have that much talent to start with because they're a small nation.

I've yet to see what the fuss is about Taylor, looks a fairly average batsman who can slog a bit on roads. Fulton looks like he could be a decent, solid batsman but by no means a world beater.

Personally I think NZ will go downhill when they lose their older generation of players.

Yes we all know you love us.

And I know we aren't good enough, especially mentally. If you look at all our semi losses it's not because we were not talented enough, we weren't mentally hard enough.

And I disagree, I think the older generation may be holding us back a bit actualy. We have many good talented batsmen coming through. The bowling stocks look a bit worrisome, but we will have Franklin, Mills, Gillespie, Vettori and Patel for a while yet. And some of those guys will get replaced by the likes of Scott, Harvie, Bennet, Sherlock if he overcomes his injuries, Hitchcock and Aldridge. Thats a few names I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Richard]

You just used the one big myth of NZ cricket. The 90's are over, that was the workers with little talent. This lot have talent. Look at Taylor as an example. Huge talent but see how he handled pressure? Peter Fulton did the same. McMillan is another with extreme talent. Couldn't save us today. Vettori has talent, he did okay but not top standard which is what we expect. Do I have to go through the rest? It is a mental problem, that is obvious.

The 1990s weren't completely devoid of talent TBH. The 1992 and 1999 WCs could quite justifiably be called NZ's best 2 ODI sides ever.

The problem is that too few people recognise the talent in a Gavin Larsen or a Chris Harris, because they have too simplistic a view of what constitutes "talent".

 

[Flem274*]

The 1990s weren't completely devoid of talent TBH. The 1992 and 1999 WCs could quite justifiably be called NZ's best 2 ODI sides ever.

The problem is that too few people recognise the talent in a Gavin Larsen or a Chris Harris, because they have too simplistic a view of what constitutes "talent".

That is true, I should really have said pre 1970's but 1995/6 were not fun years.

 

[Julian87]

Personally I think NZ will go downhill when they lose their older generation of players.

Completely disagree.

I think Taylor, Fulton, McCullum, Franklin, Vettori and Patel are a real core of a team of the future.

You then still have Fleming, Oram, Styris, McMillan, Vincent, Gillespie and a few others that have plenty of cricket left in them imo.

 

[Athlai]

I think SP has a point in this, we are already a very strong unit normally. We work together, we field well and the bowlers usually team together to gather their wickets. In semi's we do seem to make more mistakes, but no more than the losing sides normally do in final matches. We just rarely have a team of better players than the other, so we play almost every game as underdogs, which means if things don't go are way they can demoralise the team.

Sometimes the Blackcaps spark and can apparently do anything, (the CH series for example), while other times we just fizzle away (WC). Unlike many teams in the world we don't have many stars, Bond, Vettori, Fleming are (were) our finest players and so often we rely on them. We do have some very good players, but most other teams do as well, the Styrises, the McCullums, the Orams, but they aren't consistently going to win matches for you.

NZ is a very strong team, because they play so well together, but player for player, we are one of the weaker teams in the top 8. We do come from a very small nation after all, I'm always quite pleased we go so far as the semi's, beats the hell out of not making em. (England )

 

[slugger]

a couple of folks have come in here and said nz fails cause of this or that reason player stars and stuff like that.. one of the ingredients that a not part of nzs make up, is this real rat race envoirnment countries like india, pak and sri lanka have large populations and massive city.. kids grow up in a world of constant competition a real hard life where basically only the strong survive.. just watch the way they drive in their own country ive seen this first hand its dog eat dog world.. ive lived in shanghai china for a number of years chinese have the same mind set most kiwis ould have a heart atack if they took a taxi ride through downtown shanghai.

The players who fine themselves in these semi and finals have been groomed to compete from the day they were born.. and to a lesser extent australia however it is a manfactured competition were praise is given to all out winners.. showing up to a game doesnt get you a reward..

edit: i do want nz to win and at times we do have our day in the sun... but our players dont have that ingrained survival mode to fall back on when there backs are up against the wall.\ or when its needed at all cost.

 

[Days of Grace]

I agree with slugger. I have heard stories that schools in NZ are now not awarding wins to 5 and 6 year-old rugby teams, because of this 'everyone's a winner' philosophy, so as not to discourage people who are useless at sport. May sound harmless but this philosophy of 'mediocrity is okay' seeps in to kids' minds. NZers are very mentally soft and when push comes to shove they just haven't got it.

 

[Zinzan]

I agree with slugger. I have heard stories that schools in NZ are now not awarding wins to 5 and 6 year-old rugby teams, because of this 'everyone's a winner' philosophy, so as not to discourage people who are useless at sport. May sound harmless but this philosophy of 'mediocrity is okay' seeps in to kids' minds. NZers are very mentally soft and when push comes to shove they just haven't got it.

Absolutely spot on the mark there. Like you, I have no time for this "participation rubbish" these PC feminists are trying to promote in NZ. We could learn so much from our neighbours across the tasman its not funny. They are taught at a very young age that its good to succeed in all aspects of life and they celebrate their winners. We are stuck in this tall-poppy society where you are almost made to feel embarrassed if you try hard at anything. Its a cultural thing and New Zealander's aren't taught the importance of winning from a young age, therefore when the opportunity arises, we aren't mentally quite there.

In response to Scaly Piscine, Whilst there is some truth in your criticisms of the Black Caps, New Zealand are still a better one-day/20/20 side than England and have been for years now, so get over yourself and accept that. New Zealand are a good oneday/20/20 side who admitedly stuggle against the top 2 or 3 teams when the pressure is on whereas England are simply a WEAK oneday/20.20 side.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah..it's because of our mental weakness as a nation that we are the biggest overachievers in world cricket

 

[Matt79]

Since you're not keen on Test cricket, maybe NZ should try and enter the Pura Cup for a couple of years as a way of hardening up.

 

[pup11]

The problem with the Black caps is that they are a decent odi team, but they don't have superstar cricketers who can win a game for them on their own (on his day Bond can do it) and in big games you need individualistic brilliance as well as a good team effort, so the Black caps lack that little extra fire-power when it comes down to the big games.

 

[Days of Grace]

The problem with the Black caps is that they are a decent odi team, but they don't have superstar cricketers who can win a game for them on their own (on his day Bond can do it) and in big games you need individualistic brilliance as well as a good team effort, so the Black caps lack that little extra fire-power when it comes down to the big games.

sorry, but that is a myth.

Define superstar to begin with, and then see how many teams have one.

 

[SJS]

I am a big fan of NewZealand cricket. Theyare my favourite team after the three bigsub-continental teams. I am also frustrated by their inconsistency.

I think the lack of superstars or the abundance of so many 'workers' in the side effects them in a different way. Its just a theory mind you

I think they have so many players contributing in their wins and so many different combinations of 4-5 players that help them win that they have come to a mental state where personal performance is not that critical. I mean if a player gets out he is used to someone else stepping in and saving the day. This can become a bit of a problem,

With a kind of hierarchy (so common to the subcontinent) the superstars are under more pressure to perform and hence they value their personal performances very highly. It does make for what maybe called a self-centered attitude (while NewZealand style promotes selflessness) it does increase the chances of someone buckling down and saying okay I am going to try and see it through.

Not that the Kiwis dont want to do the same but the individual failure appears, somehow, not to be such a big calamity.

I could be wrong. Its a theory as I said.

 

[Richard]

Since you're not keen on Test cricket, maybe NZ should try and enter the Pura Cup for a couple of years as a way of hardening up.

In jest maybe, but I think that'd be very interesting indeed.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Completely disagree.

I think Taylor, Fulton, McCullum, Franklin, Vettori and Patel are a real core of a team of the future.

You then still have Fleming, Oram, Styris, McMillan, Vincent, Gillespie and a few others that have plenty of cricket left in them imo.

If that's the core of a team in the future you're screwed. A couple of average batsmen, a very good keeper but who is a below average bat, two often expensive bowlers with some other strings to their bow who only play part of the time and a wily old pro finger spinner who can keep it tight but isn't a wicket-taker. That's not much to base a team around.

Fleming doesn't sound like he'll be playing much longer, Oram only seems to perform in one discipline in any given format, apart from being injured most of the time, which will probably lead to his bowling declining further. Styris might hang around for a few year (or might not) but he's only really effective on certain pitches. McMillan, Vincent and Gillespie are liable to be useless for long periods.

I don't really see the younger players improving a great deal either, if you look at players like Cook and Bell for England - there's a strong foundation (defense and technique etc.) there to improve on and they're young. You look at Taylor... he doesn't have a really good technique to build on, he's not solid defensively and he has to rely on slogs and heaves to score at a decent rate. Fulton is 28 already, I could see him become an above average solid international batsman if he works hard - but as I've said before no world beater.

 

[shortpitched713]

Since you're not keen on Test cricket, maybe NZ should try and enter the Pura Cup for a couple of years as a way of hardening up.

In jest maybe, but I think that'd be very interesting indeed.

Insert any Test class nation in there tbh.