Stead - Williamson





  • @kev said in Stead - Williamson:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/black-caps/121584123/kane-williamson-remains-allformat-black-caps-skipper-coach-relationship-still-work-in-progress

    Not sure skipper coach not being on same page works. Interesting to see how this plays out.

    Kane is our present and future. They should have asked him who he wanted to be coach and gave serious consideration to hiring that person



  • The NZ coach position should be 99% man management no? The KPI isn't really that hard - keep the best players engaged with the NZ program for as long as possible and motivated as much as possible. With the odd exception most international players will have their preferred guru(s) and manage their own development. They may need to play match maker at times and bring in the right assistants but the story in there of Stead to be telling Kane how to hold a bat is laughable.

    Looking forward strictly at the test side managing the workloads and egos of our surplus of quicks and keeping Taylor and Williamson world class and available seems like the top two priorities.

    He should have been fired after Australia. Not necessarily because he deserved it (although that article sheds light on a few management blunders), but because a much better candidate in Mickey Arthur was avialable and probably would have taken the job.



  • I still would have chosen Grant Bradburn initially.



  • @rotated The dropping of Southee for the Sydney test was clearly a surprise to commentators, selectors and players. In the shorter formats that is always an option. For the NZ team in test matches, it would be like dropping Taylor as a batsmen. The call was made by Coach / Captain who was Latham for that test. People always trust those they have worked with before, hence Henry was given a shot. However, as a Coach you have to be better at decision making than that don’t you?



  • @rotated said in Stead - Williamson:

    The NZ coach position should be 99% man management no? The KPI isn't really that hard - keep the best players engaged with the NZ program for as long as possible and motivated as much as possible. With the odd exception most international players will have their preferred guru(s) and manage their own development. They may need to play match maker at times and bring in the right assistants but the story in there of Stead to be telling Kane how to hold a bat is laughable.

    Looking forward strictly at the test side managing the workloads and egos of our surplus of quicks and keeping Taylor and Williamson world class and available seems like the top two priorities.

    He should have been fired after Australia. Not necessarily because he deserved it (although that article sheds light on a few management blunders), but because a much better candidate in Mickey Arthur was avialable and probably would have taken the job.

    I disagree with the man management only thing. I don't think it's a coincidence that McCullum and Hesson had so much success together despite having differing approaches. I think Stead and Williamson challenging each other and not thinking the same way is a good thing, and should be an expectation for any coach.

    Stead's competence is another question. I agree there have been worrying signs about whether he has what it takes to be successful at this level. That could mean that healthy challenge and questioning turns into a dysfunctional relationship. We'll never know that from the outside so it's up to NZC to make the right call on that.



  • @kev said in Stead - Williamson:

    @rotated The dropping of Southee for the Sydney test was clearly a surprise to commentators, selectors and players. In the shorter formats that is always an option. For the NZ team in test matches, it would be like dropping Taylor as a batsmen. The call was made by Coach / Captain who was Latham for that test. People always trust those they have worked with before, hence Henry was given a shot. However, as a Coach you have to be better at decision making than that don’t you?

    The alternate version is that Southee made himself unavailable upon learning he wasn't going to be skipper.

    No great loss anyway. As detailed on another thread recently his stats were greatly boosted by taking a bunch of lower order wickets in Perth and Melbourne. As an opening, strike bowler he'd failed the job manfully in those two tests.



  • @shark said in Stead - Williamson:

    @kev said in Stead - Williamson:

    @rotated The dropping of Southee for the Sydney test was clearly a surprise to commentators, selectors and players. In the shorter formats that is always an option. For the NZ team in test matches, it would be like dropping Taylor as a batsmen. The call was made by Coach / Captain who was Latham for that test. People always trust those they have worked with before, hence Henry was given a shot. However, as a Coach you have to be better at decision making than that don’t you?

    The alternate version is that Southee made himself unavailable upon learning he wasn't going to be skipper.

    No great loss anyway. As detailed on another thread recently his stats were greatly boosted by taking a bunch of lower order wickets in Perth and Melbourne. As an opening, strike bowler he'd failed the job manfully in those two tests.

    Poor old Southee. I can't think of any Black Cap who divides opinion quite like he does.



  • I think the NZ head coach is mostly selection, tactics and strategy, with a bit of facilitation of player requirements and requests. There should also be technical coaches available for players who want them, but the head coach isn't likely to be in a place to tell Kane, Ross or Boult how to improve.



  • @rotated said in Stead - Williamson:

    The NZ coach position should be 99% man management no? The KPI isn't really that hard - keep the best players engaged with the NZ program for as long as possible and motivated as much as possible. With the odd exception most international players will have their preferred guru(s) and manage their own development. They may need to play match maker at times and bring in the right assistants but the story in there of Stead to be telling Kane how to hold a bat is laughable.

    Looking forward strictly at the test side managing the workloads and egos of our surplus of quicks and keeping Taylor and Williamson world class and available seems like the top two priorities.

    He should have been fired after Australia. Not necessarily because he deserved it (although that article sheds light on a few management blunders), but because a much better candidate in Mickey Arthur was avialable and probably would have taken the job.

    Does that mean if the team isn't performing, the coach shouldn't be sacked? Why would you sack a coach for poor results if 99% of their job is man management?



  • @hydro11 said in Stead - Williamson:

    Does that mean if the team isn't performing, the coach shouldn't be sacked? Why would you sack a coach for poor results if 99% of their job is man management?

    I think his job should be on the line, but not because of results, but because of poor process.

    Little to no prep for Perth, and what he did get he wasted (playing two debutantes in two test matches). Selections all over the place (particularly Tim Southee). Basically, I get the impression Stead's a little out of his depth.

    That said, results don't help, and that tour of Australia was humiliating. Australia were very very good, and we played them a year too late, but we got absolutely spanked. Their was a gap between their batsmen and our bowlers, and vice versa.



  • @nzzp said in Stead - Williamson:

    @hydro11 said in Stead - Williamson:

    Does that mean if the team isn't performing, the coach shouldn't be sacked? Why would you sack a coach for poor results if 99% of their job is man management?

    I think his job should be on the line, but not because of results, but because of poor process.

    Little to no prep for Perth, and what he did get he wasted (playing two debutantes in two test matches). Selections all over the place (particularly Tim Southee). Basically, I get the impression Stead's a little out of his depth.

    That said, results don't help, and that tour of Australia was humiliating. Australia were very very good, and we played them a year too late, but we got absolutely spanked. Their was a gap between their batsmen and our bowlers, and vice versa.

    We were much better at home vs India, the 20/20s not withstanding.

    I'm not defending him by the way; if he can't work with Kane and provide him with the guidance he seeks, then he has to go



  • Seems as good a thread as any to post this.....

    FF86A63E-14A9-4C36-AEAE-3850DADC78FA.jpeg


Log in to reply