Cricket: Where Bracewell and Co got it all wrong

By RICHARD BOOCK

When it comes to the world's most desperate excuses, this week's effort from John Bracewell could go down in history alongside such gems as, "a Martian ate my homework", "I never inhaled" and "I'd love to, darling, but I've got a headache".

Having overseen New Zealand's 3-0 loss in the test series, the former Gloucester man defied all logic midweek when he suggested that the English had doctored their pitches to provide the home side with a clear advantage.

This was despite the fact that the first and third tests were played on low, paceless surfaces that helped no one in particular, and the second on a Headingley pitch that was completely unpredictable, and therefore free of bias.

Bracewell, who has now watched his side lose four tests in a row and their fifth in eight matches, claimed that lifeless wickets in England in May (the equivalent of New Zealand's November) were proof enough of his hosts' cunning plan.

The way he saw it, New Zealand's pacemen were completely harmless throughout the series because they were robbed of the anticipated green, seaming pitches.

He evidently hadn't read the works of English historian Thomas Fuller, the guy who once wrote that bad excuses were worse than none at all. Either that, or he was going to extreme lengths to boost the morale of his remaining bowlers.

To be fair to England, it's difficult to see where Bracewell was coming from.

From the safety of the lounge sofa it appeared that New Zealand were beaten on fair cricket pitches, none of which gave a pronounced advantage to either side's bowling attack.

They were beaten because they batted poorly, bowled even worse, and left some gaping holes in their preparation and organisation.

That the pitches were no great promotion for the game was another matter. The surface at Headingley, in particular, was clearly dangerous, and in another time or place (Pakistan or Zimbabwe, for example) the match might have been abandoned for safety reasons.

For all that, New Zealand had just as much opportunity to exploit the conditions as England, but fell short at almost every hurdle. They were outplayed by a better-performed team, not because of the standard of the pitches, but because of the standard of their own game.

If Bracewell's excuse is any gauge, you get the feeling that a lot of finger-pointing has been going on in the New Zealand camp this month, as the players and management attempt to come to terms with such an unpalatable result.

The blame has been lumped on the bowlers for their lack of penetration or consistency, on the batsmen for their failure to capitalise on sound starts, and even on skipper Stephen Fleming for doing too little to address the concerns and change the fortunes. Injuries and form have been singled out, and players' futures have been questioned.

But probably the most deserving of scrutiny at this stage of the tour is the management team and New Zealand Cricket chief executive Martin Snedden, who chose to send the national squad to the other side of the world with inadequate back-up or cover.

In particular, the buck should probably stop at the door of team manager Lindsay Crocker, the man now charged with the overall performance and administration of the side, including its multimillion-dollar annual budget.

The criticism is not that Crocker agreed to a 14-player squad in the first place, rather that not enough was done to ensure that the necessary back-up players were in England during the tests, so that the side could more effectively deal with the inevitable injuries.

Given that the initial test squad included Shane Bond and Daryl Tuffey, two pace bowlers whose injury concerns had been well-documented, it seemed completely negligent that NZC would not arrange to have the next best pace option in England on stand-by.

Ian Butler should have been there throughout, whether he was playing league cricket or even just practising privately, and a back-up spinner to Daniel Vettori was also imperative.

Just as frustrating for New Zealand supporters was the thought that injury meltdown had occurred on several previous tours, and yet this year's administration had not learned from the earlier experiences.


It would have been naive in the extreme to expect no one to break down in England, and it was almost predictable that Bond, Tuffey and Kyle Mills would be the most at risk.

So, while there was deserved concern over the form of some of the players after the test series, some fairly pertinent question-marks were also left hovering over the pre-tour efforts of Snedden, Crocker and Bracewell.

After all, it was their call to take 14, including a couple of borderline players, and not to bother about contingency plans.

They can search for conspiracy theories, blame who they want, and cast aspersions on the integrity of their hosts.

But the simple fact is they got it wrong.