Adam Parore: Laughing at hurt players not cricket

It was a surprise to see Scott Styris having to lambast the West Indians for laughing at players who had been injured by bouncers.

Though it's really no surprise at all, because it's obvious these tourists lack leadership.

There have been no denials from the West Indians so we can only presume Styris was on the mark, that he has not misinterpreted their actions.

I had my bell rung a few times as a player but I don't remember anyone laughing at me.

Even guys like Brett Lee, who play the game pretty tough, never laughed or thought it was funny when a player was hit. He would come over to you, see if you were all right, then give you another one - next ball.

It was done with a bit of dignity and respect, by players who didn't delight in hurting an opponent.

What Styris has revealed is pretty ordinary behaviour, especially coming from these guys.

If Brian Lara was having a bit of a chuckle, you could almost argue that he had earned the right to do so. The rest of the West Indians are journeymen who are lucky to be there. They should be on their best behaviour.

There has always been what is virtually an unspoken code of conduct on these matters, based on mutual respect for fellow professionals.

In my experience, on the odd occasion that a young guy did err, he was told by senior players, in no uncertain terms, that he had over-stepped the line.

But, as I say, I'm not surprised with this team because before Lara arrived, there was no leadership at all. He has clearly recognised that and made a big effort to instil some pride in the team, being the great player he is.

But Lara has his work cut out because he is not known as a great and charismatic leader - he's already had the captaincy taken off him.

The leadership issue is exactly why the West Indies are in the predicament they are. Watching the last test match, you even felt when they looked home and hosed in the run chase that it could quickly come crashing down, which it did.

* I reckon there is still a very big score in Lara, even though he has failed miserably in the series so far.

He is underdone, as simple as that. Halfway through the third test, he'll be getting into stride. You have to play some cricket, no matter who you are.

I don't have that many memories of playing against him, but he has made runs here - it's not as if he has a problem in our conditions.

If you look at Lara's history, he fails just like other players, and maybe even more than other players. But he doesn't get many 30s or 40s, or even 70s because once he gets a start, you are in major trouble.

You certainly don't chip Lara as he leaves after making a low score. Leave him to his own devices, because you know he's going to get you, big time, in the end. If he puts you to the sword, he will really do some damage.

He'll make a hundred in this series, I am sure, and if he hasn't by the last innings of the last test, the New Zealand boys will be walking on eggshells.

Just look out.

* Stephen Fleming has fashioned a remarkable captaincy record, having now equalled Clive Lloyd as the second-most-capped test captain in history.

With no disrespect to his leadership, I believe it would be an interesting exercise to have a change in the captaincy.

But more of that later.

Flem basically got the job by default and I doubt whether even he would have expected to have compiled this sort of record with so few hiccups.

He did a pretty decent job right from the start and no one has really ever challenged for the position.

Players like Chris Cairns and Dion Nash, who had a bit of leadership potential, quickly decided it would be more productive for them to develop other skills rather than push for the captain's role.

Fleming is very quiet and understated, a good thinker, and not emotional, which makes him a good leader. That's where the stability comes from - his ability to step back and assess situations. It has been a key part of the success of his unit.

But there is more to be extracted from this New Zealand side and that's where a change of captain might be interesting on the simple basis that change is good.

If you look at chief executives, many go in with a five-year plan and regardless of how they perform, they move on because they know it is best for them and the organisation.

The problem in this case is that it would leave Fleming in the side as an ex-captain, which is not ideal. This has happened before in world cricket, but only because it has been forced on players.

As for a replacement, Daniel Vettori is the obvious choice. Looking at the guys in the side now, I believe more of them would identify with Vettori because he is of a similar age and at a similar stage.