Richard Boock: Playing across the line undermines coach’s credibility

You can imagine the scenes in Christchurch this morning as New Zealand Cricket officials rock in the foetal position over the latest performance from coach John Bracewell.

Evidently no fan of the "Boy who cried Wolf" fable, Bracewell conceded at the weekend that his "pitch-swapping" allegations at Brisbane were gratuitous nonsense, invented only to entertain his team's rather peculiar sense of breakfast humour.

That at least must come as a relief to his employers, and those close to him. For them, the thought that his paranoia had become so acute that he was imagining not only pitch-doctoring but also skulduggery from the Channel Nine broadcasting network must have been a distressing one, however brief.

But his latest explanation, that the silly claims were staged and contrived, will surely have them scurrying afresh for their stress-relieving squeeze balls and biting their knuckles over what he might say next.

These have been difficult times for Bracewell, certainly in terms of the test team's performance but also in regard to matters beyond his influence and control - things like pitch preparation, media comment and umpiring.

His latest problem involved the publication of potentially damaging comments by his brother, former New Zealand fast bowler Brendon, about the culture of the national squad and individuals within it.

If Brendon's view was to be believed, the New Zealand players were deficient in basic technical skills, were coach-dependent and high-maintenance, while fast-bowler Ian Butler lacked courage, was selfish and infected the team with "misery".

Not only was it a savage assessment of the present operation, but it came from someone who knew the New Zealand coach intimately and could be expected to be in contact with him from time to time.

And therein lies the twist.

John Bracewell would like us to believe that he doesn't share the thoughts of his brother, that he believes the team have courage and commitment and that to suggest otherwise would be incorrect and uninformed.

He wants us to understand that he supports the team and that he thinks they're a hard-working unit, full of players who are desperate to learn about and develop their games.

But should we believe him?

The man who only a day earlier admitted making false claims and misleading the public on pitch-manipulation clearly has an interesting perspective on the issue of trust.

On one hand he seems happy to peddle bull-dust, while on the other he expects people to continue accepting his word on matters of conscience, as if they've somehow forgotten his previous duplicity.

So, seriously, do we believe him, or do we think he secretly shares the view of his brother? And how would we know?

This must all come as a bit of a fright for NZC, which has attempted to promote a culture of transparency throughout its organisation and has been particularly fond of dining out on its "no deception" policy.

The idea was that players and officials were perfectly entitled to decline a request to make a public comment, but that they should under all circumstances avoid being deliberately misleading or deceptive.

Bracewell clearly missed the team-talk on that issue, as he did at Sydney in 1985 when he arrived as a replacement after coach Glenn Turner's "no-sweeping" directive, and proceeded to sweep his way to an unbeaten 83.

The difference of this occasion is that he appears to have lost all three poles, not to mention some of his credibility.