KEY POINTS:
The Shane Bond issue has gone remarkably quiet, which I see as a positive sign that there is still a chance of him appearing against England.
There are plenty of complications and it's best Bond and New Zealand Cricket boss Justin Vaughan work these through out of the
public spotlight.
Whether he plays will doubtless come down to the wording of his contract. From my experience his contract is unlikely to say "you can't sign" for an unsanctioned competition, more likely "you can't play in an unsanctioned event while contracted to New Zealand Cricket".
Obviously he is not playing for an opposition league yet and until he turns up he will not be in breach of anything. To prevent him playing or even to leave him out of selection because he has signed to go elsewhere after his NZC contract has expired will be seen as a clear restraint of trade.
NZC will not want to make a case of this because they must fear losing and creating a precedent.
Employment law has come a long way in the 15 or so years since the NZC contracts were first drawn up and the current restraints were initially drafted. Those clauses are largely unchanged and are garden variety - almost every employment contract has them and they are all worded the same. To date little attention has been paid to them because no one has decided to test them but the new Indian leagues are changing all that.
In employment law it is very hard to find cases where restraint clauses have been enforceable for much more than 12 months and even that length of time is a struggle - you can't chain people up for life.
Bond has sensibly kept quiet while talks continue, showing respect for the game and the situation as well as his teammates. From his perspective he's just trying to do his job and the issue is just business.
Vaughan is also playing it out as just an employment issue of the type you get in any business. There is no sign of personalities getting involved and both parties appear to be negotiating in good faith. The longer they talk the more chance there is of Bond playing England.
Andrew Strauss will undoubtedly have some advantage over his teammates as a result of playing here for a month or so before the tour starts. He will have an insight into the pace of the game here and knowledge of some wickets. But I don't think he'll be unravelling the secrets of the Black Caps because I don't think there are any.
I can't see the Black Caps selectors changing things too much. There is a lot of talk about Scott Styris but unfortunately he hasn't done anything to make them sit up and take notice since being omitted.
I'm sure Styris will be discussed at length but it's hard to see changes unless they want to alter the balance of the side and bolster the batting over the bowling. I struggle to see the value of Craig Cummings but in the interests of stability I suspect he will survive although I would slot Jamie How into his spot.
It was interesting to hear Adam Gilchrist's comments about the anguish the Australian team suffered when attacked for bad behaviour after the first test against India. They are now second-guessing themselves and wondering whether their confrontational style is the right way to go.
If you want to win, it is. If you want to be everyone's mate, it's not.
The Aussies should be proud of the way they approach the game and the way they prepare and play it, with aggression and confidence.
They have changed the shape of the game and the way it is played. They do get grumpy when they fail and they are confrontational - that's why it is always such a challenge to play them.
The sledging issue from test one was seriously over-played. People need to remember that there is big money involved, there are livelihoods on the line.
It's like the Bond issue, just another day at the office. Keep the emotion out of it.
