The Black Caps… how important are a few individuals?

The Black Caps have struggled in test series in India and South Africa in a way that we have not seen for a couple of years. Have we become complacent in recent times that the Black Caps will just keep getting better? Is this a reasonable expectation? Did the influence of a few people, Brendon McCullum, Shane Bond and Kane Williamson, have such an impact across other’s performances? Or is this just a wee slip up, having faced possibly the top test bowling side in South Africa and India, the top test nation, both in the comfort of their own backyards?

For a short period we had close to the best batsman in the world, a captain who had a strong and clear influence and the the respect of his international peers, and arguably the best bowling coach in the world. Having lost 2 out of 3, Kane Williamson is left holding the fort, but can one top performer influence an entire team? Feels a bit like the days of Daniel Vettori and the one man cricket team.  

Sports in New Zealand sporadically over achieve, recently golf and para-swimming, with star athletes who are able to shine in relative isolation. One person is all the difference in individual sports, but in a team sport their influence is limited, they need support. The NZ cricket team in the late eighties had Crowe, Hadlee and Ian Smith, and over achieved. But once Crowe was on his own, the results didn’t continue. 

When you see the performances of some of the individuals, it  is impossible to know the extent to which that performance can be attributed to the influence of others, be they captains, coaches or peer players. You may have been in teams, sport and other, where a single top performer is useful, but 2 or 3 can really set the tone and change the team’s outcomes. Is this is what has happened to the Black Caps?

Why represent your country in sport?

​There have been a number of recent examples of sports people opting out of international sports. The reasons cited vary, but the outcome is the same, the countries don’t have their best people representing them in sporting endeavours. Messi claims he is tired of Argentina losing (a true winner?), various golfers pulling out of the Rio Olympics on the back of the Zika virus (why is it just golfers?), Chris Gayle opting for the T20 circus (money and flash over national pride, or was he pushed? – ditto Kevin Peterson), NZ’s Brendon McCullum (clearly fit enough for T20), various rugby players – Charles Piutau and Nick Evans spring to mind (Euros and the overseas experience, fair enough?).

In professional team sports, has the interntational team just become another ‘brand’ to play for? Another contract to negotiate? Does it hold any extra ‘value’ over the cash and leverage?
Messi is interesting, international football has managed to keep the top players involved in the top tournaments, is this the start of a change? Is he really just a bad loser? Is it because of the shambles of Argentinian international football? 
Golfers fears of Zika, seems fair enough, are we just hearing more about golfers pulling out rather than other sports people? Golfers and tennis players regularly pull out of the Olympics, it is clearly optional in their views. Not enough money in it? Should a sport be at the Olympics when the top players don’t view the Olympics and country representation as the pinnacle? These sports have long established, prestigious (and well paid) gala events. It is a shame that the Olympics is so desperate to have them!
Cricket is about the money, but surely they can still squeeze in the odd international? Who wouldn’t want BMac back in the NZ T20 team? West Indies cricket is awash with play-for-pay players and appears in shambles with rumours of breaking up the individual island nations. Kevin Peterson has issues, but was he really pushed for the sake of team culture, believable – he seems to genuinely want to play for England, unlike McCullum?
Rugby as with cricket is clearly about the money, but then NZRugby policy (a blog entry in itself) and the lack of an international window don’t help. Many players either exit the international game early, or give up on possible All Black selection. Is this just the expected case of money and an OE for young people? If we looked at data from the amateur era would we actually find the same thing, young men (in the case of rugby) choosing travel and career over national representation?
Is money any more of a reason in professional than in amateur sports (now and in the past) in which sports people have to choose between training and performing, and making money? How many potential sports people did we not see?
Why bother with the Olympics as a pinnacle national representative competition for sports that have well established top tournaments?  
Do sports where club competition is considered to be at a higher competitive level than international (rugby league, basketball) or at least over hyped (ice hockey, baseball) need internationals? Players appear to enjoy the international experience with what appears to be a dose of nostaligia and duty at times.
Sports that competitors represent a country and a brand so dramatically – F1, Americas Cup (AC,now that deserves some questioning in its own right) – do we really need country representation? Do these sports people really consider that they are representing their country – England or Mercedes, Australia or Red Bull, New Zealand or Emirates? Do we maintain the quasi-country representation because it helps with sponsorship and broadcast deals?  

In the world of professional sport it would seem your country is at risk of becoming just another brand and money talks at the end of the day.