The game goes on no matter who is coach

News that New Zealand coach David Trist would not be renewing his contract with the national side should not have been a surprise to anyone.

Trist had intimated from the outset that he was only looking at the role in a two-year frame.

What has been surprising is the amount of attention paid, and it happens increasingly around the world, to the prospect of a change of coach.

Already John Bracewell, Warren Lees, Mark Greatbatch, Dipak Patel and Geoff Marsh are being touted as potential replacements for Trist.

The hunt for prospects will continue until the day of appointment.

It is as if each new coach is the Messiah.

While the coach has become such a prominent person in the development of a side, it does have to be wondered if the "culture of the coach" is a good thing, especially in a game like cricket.

And with the structure of the New Zealand management team at the moment, it does have to be wondered if the role of coach now, is better, or worse, than when Glenn Turner became New Zealand's first coach in 1985?

That's how long the coaching position has been fashionable. Fifteen years. That's all.

Yet, such is the seeming reliance on the coach to be the cure-all for sides, it is as if there is what could best be described, in New Zealand terms at least, as a "social welfare mentality".

Have players become too reliant on coaches?

Are players any more self-sufficient because they have coaches?

Are coaches too easily classifiable as the fall guys when failure occurs?

Are players, who know the system, hiding behind that façade instead of looking to their own inadequacies?

Highly-successful Australian women's coach John Harmer made a quite pertinent point after his side's victory over India in the CricInfo Women's World Cup on Wednesday.

He said he was pleased because when his team was under pressure at two stages in the game, they appreciated the tactical response that had to be made to their situation.

New Zealand's men's team is now experienced enough to be expected to be able to work out for themselves what specific match situations require.

But the second innings collapse in the Second Test offered no evidence that players comprehended what needed to happen.

Whereas in the first innings, the lesser lights by reputation, and experience, showed far greater comprehension of the demands of the game, the second innings was notable for the failure of those most experienced.

Has the coaching structure in the New Zealand side become overly cluttered so that the message is not getting through, simply and clearly?

Any number of good arguments can be made for having solid support personnel around the New Zealand team.

But it hasn't altered the fact, that collapses are still occurring, under-performance is still a problem among experienced players, and all this, while key components of the side are missing through stress-related injuries.

In attempting to make players self-sufficient, surely the goal of any coach, has there been a mixed message being delivered to players?

New Zealand goes into the Third Test reportedly contemplating the use of Adam Parore as an opener to allow Hamish Marshall an opportunity for Test match play, this despite only one first-class game for him on the tour to date.

Who is benefitting from that choice?

Not Marshall if he fails.

The series may be lost, but New Zealand must surely be looking to field its strongest team in order to win the Test.

Craig Spearman is touted as the fall guy, yet of the top order (Mark Richardson and Mathew Sinclair) excepted, he is the only player to have scored runs aplenty recently.

David Trist has been, and still is, an honourable servant of cricket in New Zealand. But not even he has been able to overcome a comfort level among experienced players that has led to a level of cricketing indolence.

New Zealand has achieved significant results in the last two years. Its success in winning the World KnockOut Cup has been justly celebrated with pride.

However, it is time to up the ante.

Teams can be without their attacking stars who win them games. But they should retain their defensive capacity to put up more of a fight than was seen in Port Elizabeth.

There is only so much a coach can do. At some time the players have to be responsible - to themselves, to their employers and to their countrymen.

That responsibility is not the coach's job. It rests within, and the New Zealand public deserves to see more of it during the Third Test.

No coach prepares his team to lose. But no coach can go onto the field and call the shots.

The coach is at best a mentor, a support or a sounding board for possible tactical options.

The fuss should not be about who is, or isn't coach. It should be about which players are going to take responsibility for the next phase of New Zealand's international cricket.