Speculation that New Zealand cricket captain Kane Williamson could be set to lose his job was quickly rebutted by the game's governing authority.
The claim had arisen that coach Gary Stead preferred to have Tom Latham in the role.
While New Zealand Cricket's move to quash the speculation appeared plausible it was not surprising that given the organisation's previous handling of the Ross Taylor captaincy affair it should have caused a degree of salt to be taken.
But pressure and speculation on captaincy is an ever-present danger in top-level sport and cricket is no exception.
The difference in Williamson's case is, that despite any claims Latham might have, Williamson is still the best man for the job.
His record alone shows that.
However, this particular issue is one that has become a common theme in modern cricket where the collision point is who calls the shots in a team?
Given that coaches are a relatively new phenomenon in the game, having become part of the scene since the mid-1980s, they are an extra factor in, for lack of a better term, the power game.
Previously, captains were given a side chosen by an independent panel who consulted with the captain and then made a decision on the team.
That independence was important because it gave the captain a buffer from criticism. Blame for poor selection choices rested with the selectors.
At the same time, if a captain needed to be replaced, the selectors had the option to recommend that to the board of NZC. The replacement of Geoff Howarth and Jeff Crowe, both in the 1980s, are two examples of that system.
Sometimes a captain could be included as a member of the selection panel, generally when he had built up a fair portfolio of experience. The best New Zealand example of that was probably John Reid's involvement in the selection of the side he took to South Africa to draw the series in 1961-62.
Based on his experience on the 1953-54 tour of the same country, he knew what was required and so fast bowler Gary Bartlett and leg-spinner Jack Alabaster became key selections for the side.
More recently there has emerged a train of thought that suggests a captain must have the team he wants on the field.
This has created a three-pronged area for a confrontation between the selectors, the coach and the captain.
The emergence of a players' association, in New Zealand at least, also appears to have added to the mix.
Former captain, coach and commentator Glenn Turner addressed the issue in his recently released book Cricket's Global Warming (Amazon.com) and among many points highlights the potential for playing favourites when the captain has much of the power in selection choice.
Turner was concerned that the increase in power for captains, and their leadership group, contributed to the diminishing of accountability while also opening up the chance for conflicts of interest and distracting players from their core role of playing the game.
Accountability involves the age-old practice of justice not only being done but being seen to be done, a principle that has lost none of its importance despite changes in the game and society.
He described the situation surrounding the selection of the New Zealand team for last year's World Cup when Williamson reportedly overruled the selectors over the choice of Todd Astle ahead of Ish Sodhi. It was a classic conflict of interest.
But it also had two other consequences: Sodhi could see he didn't have the confidence of the selection convener Gavin Larsen and coach Stead, while Astle realised he didn't have the support of his captain.
The situation is compounded by the demands to compete in three levels of the game – no other sport has imposed this on itself.
What is surprising is that players haven't realised how superior the prospect of independence could be for them in attempting to play the game to the best of their abilities.
That is a shame because, by the time they realise it, their careers will probably be close to ending.