XI lessons from a New Zealand summer (3)

Part 3: Finishing the innings with the bunnies

The final instalment of my three-part feature looks at the batting bunnies at the bottom of the order and New Zealand’s continued lack of consistency. The 12th man even makes an appearance in the outfield.

9. Consistently inconsistent (read: frustrating): I support the Warriors, Arsenal and the Windies so inconsistency and frustration seem to greet me at every turn – the Black Caps confirm I have a penchant for punishment.

Ka kite Zimbabwe. Kia ora South Africa

New Zealand and South African hostilities are set to resume

Zimbabwe’s tour to our shores has come to its inevitable conclusion with a New Zealand clean sweep, and anticipation is building among Kiwi cricket fans ready for the South African assault.

The conclusion to Zimbabwe’s tour was notable for two things. For the first time in a month long tour New Zealand were put under pressure, and Hamilton dominated in Hamilton. Zimbabwean opener Hamilton Masakadza deposited the New Zealand bowlers to all parts of Hamilton’s Seddon Park to score the quickest T20 half-century in Zimbabwean cricketing history; a feat then run close by Brendan Taylor who showed his unequalled batting prowess amongst his national peers. Unfortunately, the result though closer, petered out to the same conclusions as the other lopsided contests.

What we all hoped would at least be a series of fair contests ended up as little more than repetitive opposed open wicket sessions for the New Zealanders. Whilst the contests improved as their length shortened, New Zealand was rarely challenged at any stage other than in the final T20 hit and giggle.

The major concern from New Zealand’s perspective was that with a little pressure applied in the final encounter, they tended to revert to type. After looking untroubled in five previous matches, the fielding effort in their final outing saw bowlers regularly missing their lengths and some of the fielding intensity fell away with it. Against weaker opposition such cracks can be papered over without affecting the result – similar mistakes against South Africa will be punished with ruthless efficiency.

In the final wrap-up, New Zealand have done what Kiwi fans have asked of them and dominated weaker opposition, where in the past they have been prone to lowering their standards. There will be knockers, there always are, but for want of a cliché, they can only play what’s in front of them.

New Zealand has achieved what they needed from the Zimbabwe series, with most players achieving. The conjecture over BJ Watling’s place in the test side as the first choice wicketkeeper subsided after a maiden test century and a polished performance behind the stumps. The question is whether he can continue to grow into the role during a three test series as opposed to a three day landslide? Brendon McCullum confirmed he can build an innings and Chris Martin reminded everyone he’s not yet past it with a host of test wickets – he will need to repeat the performance against South Africa for New Zealand to expose the middle order early on sporting pitches.

The six Kiwi debutants have all got a feel for international cricket, albeit in the limited overs format. Tarun Nethula had the commentators sounding like Channel 9 cheerleaders but given it’s over a decade since we fielded an international leg spinner and as far back as Jack Alabaster since one could regularly pitch it, that’s understandable. Roneel Hira looked composed against the Zimbabwe top order but his control will be tested against Amla, de Villiers and their peers. The youngest of the debutants, Tom Latham, looks like the best long term option across all formats. Whether he gets to wield the willow in the South African ODIs may depend on whether Taylor and/or Ryder return.

For the past month, Martin Guptill has shown he has started to learn the harsh lessons of international cricket. Disappointed at a weak dismissal after building a solid platform in the test, Guptill has gone from strength to strength throughout the remainder of the series. His ability to do it all with a straight bat and strong running has been the most pleasing aspect of a largely lifeless series.

Zimbabwe was at best sporadic in their efforts and at times looked like they would struggle at domestic level. Brendan Taylor has shown glimpses of his potential to make a true mark on the international scene but he appears to bat with the weight of a nation on his shoulders - which is largely how it is. A stint in county cricket would help him move his game forward but the key is to develop those around him. Taibu continues to get starts but struggles to dominate an innings and Waller showed little of his potential. Hamilton Masakadza and Elton Chigumbura have shown ability in the shorter forms but to succeed long term they need to translate limited overs cameos into test match contributions. That will only be achieved through more time at the crease outside of their homeland. 

The elder statesman, Ray Price, showed the mettle and competitive spirit we all expect from Zimbabwe, but it is one of the team’s youngsters who offers the most promise. 22 year old Kyle Jarvis needs an extra yard of pace but was wholehearted in his efforts in every spell. If he continues to develop he has the potential to lead a young attack over the next decade. Like Taylor, he would benefit from time in England or in grade cricket in Australia where he could build his pace and hone the harsh edge needed to succeed as a quick at the highest level.

In the short term Zimbabwe would do well to get their fielding to a standard above that of club level. In the U19 coach, New Zealander Chris Harris, they have one of the best fielding exponents in the game and need to get him involved at senior level. Batting and bowling take time for skills to grow but fielding is largely about hard work and attitude, and Zimbabwe need to take every chance on offer – New Zealand has learned that the hard way in past seasons.

World cricket wants to see a competitive Zimbabwean side - the more competition across nations the better for the continued development of our great game. Zimbabwe have shown they can produce talent, as they did in their glory days with Streak, the Flower brothers, Brandes, Campbell et al., and cricket’s most recognisable flat track bully, Graeme Hick.

Given their prolonged absence from the international game, time is needed – India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh all went through the same trials in their emerging years. The ICC and their international members need to be patient and all take an interest in making the whole strong as opposed to just their own backyard. Established nations should encourage Zimbabwe to tour, even if on short tours largely against domestic sides with a test and some limited overs matches thrown in. Likewise, why not use the African nation as a testing ground for emerging players and A team tours as often happened in the 1980s and 1990s when Zimbabwe were building as they are now?

Zimbabwe’s cricketing powerbrokers need to work to get their players experience in foreign conditions, most likely in domestic competitions when they’re not touring. The ability to play in varied conditions and the experience gained in other competitions will help grow the Zimbabwean game.

This summer’s main course is now in New Zealand and will provide a litmus test of New Zealand’s growth post-Hobart. South Africa is a world class unit and will punish New Zealand if they drop their standards even slightly. The coming weeks are crucial for the development of Bracewell and Williamson, who need to solidify the potential they have shown, but New Zealand’s fortunes hang on their established stars taking the lead and showing the others they can compete. If the New Zealanders can get across the line in the ODIs and salvage a drawn test series their summer would end on a well-deserved high, though given the South Africans will claim the number one test spot if they whitewash the Kiwis, they are unlikely to ease up at any stage.

Finally, the South Africans are to be congratulated for opening their tour in Christchurch. The city has been decimated by a spate of earthquakes and a T20 match against the locals will be their first taste of international sport in a long time. Kia kaha, Christchurch and thank you, South Africa. 

Africa's cricketing influence

African cricketers continue to influence the world game

With one African side currently in New Zealand trying to resurrect their flagging international fortunes and another, more powerful unit, soon to follow, it's timely to reflect on the influence Africa is having on world cricket. For the New Zealand summer, Zimbabwe is simply an entree to the South African main course, but their circle of influence is far wider than just the two playing sides.

We are regularly told the BCCI holds the balance of cricketing power courtesy of the game's largest fan base, swelling coffers and the prominence of the IPL. But do they? Africa's influence is deeper at a pure cricketing level - their players and coaches are making a heavy impression across a number of countries, not just at home.

African players plying their trade abroad are nothing new. Basil D’Oliveira was one of, if not the first. He was offered a contract in England league cricket when people believed his talent was wasted in South Africa where he was given no opportunities because of the colour of his skin. He went on to represent England and brought attention to the apartheid issues in his homeland. Similarly, Tony Greig emigrated and went on to captain his adopted country in the 1970s  - he was born in South Africa, played for England, now resides in Australia and has connections to the Sri Lankan tourism board – an eclectic gentleman.

A number of others left for greener pastures and an escape from the injustices of apartheid. Mike Procter, Garth le Roux, Barry Richards and Clive Rice all had a telling impact on the county scene where they had an opportunity to play against a number of the world’s best cricketers when their motherland was exiled from international cricket. Likewise, Peter Kirsten had a lengthy county career but was lucky enough to finish his playing days in South Africa after sporting sanctions were finally lifted. Kepler Wessels on the other hand has the distinction of playing test cricket for Australia early in his career before returning home to captain South Africa on their return to international cricket.

Robin Smith, Allan Lamb and Graeme Hick all left Africa for England before being promoted to the senior side. Hick’s change of allegiance (Zimbabwe did not yet have test status) is interesting in that he first ventured to England on a Zimbabwe Cricket Union sponsored scholarship.

In 2003, the Kolpak ruling opened the floodgates for more African (and Windies cricketers) to earn their keep in county cricket as it allowed players from countries with a European Union associate agreement to effectively play as EU residents; it’s far more involved than that, but this is quickly becoming a novel. A number of counties should be sending anonymous brown envelopes to Maros Kolpak as he won’t be in the riches playing second division handball whilst they are utilising the ruling to grow their stocks.

Kolpak has allowed a number of Africans to forego their national allegiances, prosper in county cricket and earn handy coin doing it. Players like Neil McKenzie, Andrew Hall, Murray Goodwin and Dale Benkenstein have brought their hard-nosed approach to the county game over long careers, though it is debateable if England would have been better served promoting home grown talent. Current England internationals Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott (it’s worth noting he already held a British passport) are two of the younger generation switching allegiances who have developed formidable influence for their adopted nation and have been integral to its recent success. Would the same results have been realised without them?

For those not convinced of Africa’s influence on world cricket, take a further look at the current England set-up. The side is captained by South African born Andrew Strauss, and coached by an ex-Zimbabwean captain in Andy Flower. Flower’s ascension in the England set-up has aligned with them moving to number one in the test rankings – coincidence? South African born youngsters Jade Dernbach, Craig Kieswetter and Stuart Meaker are all forging limited overs careers in the national side and more of their ilk will likely follow.

But it’s not just England who have been blessed with the African influence. Gary Kirsten continued the good work of John Wright in India but moved on before the current issues affected an ageing side, and returned home for the South African job. Mickey Arthur was recently appointed the first foreign-born coach of the Australian side and with the recent 4-0 test drubbing of India is looking to restore the once champion side to its past glory. The coaching ranks of my own New Zealand were temporarily bolstered with the acquisition of Allan Donald to mould our young quicks before he too returned home – our loss.

Given the growing migration of Africans, both Zimbabwean and South African, to New Zealand’s shores the prevalence of Afrikaans names in our national and domestic sides is set to grow. Grant Elliott arrived in New Zealand a decade ago and was rushed straight into the national side once he had met the residency requirements – his tenure was short but he has shown a path for others.

Kruger van Wyk was in a two horse race for the New Zealand wicket keeping duties against Zimbabwe, and will get his chance in the future. Likewise, Neil Wagner, a sharp left-armer, looks set to get a run when he is eligible for New Zealand in April if his domestic feats are any indication. After representing the Zimbabwean U19s Colin de Grandhomme will make the step up to New Zealand’s T20 side against his former countrymen in the next fortnight. There is a sprinkling of others throughout the domestic scene, while former Zimbabwean leggie Paul Strang has held the coaching reigns of the all-conquering Auckland side for the past three seasons.

Different patriotic pundits around the globe could put forward persuasive arguments for the merits of their country being the most influential in world cricket, but even as a West Indian cricket loving Kiwi, it is hard for me to go past the two African nations. Zimbabwe is currently struggling to find their feet after a long test hiatus, but ask England if they would give up their coach for all of Mugabe’s stolen riches – not a chance. Likewise, many an Englishman secretly applauds Mr Kolpak and in years to come I’ll not care a jot where New Zealand talent was born.

Consider this: with England in the throes of defeat in Dubai there is the possibility they could lose the number one test ranking to the South Africans if they can sweep New Zealand 3-0. Before you fret, those in the MCC long room can mop their furrowed brows; New Zealand won’t let that happen, driven by a love of queen and country…..

2012 and beyond: NZ’s Wright path

The naming of New Zealand’s T20 and ODI squads for the remainder of the Zimbabwe tour has raised a few eyebrows in the cricketing community, but for once it’s a good thing. With the one-off Napier test having confirmed the relative strength, or lack thereof, of the tourists, New Zealand have opted to promote some new blood to the two limited overs sides, and people are genuinely excited about their prospects. Coach John Wright and national selection manager Kim Littlejohn have begun to stamp their mark on New Zealand cricket, and it looks like they are building a strong path to future success. 

Clichéd underarm jokes aside, Kim Littlejohn, the former high performance manager of Bowls Australia, has, in conjunction with Wright, shown a leap of faith in the performances of players in domestic limited overs cricket and selected six debutants across the T20 and ODI sides to play Zimbabwe. That Littlejohn has utilised the on-the-ground knowledge of the country’s six domestic coaches in the wider selection process should not be overlooked – they are in the best position to assess developing talent and make candid assessments of the intangibles; traits such as attitude and the ability (and willingness) to learn.

Generally the same wider New Zealand squad covers all three international formats, but Wright and Littlejohn have chosen instead to look towards the T20 World Cup in Sri Lanka later this year and the ODI World Cup in New Zealand and Australia in 2015 by rewarding the domestic game’s top performers. Given Wright’s hard-nosed nature and his respect for international cricket, he will still expect any side selected to win every match against a Zimbabwean outfit lacking international game breakers.

Five of the six debutants play for the New Zealand’s two top limited overs sides, Auckland and Canterbury, and have been integral in their success. The sixth, Tarun Nethula, started his career in Auckland before making a move south to Central Districts for the 2010/11 season to get more game time.

Here’s a bit more about the six new boys:

Michael Bates (Auckland – both T20 and ODI)
The 28 year old left arm quick has led Auckland’s limited overs bowling attack for the past three seasons, and topped this season’s HRV Cup T20 wicket takers list with team mate Roneel Hira. Solid at the top of the innings, Bates relishes the job of closing an innings and has developed a deadly yorker when batsmen are looking for any error in length to clear the fence.

Andrew Ellis (Canterbury – ODI)
Having played for Canterbury for the best part of a decade, Ellis has been rewarded for a solid domestic record. Not since Andrew Jones has a player played so much domestic cricket before stepping up (there are many others but Jones was a childhood hero and I need to get his name in somehow). Equally at home with bat and ball, it will be intriguing to see if Ellis can compete at international level.

Colin de Grandhomme (Auckland – T20)
The biggest hitter of a cricket ball in New Zealand, de Grandhomme could create headaches for the Zimbabweans; he was born in Harare and represented the Zimbabwe U19s. In 39 domestic T20 games he averages a shade over 20 at a powerful strike rate of 170, and muscles a boundary every four balls!

Roneel Hira (Auckland – T20)
After losing his Auckland contract this season, Hira has shown his worth to the HRV Cup champions. A limited overs specialist, Ronnie topped the T20 wickets list and is a miser with his left arm orthodox. His selection is a just reward for two stellar limited overs seasons.

Tom Latham (Canterbury – ODI)
At 19 years old, and having played less than 25 matches in all domestic formats, Latham is a pick for the future but he has solid recent form behind him. When selected, he was the top runs scorer in the Ford Trophy (50 overs) averaging 55 at close to 100. If he gets a go, he’s one to watch.

Tarun Nethula (Central Districts – ODI)
The first leggie to play for New Zealand since Brooke Walker a decade earlier, Nethula’s fortunes have moved north since he headed south from Auckland. This season’s form spinner in domestic cricket with Hira, Nethula has good accuracy for a leg spinner still learning his trade.  

Two other selections have been discussed by commentators and punters alike; Jacob Oram and Kane Williamson. Will Oram last until 2015? No, but his recent bowling form at international level, when he has been fit, and in the HRV Cup, have earned him his spot though he could no longer be considered a batting force. The bigger talking point is Kane Williamson; a player earmarked as a future captain and with the potential to sit amongst New Zealand’s batting elite. Whilst he was the most miserly bowler in the HRV Cup, does it really matter? Williamson would be better to get his head around his batting game - will limited overs pressure simply delay his ascension in the international game or cause issues with a technique that still requires work to succeed at the highest level?

Whilst the results should be one-sided, New Zealand is prone to stumbling over pebbles even if they occasionally climb great mountains. On New Zealand’s tour to Zimbabwe late last year, captain Brendan Taylor was a constant thorn in their side. In three ODIs he scored over 300 runs at quicker than a run a ball, including two centuries, and was dominant in the T20s. If Zimbabwe are to cause New Zealand any troubles, Taylor holds the key. Waller and Taibu will need to be at the very best in supporting roles if they are to post competitive totals. Young fast-medium bowler Kyle Jarvis and the spin pairing of Price and Utseya are the most likely with the ball. Even at their very best Zimbabwe will need to lift their fielding from Napier where they looked little better than club cricketers (with apologies to the weekend warriors).

NZ should whitewash Zimbabwe in both the T20s and ODIs – the test will be whether the New Zealand debutants can help continue the clinical dominance of the test side. Shorter games tend to bring teams closer together but if New Zealand can continue their ruthless resolve the class gap should be too far for Zimbabwe to overcome. A six year exile from test cricket has hampered Zimbabwe’s ability to compete at international level, and it will be some time until they are a competitive unit again.

Those who complain they shouldn’t be given test status, and aren’t worthy of international cricket,  would do well to remember the length of time it took India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and more lately, Bangladesh, to find their feet at the elite level. A country that previously produced the talents of the Flower brothers, Streak, Olonga, Whittal and Brandes, among others, will no doubt rise again.

For New Zealand, it is great to see players blooded but Wright and Littlejohn need the courage to persevere with them - the exercise will be wasted if they are then thrown back to the domestic wilderness along similar line to youngsters Adam Milne and Daniel Flynn. Some of the players may not pull through to the South African series, but it’s a taste of international cricket and it’s important that long term depth is not sacrificed by reverting to the status quo. Others may be involved in selecting the side but largely the buck will stop with John Wright – given his success in cricket around the world and his desire to lead New Zealand forward on his terms, the future looks bright.

ODI squad: Brendon McCullum (c), Bates, Doug Bracewell, Dean Brownlie, Ellis, Martin Guptill, Latham, Nathan McCullum, Kyle Mills, Nethula, Rob Nicol, Oram, Tim Southee, Williamson.

Twenty20 squad: B. McCullum (c), Bates, Bracewell, Brownlie, de Grandhomme, James Franklin, Guptill, Hira, N. McCullum, Mills, Nicol, Oram, Southee, Williamson .

Run fat boy run!

Taylor limps off retired hurt

Friday, 27 January 2011; morning session, day 2 - only test versus Zimbabwe: New Zealand captain Ross Taylor hobbles off McLean Park, Napier, after a subdued but considered 122 against a Zimbabwe side still looking to qualify for an ICC test ranking.

As a New Zealand cricket supporter, that should be music to your ears, but for Ross Taylor who was walking off lame. Forced to retire hurt with a torn calf, Taylor will miss the rest of the Zimbabwe tour, if not the early stages of South Africa’s visit to our shores. It was also the first time, in New Zealand at least, that the error of the ICC’s decision to implement the no-runner rule came into focus, though in this instance it is unlikely to have a large effect on the final result. 

In essence, no, in actuality, the changes to the runner rule mean that at international level at least, an injured batsman is forced to either hit out or limp off - no runner is allowed so his wicket is lost. In Taylor’s case, he would likely have left the field anyway, but what if he had simply strained his calf as opposed to tearing it? What if Taylor had been on 22 instead of 122, and New Zealand were four or five down for under 100? Would the same indifference to the new rule have been shown then?

Prior to the introduction of the no-runner rule late last year, an injured batsman could call for a runner and continue his innings albeit that the opposing captain had to agree; generally that was little more than a formality. The ICC thought it was being manipulated and abused so changed the rule, yet the same power brokers previously implemented the 15 degree rule so now you have to throw a baseball pitch to be called for chucking! Double standards? An off spinners most deadly delivery is now the one that is delivered with a bent arm and goes the other way – has that not been abused as well?

A case for pinch runners?

There’s plenty of evidence that the runner rule has been exploited for years, but should a change exclude genuine injuries? Our own Jesse Ryder regularly took advantage of the loop holes in the rule, but not once did another captain show any leadership and question the runner’s use. There are numerous other offenders, Arjuna Ranatunga chief amongst them, who faked an injury and got a runner to compensate for their lack of physical prowess and couch potato fitness. Ranatunga would often get a serve from opposition players - I recall Ian Healy giving him a little Aussie mongrel in a spiteful ODI. However, Healy was happy to use a runner a couple of times in his career. Nothing unusual in that, but did David Boon, his physical equivalent, come to the crease? No, Dean Jones appeared in the middle - a thoroughbred replacing a Clydesdale?

The ICC’s decision was forced on them by a captain finally denying a batsman a runner. If such leadership had been shown more regularly, would those stretching the rules have tried so often? Many of the issues were caused by ill-prepared players getting cramps and asserting they needing running help – Andrew Strauss put an end to that.  He refused South Africa’s Graeme Smith, already having scored 100, a runner for cramp in the 2009 Champions Trophy, and more power to him. But as an isolated incident, his decision no doubt forced the ICC’s hand. Would it have caused the same change in the corridors of the ICC if Shakib Al Hasan had refused Brendan Taylor the same opportunity?

Cricket pundits the world over have varied views on the new rule – bowlers generally approve, batsmen not so much. Given how much the game has swayed in the batsmen’s’ favour in the past two decades that’s understandable. Jesse Ryder is not a fan. Given the comments of both John Wright and Ross Taylor his path back to international cricket could be a long one – no side can afford to carry an injury prone batsman anymore. But, does the no-runner rule unfairly disadvantage the batting side? Yes. If Taylor was in the early stages of his innings when the injury occurred and was unable to run, New Zealand have effectively lost his wicket. It also robs the paying public of entertainment; if injured players don’t retire hurt they can often do little else but stand and swing –I can turn on ESPN and watch the MLB if that was what I wanted from sport.

And to address the protestations of the bowling fraternity, no you don’t get a replacement, but in the modern game how many in the stands come to watch you? Bowlers with the genius of Warne, Marshall, Akram and Ambrose have largely disappeared from the game – none but a small minority would bring me, or other spectators, through the gates.

Players will always find loopholes in crickets laws, it's human nature – the 15 degree bowling law illustrates that, but should we penalise those who are legitimately injured? Should we force an injured batsman to retire and his side effectively lose a wicket? If he stays it's hardly a great watch when all he can do is try to bludgeon boundaries without any thought of running (much like T20, which given its current success might be what authorities want!) – that’s not what I want to see at test level. And if none of that resonates with you, surely the mayhem and confusion that ensued when runners were in the middle made the game a more interesting spectacle – comedy on the sporting stage?

Every colour but white

How do you prepare an underperforming international cricket team for an upcoming test series? If you're New Zealand Cricket, the answer seems to lie with T20 (with a handful of ODIs thrown in for good measure).

As opposed to donning the whites and throwing themselves headlong into first class cricket to prepare for a one-off test (one test does not a series make, but that's a topic for another day) against Zimbabwe and a three test series against the might of South Africa, Taylor, McCullum, Bracewell et al. will see nothing but a rainbow of cricketing uniforms, white balls, Dilshan scoops and change-ups. Those with intentions of breaking into the squad for the Zimbabwe test will have to do so via a weight of runs and wickets in the shorter forms and hope the selectors are willing to take the gamble they’ll make the step up. Whatever happened to preparing for test cricket, still the pinnacle of our game, on a diet of first class cricket where the only colours on offer are a sporting green wicket, a shiny red ball and the pink tinge of sunburn on the neck of a lone spectator?

The domestic cricket calendar suggests New Zealand Cricket don’t share my views – it seems numbers (read: money) have got out of balance with the common sense cricket management. So, let’s play the numbers game:

• 77: the gap (in days) between rounds of New Zealand’s domestic four-day competition, the Plunket Shield, from early December to mid-February
• 8: New Zealand’s current ICC test ranking (out of 9) – Zimbabwe hasn’t played enough matches to be ranked
• 26: the number of years between New Zealand test wins on Australian soil (2nd test, December 9-12, 2011 – Hobart)
• 5: the number of days of first class cricket the majority of New Zealand’s international players will play between the Hobart triumph and the first test against South Africa in March, 2012 (based on the one-off test against Zimbabwe going the distance)
• 78: the actual number of days between the Australian and South African tests
• 11: international matches New Zealand will play between the Zimbabwean and South African tests – for most of the New Zealand test team, these 11 T20Is and ODIs will be the only cricket they play

Numbers don’t always tell the full story, and they can be manipulated to support most arguments. Think otherwise; ask Stephen Fleming. Commentators and scribes made a big deal of him needing to get 54 runs in his final innings in test cricket to get his career average above 40 so he would be regarded as world-class – at 39.76 he would have still been one of the greats of the New Zealand, and world, game.

During the middle third of the New Zealand summer, half of the test side that subdued Australia in Hobart will play no first class cricket.  Those who play all three international formats will spend that period immersed in T20 and 50-over cricket, both on the domestic and international fronts; some will even pull up stumps and travel to Australia in between domestic rounds to play in Australia’s Big Bash League. Ross Taylor, Brendon McCullum, Martin Guptill, Dean Brownlie and possibly Kane Williamson will have little or no chance to spend long periods at the crease before battling a South African side that continues to unearth fast bowling talents like the All Blacks breed openside flankers. If Jesse Ryder gets over a calf strain in time for the Zimbabwean test in late January, he will have had no time in the middle but will then likely play all the short form international matches prior to the first test against South Africa. That would leave the top six with no first class cricket leading into a series where they’re asked to blunt the bowling of Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, ranked numbers one and five in the world respectively; a formidable attack even before mentioning Philander or de Lange. Of the bowlers, Doug Bracewell likely be the only one in the same boat – a huge ask for a young tyro still learning the intricacies of his art.

It’s not much easier for those on the fringes who are looking to break into the test side. Given they won’t have played first class cricket for the 54 days leading up to the one-off Zimbabwe test, it’s a big ask to pick them in a test match – fingers crossed Jesse’s yoga and pilates schedule leads to results. Sorry, if their province doesn’t make the HRV Cup (domestic T20) final, they may get a chance in a three-day match against the Zimbabweans that finishes two days before the test. At least the hopefuls will get the opportunity to play in two Plunket Shield matches before the South African test series though they will likely need phenomenal figures to break into the squad. The test specialists; Daniel Vettori, Chris Martin and Reece Young (plus possibly Trent Boult) will have the same opportunities and will need every day they can to hone their skills in anticipation of a fierce battle.

There are a number of issues that have led to the current flood of domestic T20 matches and the continued expansion of the HRV Cup, but will it help New Zealand Cricket be more competitive on the international scene, especially at test level? In short; no, and that creates a conundrum for those involved with the New Zealand game. Currently, we tend to get the requisite fillip of T20I and ODI matches but we get little more than a two test series against the bigger nations away from home. Whilst test and first class cricket is the game’s pinnacle, it doesn’t pay the bills, unless you’re England where it’s rare if the ‘full house’ signs aren’t up for at least the first four days of any test match. New Zealand is a very small market and the big sponsorship dollars are with rugby, so money has to be found elsewhere – at the moment, that’s T20. And let’s be honest, it brings punters to the game who wouldn’t otherwise give cricket a second glance, and that’s a good thing – many of the PlayStation generation don’t have the attention span to watch a one-dayer, let alone even one day of test cricket!

Both the provinces and New Zealand Cricket rely on money from gates and television revenues from T20 to help develop the game at grass roots level, promote it to an audience with a lot more entertainment choices than at any time before, and pay the salaries of those who play the game at the upper echelons. So, they play it through the holiday season to maximise exposure and revenues; they should, that’s what they’re tasked with doing. But, and it’s a but of Sir Mix-A-Lot proportions, should first class cricket be put on the back burner for eleven weeks? Surely domestic 50 over cricket can be fitted in where a gap exists, or be played the day after a Plunket Shield match, which would help cut expenditure as well? That would allow the HRV Cup to keep its current format and dates, and be played entirely between mid-December and mid-January when we are all enjoying time away from work, relaxing in the sun. Then, instead of playing poorly attended domestic 50 over matches in the Ford Trophy, players could get back into first class cricket earlier than they will in the 2011/12 season – a win-win for everyone! Well, for me at least, though I don’t imagine Justin Vaughan (or David White) will be inviting me to join them any time soon.

Spare a thought for the players too. They get publicly slated when they fail, even more so when they play a loose shot or make a decision akin to a brain fart, yet they are put in a position where they get nothing but limited overs cricket in preparation for a test series. They have to change what they do in a physical sense solely by mental application – how many sprinters run a marathon simply by changing their mental outlook?