Last November, at the Oceania Cup hockey tournament in Stratford, the Black Sticks beat Samoa 25-0, seven fewer than the Australians managed.
In each case it was a given that the idea of the exercise was at least partly to help the lesser nation develop.
They were painful lessons but to soft soap in those situations could lead to accusations of patronising, so you go out and do what you must and treat opponents with some respect.
This week cricket stepped into nonsense territory, albeit in a different way, when South Africa and Australia planted their size 12s on soppy, sawdusted Kingsmead in Durban for a T20 international.
At least it was supposed to be 20 overs a side, but - after rain recalibrations of what time was left - it turned out to be seven a side.
Australia won it by five wickets with a couple of balls to spare. The only reason this game will be remembered will be for the supreme idiocy of having a contest lasting 82 balls which now sits in the record books as the shortest international.
There are rules about shortening ODI or T20 games. A minimum 20 overs must be bowled at the team batting second in an ODI; the cut-off in a T20 second innings is five overs.
Is there a point at which there is no point playing a game? Durban would be about it. Then again, there are the spectators, who have paid good money to be entertained.
So do 161 runs off 82 balls constitute meaningful entertainment? Take out the adjective and it'd be mean-spirited to argue against it. But meaningful? Rubbish.
Cricket does have super over deciders, which are gimmicky and can be fun. But they've come at the end of a contest which has finished in a tie, and therefore it automatically has had some dramatic element to it.
Durban was a fresh low and should not fly again.
