KEY POINTS:
Just when we're wondering how on earth New Zealand are going to sink the good ship Australia and march on to glory at cricket's World Cup, the answer came this week.
And when you think about it, it's all so simple. Who are overwhelming favourites for the cup in the Caribbean next month? Australia.
Second favourites? Take your pick. This bloke on the radio had it all worked out.
Get someone else to beat Australia - after all, proponents of the one-day game are forever parroting on about how anything can happen on that one day - and then it's ours to lose. Actually it would be several teams' title to lose but you get his point. With Australia out of the picture, we can't miss, he suggested. Unfortunately there are a couple of Jacob Oram-sized flaws in his argument.
To fail to reach the semifinals, given the convoluted format, the Aussies would need to get tipped over a couple of times. Once before the semis is possible. Twice? Yeah right.
And secondly, it assumes New Zealand will be able to beat any of the other six contenders to win the title, and right now you wouldn't put your shirt on that either.
(Only six? Remember, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Kenya, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Bermuda and Zimbabwe are there to make up the numbers.
You might hear some tosh in the coming weeks about how those teams will be the better for their experiences in the West Indies.
That's what you hear after the likes of Romania or Japan have been flogged by over 130 points during rugby's equivalent event. Try asking those players how they benefited from those five-star rogerings.
To do that, even taking Australia out of the equation and assuming our friend's theory can hold up, they will need to play strong, thoughtful, resourceful, cohesive cricket.
England have been dreadful, yet somehow made the tri-series finals; the West Indies have to be a chance at home - or homes, given the geography and composition of their squad; India aren't slugs; Pakistan are the pendulum team of world cricket, but on the right day are dangerous; South Africa are invariably cussed competitors; and Sri Lanka loom as perhaps the biggest threat of the lot to Australia.
What would they all make of New Zealand right now? They'd mark the card as: can be difficult, but prone to brain fades.
They will have spotted some awful body language during the tri-series, rate their chances as high with James Franklin or Ross Taylor waiting under a high ball and figure that if a handful of key men - Stephen Fleming, Oram, Brendon McCullum, Daniel Vettori and Shane Bond - are kept in check, right now they're eminently beatable.
Tuesday's loss to England in Brisbane appeals as their worst performance in Australia. No question chasing 271 requires some work. But England should not have been allowed to get that far.
Then, having been gifted the equivalent of a 10m start in a 100m race, courtesy of some bowling more befitting a second grade club game, New Zealand still contrived to cock it up.
Something is not right. Elsewhere Richard Boock and Adam Parore have debated the merits of Fleming's future as captain. I'd be staggered if, after the World Cup, he wants to carry on.
Is there room for a surprise cup pick? We'll get a clue when the group to contest the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy against Australia is named on Tuesday.
And what about giving Vettori another crack at captaincy and let Fleming take stock? Australia are leaving the game's premier batsman, Ricky Ponting, behind when they arrive next week, along with wicketkeeper and regular opener Adam Gilchrist.
Australia can afford to tinker but New Zealand don't have that luxury. They have three games left to sort things out. But would you rather be scuffling along against reasonable opponents or put yourself up against the best? No argument here.
