KEY POINTS:
The ferocity with which the national team have been criticised following the two test losses to South Africa has perhaps been a little knee-jerk. It had been 11 months since they last played test cricket, they had poor luck with injuries to key personnel and South Africa were
match hardened from Pakistan. However it was a bad capitulation and, quite frankly, their test record over the last few years doesn't read well anyway.
New Zealand have performed quite creditably in limited-overs cricket over the same period but that is not enough to ensure we are viewed as a top cricket nation. As long as test match cricket is still viewed as the highest level of the game then New Zealand must achieve at that form too.
New Zealand do not have as strong a cricketing heritage in the eyes of the cricketing powers as England, India, and even the West Indies. The exploits of West Indies teams in the 70s and 80s still colour how they are regarded now, despite their lack of success. Also the presence of Brian Lara has helped.
On the other hand, New Zealand have to fight like a younger brother to be taken seriously. To eat equally from the table of Australia, England, India and South Africa we must continually reinforce our competitiveness. If we can only do that in one form of the game it had better be startling - for us that would mean a World Cup win.
But I wouldn't pin my hopes on that because the reason we can't progress past a semifinal is the same reason we can't win against the top teams in test matches: a lack of consistent class.
New Zealand have capable players. Scott Styris, Stephen Fleming, Daniel Vettori and Shane Bond but other nations have more world-class match-winners. In high-pressure matches it's the world-class players that take centre stage and in a pure contest between bat and ball played over five days, there is no substitute for better players.
For New Zealand to enjoy a better future at test level Styris, Vettori, Jacob Oram and Brendon McCullum will need to lift their games and be joined by youngsters of genuine international quality. I prescribe to the theory that sport generally moves forward in quality with time and first-class cricketers are now, on average, better than their predecessors. However the same can be said for all nations.
It's not good enough for our new breed to be better than the old breed - they need to be better than the new breed in other countries.
If our cricketers cannot find a way not only to be the best in New Zealand but also at least the equal of the rest of the best in the world, then New Zealand will continue to get the warm-up two-test tours, poor attendances in the one-dayers and be treated as nothing much more than a necessary evil of the Future Tours Programme.
