Cricket: A bold NZ showing, but some queries remain

By Don Cameron

How cruel was cricket fate that the good ship of New Zealand cricket, after carefully steering through the shoals of the World Cup tournament, should be so ruthlessly blown out of the water by Pakistan at Old Trafford on Thursday?

This could not be regarded as the strongest one-day side New Zealand have fielded in recent years, perhaps not as well-equipped as those who had three times previously reached - but not survived - the semifinals under whichever form of world competition was being used at the time.

In fact, the real merit of this New Zealand side is that they made the very best use of their limited resources. They took a pasting from the West Indies and Pakistan in the pool matches, but won the games that mattered - against Australia and Scotland in the pool series to secure a place in the Super Six, and then the win over India for a place in the last four.

It was a further mark of distinction that New Zealand survived while India, the West Indies and England were removed from competition.

The win against Australia at Cardiff was the one jewel in the New Zealand crown. With it came a place in the Super Six, and the two-point cushion there which the New Zealanders improved to a place in the semifinals.

However, it should be noted that Australia were below their best form at Cardiff. On their form of the last fortnight, Australia would have had as tasty a Kiwi meal as did Pakistan on Thursday.

Sadly, New Zealand could not sustain, or build, on the confidence and skill they showed against Australia. The New Zealanders gained their later wins, but their displays lacked the Cardiff conviction.

Geoff Allott became the only really effective wicket-taking bowler. Before the semifinal, he had 20 wickets, equal to the combined gatherings of Chris Cairns, Dion Nash and Gavin Larsen. During the same time New Zealand batsmen had only five scores above 50 - one each to Stephen Fleming and Matt Horne, the other three to Roger Twose, New Zealand's only batsman of consistent quality.

If a composite World XI were picked from the 12 teams, only Allott and Twose would get on the voting paper, and perhaps only Allott would make the grade.

So while we must applaud the New Zealanders' brave showing (as we try to forget the shuddering, nine-wicket loss which exploded the torpedo), there are some questions to be asked.

Why was Simon Doull not used at all, especially when the ball was swinging and seaming all over the place in the first half of the tournament? Given this kind of help, he could have been dynamic. At least he deserved a chance. The longer he was omitted, the more often came the excuse that he could not be risked because he had not had any recent matchplay - reasoning one might expect from an Irish team management.

Only once was there a significant change in the team - the ludicrous use of Matt Hart as an opening batsman and the token appearance of the bowler Carl Bulfin.

This was further proof that the New Zealand team selection lacked flexibility. There was no room for experimentation, no provision for plan B if plan A was not working.

This was the saddest sight of all as Pakistan romped to victory last Thursday. The New Zealand team were the same. A side who had beaten Australia and India by batting last decided to bat first.

A pitch offered some help to spin, and reduced medium-pacers to cafeteria bowlers (the batsmen helped themselves) but there was no sign of Daniel Vettori on the field for the first time.

New Zealand would always have struggled to beat Pakistan on a batsman's pitch, but they may well have been more competitive if they had varied their selection and tactics.