Cricket: Cricket panel wavelengths need tune-up

If New Zealand cricket's new selection panel came with a user's handbook - as should be obligatory these days - chances are that it would include several different language translations, a chapter on code-breaking and a beginner's guide to astrology.

Only a month after being assembled for a brave new dawn, New Zealand Cricket's four-pronged panel have proved as easy to read as a Shane Warne flipper, and about as forthcoming as Mohammad Azharuddin's income-tax lawyer.

In terms of direction, the panel have struggled to maintain a cohesive front during their first month in office and will answer only a few of the relevant questions today when the New Zealand teams for Singapore and Zimbabwe are named.

It might be too early to suggest the right hand has not yet been introduced to the left, but there have been suggestions since Sir Richard Hadlee took over as convener that inter-panel consultation might not be his strong point, and that his lone-ranger style may not always make for good communication.

He twice left New Zealand coach and fellow selector David Trist hanging out to dry in England recently, the first when he floated the idea of taking a test squad to the Singapore tournament, and the second when he proposed promoting captain Stephen Fleming to No 3.

Trist, who found out about Hadlee's comments only through media inquiries, was admirably stoic in his reaction, although if the translation book had been handy at the time, his "I don't know anything about that" may have come across in a slightly different light.

Even when Mars has been in the correct alignment with Jupiter - and Hadlee and Trist have been on the same wavelength - the language has been difficult to fathom, no more so than in the past week when the pair have spoken about the depth of New Zealand's talent pool.

Trist labelled New Zealand A's tour of England a success and spoke of the progress of spinners Bruce Martin and Brooke Walker, the development of Glen Sulzberger and the confirmation of what everyone suspected a couple of years ago, the international class of Mark Richardson.

But somewhere in the translation, the disappointing form of all but one of the specialist batsmen was overlooked, as was the modest return of the entire bowling attack.

Richardson took his chances, as he has since his cricketing rebirth, and will be named in the test squad this afternoon, but otherwise no other New Zealand A batsman scored a century or managed to average 30, and none of the specialist bowlers scraped together 20 wickets.

Hadlee almost alluded to the talent problem the other day when he suggested his new panel might reduce the proposed 15-strong squad for Zimbabwe by one - apparently on the grounds that he did not want players idle and not playing.

There are two schools of thought. It could be argued that with Dion Nash in doubt and Simon Doull unavailable, NZC should not waste the chance to give an emerging player some touring experience.

But it might also be suggested that having four non-playing squad members at every match in Zimbabwe is overkill and possibly counter-productive .

The reality for Hadlee seems difficult to avoid: finding 15 test-quality New Zealand cricketers is not as straightforward as it sounds.