Cricket: Maybe if we'd got it right at start ...

By Richard Boock

At the world cup


What can you say about a team who under-performs and over-achieves?

Whatever criticisms one might want to fire at the New Zealand cricketers after their semifinal exit from the World Cup, it has to be first conceded that hardly anyone expected them to get there in the first place and that they at least did as well as any other Kiwi side in the history of the tournament.

They generally didn't play well and in some ways that wasn't a surprise. That they ended up in the semifinal against Pakistan at Old Trafford however, was eye-rubbing stuff, particularly in light of their miserable top-order batting form.

There was something a tad weird when first England, then the West Indies and then India were eliminated from the tournament, while New Zealand marched through to the semis with a top-order batting line-up which saw more of the opposition bowling from the dressing room balcony than from the middle.

Nathan Astle and Craig McMillan were major disappointments; Matt Horne was averaging 17.42 before New Zealand's second-last game (when he scored 74), and, as a consequence, Stephen Fleming more often than not walked in with the opposition well on top.

Against the three test-playing nations in Group B, the New Zealand skipper came out to bat with the scoreboard reading 2-2 (against Australia), 2-13 (against the West Indies) and 2-12 (against Pakistan), and although things improved slightly in the subsequent rounds (2-59, 2-34, 2-60 and 2-38), it was hardly a licence to go on the rampage.

To be fair, the Kiwi batsmen occasionally came up against an opponent who could bowl a bit and the scenes against Walsh and Ambrose at Southampton, not to mention the two-part drama against Akram and Shoaib, were not without the faint air of a turkey-shoot.

Certainly, the ball Shoaib produced to bowl Astle in the semifinal was close to an act of euthanasia, while the first thing Fleming saw of the inswinging yorker which robbed him of his leg stump was on the television news that night.

On the flip side, New Zealand's World Cup chances were delivered a huge boost by Roger Twose, who arrived at this tournament wanting to make a difference and was able to leave it safe in the knowledge that he had.

Along with record wicket-taker Geoff Allott, Twose was one of the most written-about players at the World Cup, partly because he batted so well against Australia and India, and partly because the ever-mischievous British press enjoyed referring to him as the only Englishman left in the tournament.

The best part of Twose's contribution was the intelligence and composure he brought to the batting crease and his ability to finish a job.

Chris Cairns too, made a difference with the bat and twice combined with Twose in important partnerships (against Australia and in the last game against Pakistan), but was less impressive with the ball, often bowling all over the shop and proving far too expensive.

He was fortunate that New Zealand emerged as such a strong bowling and fielding side early in the tournament, spectacularly headed by Allott's wicket-taking exploits, and Gavin Larsen and Dion Nash's low economy rates.

Allott's tournament was fascinating. He swung the white ball in when it was new and reversed it when it was old, and the manner in which he comprehensively defeated his opponents was noted in every World Cup camp during the group stage.

Yet, as soon as he realised he was swinging it at last he seemed to lose the knack, and ended up bowling mostly straight (albeit reasonably tightly) in his last three or four games. This was a huge change for New Zealand, as it happened, because without the early breakthrough they were rendered quite harmless in the field.

In the last three games, the opposition opening batsmen scored 176, 26 and 194.

New Zealand's chances may have also been improved if there had been more balance in the squad selected, for they were in dire need of another couple of batsmen in the wings, rather than a trio of bowlers.