KEY POINTS:
Can't say I'm turning cartwheels at the latest suggestion coming out of the New Zealand World Cup camp.
The body of thinking seems to have moved from the sensible bowl-first philosophy that Daniel Vettori mentioned last week, to the more dangerous idea of setting a target on a pitch that - if assessed correctly - will be difficult for batsmen later in the day.
There's no doubt that, in days gone by, the strategy has worked well for New Zealand at home, on deadpan wickets that gave the slow bowlers a greater advantage at the end of the day than they did at the start.
But I don't think I played in any one-day games that started at 9.30am when the early morning freshness didn't provide the side bowling first with a potentially match-deciding advantage.
There's no way you can start an international cricket match at that time of the day without the pace bowlers in each camp salivating at the prospect of having the first crack.
It's true, the track conditions may slow marginally later in the day, but if the bowlers have made the most of their chances during the morning session, the side batting second will be faced with only a modest challenge.
I know people have been pointing at the West Indies' win over Pakistan as an example of what can go wrong for the team batting second, but from what I saw, it was a pretty lousy example.
The reason Pakistan lost was because their bowlers didn't perform when given the best use of the conditions, and because the West Indian attack bowled out of their skins later in the afternoon, making life miserable for the chasers.
It didn't look like an example of conditions dictating a result; it looked like an example of one team playing much better than the other.
Having said that, I'd expect New Zealand to win tomorrow's match against England even if they don't win the toss and get to do what they prefer.
There's a pretty good reason why England are at present ranked at No 7 in the world, and it's because the record books insist they should be there.
For my money, we've got a better top-order, far more boundary-hitting potential, better spinners and a genuine strike bowler in Shane Bond, and should be able to prevail against England no matter what the conditions.
As much as I was impressed with England at the end of the tri-series, I don't believe they could have played much better in their last four games, and I'm picking they'll have the dickens of a time trying to repeat that in St Lucia.
There are, however, a few reasons to be wary - none more so than the return of their skipper Michael Vaughan, the comeback of aggressive right-hander Kevin Pietersen, and the unburdening of their talismanic all-rounder, Andy Flintoff.
I've got the greatest respect for Vaughan as a skipper; I believe he's the best going around at the moment. He makes an enormous difference to the England squad, as we saw during their win over New Zealand in the tri-series match at Brisbane.
Vaughan is the brains of the outfit. They feel comfortable with his composure and cool head, and know he can organise his bowling attack to the best possible advantage, helping some players out of slumps, and inspiring others to greater deeds.
Flintoff, on the other hand, is more the heart and soul of the team. He's a "follow me" type of leader who doesn't waste his time with words when he knows he can set a better example through his own courage and endeavour.
For all that, there are some teams around the traps that you never want to play in the World Cup - and England's not one of them.
