KEY POINTS:
The New Zealand cricket team have received much public vitriol since their humbling exit from the World Cup. The Black Caps undoubtedly brought some of this upon themselves by talking up their chances and raising the public expectation. Most of the venom, however, is undeserved. At a time
of particular weakness in world cricket, dismissal at the semifinal stage was a reasonable reflection of a team who have too often foundered because of frustrating inconsistency. Better New Zealand teams have failed to advance as far.
But the period after a World Cup should be a period of soul-searching - and change. Stephen Fleming has started that process by stepping down as the one-day captain, although he wants to continue leading the test side. Tellingly, he spoke of the need to bring enthusiasm to New Zealand's limited-overs game.
Leading a one-day cricket team is highly stressful, and 218 games have taken an understandable toll. In the main, Fleming handled the role with skill and no little flair - and the barbs directed his way have been largely undeserved.
But his proposed exit route is problematic. In normal circumstances, having different captains for the test and one-day side would not work, especially with New Zealand's small pool of players. The captain of the one-day side would be highly likely to return to the ranks for tests. Clashes of character or differences in tactical approach would be obvious sources of friction.
In the present situation, however, Fleming's proposal might work, if only for a short time. There is an affinity between him and the one-day heir apparent, Daniel Vettori, and they might be able to dance around the eggshells.
Confirmation of that course will probably depend on the fate of the coach, John Bracewell. While he has also endured his share of criticism, there can be no doubt that a well-prepared team went to the Caribbean. A controversial rotation system bore fruit when Peter Fulton stepped in ably for the injured Lou Vincent. Likewise, the fostering of Jeetan Patel proved astute. It was not entirely Bracewell's fault that none of New Zealand's most celebrated players performed in the semi-final, while enough of those of Sri Lanka did. As against England in the crucial game of the summer tri-series in Australia, the Black Caps' fragility was laid bare.
That is not to say Bracewell should be reappointed coach in August. Indeed, it is tempting to conclude that, after four years in charge, he has taken the team as far as he can. New Zealand, as on four previous occasions, has reached a World Cup semifinal, but remains well adrift of Australia and Sri Lanka. At the same time, its test performances have slipped.
Bracewell's position becomes even more tenuous when it is considered that a logical replacement, John Wright, is in the wings. Wright proved his coaching quality in guiding India to a strong record in test and one-day matches, including a place in the 2003 World Cup final. If he is not snapped up by New Zealand, he will probably become coach of the likes of Pakistan or West Indies, which are in the market for a coach.
Most compellingly, Wright would put a smile back on the face of cricket. Few New Zealanders have been more admired as a player. Wright combined grittiness and humility, and no one would come to the coaching job with more good will.
The aftermath of a World Cup is as much a time of opportunity as it is for agonising. A shortage of emerging talent suggests few changes in playing personnel. But this is the moment to inject fresh ideas through changes at the top.
