Mark Richardson: Better team deals test lesson to NZ

Isn't it ironic how, in the lead-up to this test match, the talk was about how the Indian batsmen would continue their assault on the New Zealand bowlers?

It's ironic because they continued their assault but it was more a sustained and systematic dismantling of our attack, as opposed to the expected destructive bombardment.

India's first innings was a lesson in test match application. Sure, the majority of that lesson was meted out by the brilliant Sachin Tendulkar but most, if not all, of the Indian top order showed run-scoring in test cricket is all about intelligent application, intelligent accumulation with minimal risk; being prised out rather than surrendering.

You can argue it's unfair to benchmark New Zealand batsmen against someone of Tendulkar's class and experience but the way he plays has earned that class and experience. If I was one of our potentially good yet underperforming top order, I'd be keen to emulate the best.

Here was a player who played one of the great ODI innings, full of improvisation, in Christchurch and the very next innings played out a Lord's coaching manual test century.

You could argue that India has more test match specialists of high quality in the form of Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman and don't need to make the necessary adjustments to test match batting. However New Zealand still has Tim McIntosh and Daniel Flynn.

There will continue to be a problem in New Zealand adjusting to the requirements of each form of cricket quickly.

No New Zealand cricketer in their right mind would want to be a test match specialist, certainly not when the expansive stroke players in Twenty20 and ODIs outrank your yearly income 10-1.

New Zealand will always have a large core of players who take part in all forms of the game and will need to find a way to adjust their games immediately. I'd also imagine most players, when nearing the end of their careers, will opt for the Scott Styris way and specialise in the lucrative and easier options of the short games.

Jesse Ryder's natural skill in the first innings apart, I'd suggest those New Zealanders who succeeded with the bat to some extent played with a form of desperation.

Test cricket is hard and it challenges you physically and mentally and, to be able to last substantial lengths of time under pressure, takes desperation. Daniel Vettori is playing for his test captaincy record, Martin Guptill was on debut and Flynn has only this form of the game to play for New Zealand right now.

Once again we have been soundly beaten by a better team but a better team because they applied the basics much better than us and thus are better cricketers.

Then again I ask the question: how desperate are our key players to find their test games when it is not lining their pockets. Really, how desperate are they?