KEY POINTS:
Rather than play the twenty20 international tonight, which is just a one-off revenue collector, I would have preferred to see the one-day series settled in a more appropriate way than Friday night's washout.
Now don't get me wrong. I like twenty20 cricket and appreciate what it is doing for peoples' enjoyment of cricket and, if managed well, I welcome the extra dollars it brings in.
I will enjoy the game, too, but I feel cheated of an appropriate end to what has been an absorbing ODI series.
Beating Australia in a one-off twenty20 fixture does not hold the same sway with me as regaining the Chappell/Hadlee Trophy in a five-game series.
While rules are rules and 50 overs can be reduced to 20 for a legitimate ODI game, I just have to accept that Australia retain the trophy. All I can take is some sort of moral victory that when the players left the field for the last time our boys were in a dominant position.
But come on, surely the conclusion to this series held such importance to both sides and the public that a little spontaneity could have been shown and either a reserve day conjured up at short notice or tonight's game modified to a full ODI?
Sure, I'd imagine sponsorship and broadcasting deals around the twenty20 fixture would be in place and block the road but I'd imagine where ever that final game was played it would have pulled a huge crowd and I don't think Sydney twenty20-goers would have felt cheated had they been given an extra 60 overs of cricket to watch. And, frankly, this series deserved a winner and that winner found over 100 overs of cricket.
Time now for a bit of humble pie. I made a recent comment on Radio Sport that I was concerned Martin Guptill was in danger of turning out to be the next Lou Vincent.
I was a fan of Vincent's but after his heroic test match debut his international career was punctuated by inconsistency.
Guptill was starting to struggle in Australia and I know what that environment can be like when things are not going your way.
However, his last couple of innings have shown he has plenty of character and a top game as well.
He was brilliant on Friday in the opening role and when Jessie Ryder returns, New Zealand have a very exciting top three for the future.
With Guptill so good, it has reopened that old chestnut of whether or not Brendan McCullum should go back down the order. I don't think he should.
I believe Guptill could be a success at No 3 and if McCullum is really serious about 50-over success for New Zealand, he will emerge from this current trough a clearer-thinking ODI opener.
Right now I'm thinking, at least hoping, McCullum is taking one step back but will soon take two steps forward.
