Paint it, Black: Plumbing the Depths

Every now and then comes along a game you're better off forgetting. Given the lukewarm nature of the current NZ-Sri lanka series, that shouldn't be a problem (for kiwi fans, at any rate) when you consider the kiwis' defeat in the fourth one-dayer which is their heaviest in history. It so happened I didn't catch the game on streaming online video or on cricinfo (which has become the norm these days), to my supposed good fortune. When I did eventually see the final scorecard, rather than shock me outright it seemed to confirm a couple of truths which have been lying beneath all series long. They have eventually surfaced, it appears.

Firstly, and most importantly, the tactics carried out in the name of rotation have left the top order in a mess, pretty much where it was at the end of the Champions Trophy. As I mentioned in the previous article, the Rotation Policy does seem to have brought a few positive changes - Brendon McCullum as opener, for one. However, in his apparent eagerness to juggle the batsmen around, John Bracewell seems to have only brought chaos into the ranks, when it needn't have been that way. I think he would do well to realise that the kiwis still depend largely on their most experienced pair, Fleming and Astle and to have them match-fit for the series in Australia should have been top priority. I'm sure the players themselves have no idea what the batting order for the next game will be. In Astle's case, he is much better suited to opening the innings and batting right through. The presence of McCullum and Taylor would enable him to go along at his own pace without worrying about the run-rate. Given that he was barely convincing in the tests, Fleming should have figured right from the beginning of the series. The Aussies would be extremely interested to note that he's been nailed leg-before by Chaminda Vaas quite regularly of late (as were Taylor and Marshall on Saturday); a certain Nathan Bracken might well be taking note.

Secondly, the kiwis' (or Bracewell's) refusal to field their strongest side must come as a bit of an insult to the Lankans, a better team than we sometimes give them credit for. It's all very well to use a five match series as preparation for a decidedly longer, tougher one - but when you're up against an explosive batting team and an attack which boasts Vaas, Murali and Malinga you can't expect a run of victories without your best lineup. The Lankan batsmen have blown hot and cold on this tour like most subcontinental sides, but the strong bowling unit has more often than not kept their kiwi counterparts in check. They do look a better side than New Zealand at the moment, and a 3-2 victory in this series would be a just result for the entertaining cricket they've played.

Lastly, I do think the selectors may have missed a couple of tricks as far as the squad for Australia is concerned. Michael Mason may be a stout hearted trier, but looks to be cannon fodder for Ricky Ponting and co - if Chris Martin were to join forces with Bond and Gillespie instead, the Aussies might have a bit to think about. Not too sure about Andre Adams either - the selectors might have done better to bolster the batting by adding Mathew Sinclair or Lou Vincent. Or, if they really wanted someone with allround skills, I would have gone back to Chris Harris (still performing reliably for Cantebury). In the previous article, I had talked about how 'utility' players were a constant fixture in the Australian side adopting the rotation policy. There seems to be a parallel here of packing the side with too many bowling allrounders, such as Adams, Franklin and Vettori, in the hope they may strengthen the batting. The latter two may be indispensible, but specialists are the need of the hour. Which is why Vettori should go back to being a number 8 or 9.