What New Zealand Needs To Do To Become World Beaters

Growing up in India and New Zealand meant one thing was certain: there was always a rivalry between my Kiwi mates and I over who was the better cricket team.

I moved to New Zealand for the second time just after India had lost in the final of the World Cup (2003) and after a dismal tour of New Zealand where they lost 5-2 in the one dayers and the test series as well.

Therefore, I definitely copped the brunt of the shit talking from the kiwis.

But gradually, as I developed into a kiwi myself, I realized that there were definite points that they had made about Indian cricket which we needed to improve on (notice "we" being used for India).

India had developed as a tougher team under Saurav Ganguly and was finally willing to take the fight to the opposition, to fight fire with fire. However, India was lacking in fitness and consequently in its fielding and running between the wickets, or their "outcricket" as it is often denoted.

On the other hand though, New Zealand were strong in their outcricket, and herein I thought lied their problem: they paid too much focus to trying to develop their team as a professional unit that they forgot about developing the strokemakers and the wicket-takers.

What India lacked New Zealand had, but what New Zealand lacked, India had. India had the Sehwags and Tendulkars, and the Zaheer Khans and Harbhajan Singhs, but lacked the Chris Cairns, Chris Harris and Lou Vincents.

Six years on, and a college student in America, I've found it hard enough to follow Indian cricket, but even harder to follow NZ cricket since nobody wants to play it. Whenever I do get a chance though, I watch with fervour because after all, I grew into a kiwi.

Which brings me to the point of my article. Why has New Zealand cricket taken so long to develop a match-winning side? When will they have their time? They came awfully close when that genius Martin Crowe (who by the way, went to the same school as I did) orchestrated a revolutionary 1992 world cup at home, but they were to be denied by a young Inzamam Ul-Haq and a plucky Moin Khan one fine day in Auckland.

Let's dissect the current NZ ODI team. The opening positions have been of severe debate in many countries over the past year, not least NZ. Lou Vincent had seemed to have made the position his own over the past few years, but his move to the ICL following on an inconsistent run of form meant that NZ were still struggling to fill the holes left by Stephen Fleming and Nathan Astles retirement.

Martin Guptill has turned about to be quite a find, following up his debut century with a quickfire 40 odd against the Windies. He has come up through Premier Division club cricket, and through the Auckland team quite quickly through to the New Zealand team.

As far as one day cricket goes, he definitely has the capability and the temparement, although I still think he needs some more first-class experience for the test game.

The other opener currently is Brendon McCullum. We all know how explosive he can be, what with that 157* in a Twenty20 game in the IPL. However, I believe his best exploits in the one-day game have been batting in the lower-middle order at No. 7.

I don't think his style of play suits the moving new ball, and he is much more effective in partnership with Jacob Oram down at no. 7, as we have witnessed on so many occassions in previous Chappell Hadlee series.

In contrast, I would like to see Jesse Ryder move up the order to open the innings. Albeit being NZ's own Andrew Symonds, suffering from behavioural issues, he has matured and developed into a solid top order option for NZ.

He reminds one of Mark Greathbatch, who so skillfully became the forerunner for Jayasuriya and Kalu taking advantage of the fielding restrictions in one-day cricket. Jesse Ryder is my man for the job. Guptill and Ryder provide a solid and aggressive option for NZ, that can take advantage of the PowerPlays and can provide the right-left hand batting combination.

The Middle Order is very much in flux, especially due to a number of players being injured and a number of new players being tried out. Neil Broom belongs to the latter of these groups.

A quick glance at his Cricinfo profile shows that he comes from the same cricket club as Nathan Astle and Craig McMillan, not bad company to be in. His First-Class record is solid, with 5 centures and 14 fifties in 45 outings for Canterbury and Otago, with an average of 39. However, he still has to crack a century in the List A 50 over version of the game.

In contrast, Scott Styris represents a very experienced and solid option for NZ. Currently out due to injury, he is one of the most experienced players in the NZ one-day side. He will provide the base which the middle order will work around.

Grant Elliot has, in the ongoing Commonwealth Bank series, displayed the signs of a quality one-day player. His hundred signified something to me, that with less than twenty one day games, and not someone who has come up the ranks in NZ domestic cricket, he still scored a well-compiled one day hundred against Australia, away, in a pressure situation. That is the sign of a quality player to me, rather than having exceptional ability.

Ross Taylor is slowly developing into a complete one-day player. He has all the shots in the book, can change gears as required and is the best man to shoulder the responsibility of number 3. In contrast Peter Fulton doesn’t make the cut for me. He signified in this series that he is a stop-start player.

He hasn’t been able to score heavily consistently, with only one hundred in almost 50 one dayers, with a sub-33 average, not what your number three batsman should be scoring.

Jacob Oram has been missing from this series. That statement signifies two things. Number one, New Zealand has done well in this series, pushing Australia, and has showed that it could survive without Oram’s all-round abilities.

The other, more significant derivative of this situation is that when he returns, New Zealand will appear a much stronger side, with their middle order boosted with that number six position going to Oram, which he has made his own, and, if able, boosted by his accurate seam bowling.

Finally to the bowling; Daniel Vettori has shouldered the responsibility of leading the attack for several years now, and in the absence of Shane Bond, who has escaped to the ICL, he is by far the most experienced bowler.

He has perplexed Australian batsman with his guile, change of pace, and other variations which has made it difficult for them to score heavily in the middle overs, often the deciding factor in one day matches.

Jeetan Patel is developing as a strong support bowler for Vettori. It gives New Zealand an option in subcontinental, turning tracks and in the build-up to the World Cup it is a boon for New Zealand to have two front-line spinners with good experience at hand. Ian O’Brien has come to the party recently, both in the one-dayers and in test cricket.

He has taken wickets, been a stock bowler for Vettori and with experience and form he can develop as a good supporting bowler for Mills and Southee. Mills provides a good all-round option for New Zealand, and being the leader of the quick-bowlers he has been consistent option for Vettori. Southee still has a way to go, as he lacks some consistency and can make better use of his skills with the bat.

Overall, things look good for New Zealand, however, there is one gap. They lack a out-and-out fast bowler, what Shane Bond provided them. Bond was not only quick, but was accurate, the second fastest bowler to 100 wickets in one-dayers (after Saqlain Mushtaq).

Bond provided New Zealand with that serious wicket-taking option, someone who could come in at any time and pick up a wicket for Vettori when the chips were down. Let’s hope the ban on ICL players playing international cricket is lifted by the New Zealand board, and Bond is allowed to represent New Zealand again.

If Bond is back, a good New Zealand starting eleven is,

1.      Jesse Ryder

2.      Martin Guptill

3.      Ross Taylor

4.      Scott Styris

5.      Grant Elliot

6.      Jacob Oram

7.      Brendon McCullum

8.      Kyle Mills

9.      Daniel Vettori

10.  Shane Bond

11.  Ian O’Brien

The above side, with Southee, Patel, Broom and McCullum’s younger brother Nathan McCullum good backups is a strong potential squad for the World Cup in 2011, which by the way is less than 2 years away. Take Bond out of that equation and that side looks a lot weaker.

All in all, this side is developing well. Some more experience playing against the top sides, like the series against India coming up, experience in the IPL and the Twenty20 World Cup (I am a strong believer that Twenty20 hones good skills for 50 over cricket), will give this team the confidence they need to become world beaters.