New Zealand's best bowler since Richard Hadlee, Shane Bond, had a career tarnished by injury that probably fell into the category of unfulfilled, rather than great © Getty Images

By Keith King, South Korea

New Zealand is such a small country (many cities have more people than New Zealand’s four million-odd inhabitants) that, in many ways, is insignificant on the world stage. Sport is one avenue through which New Zealand and New Zealanders have asserted themselves on the world stage. For a country its size, New Zealand has done remarkably well in many sporting codes, including rugby and rugby league, netball and softball.

For those that would argue (with some justification) that these are mere fringe sports in a global sense, New Zealanders have won both tennis and golf majors, made the semi-finals of the basketball World Championships and made the soccer World Cup finals twice (admittedly, they haven’t won a game yet once they have reached them). At the Summer Olympics, New Zealand has won 86 medals (which surprisingly enough is four times the number India, a country with a much greater population, has managed to win).

Arguably, though, the one sport at which New Zealanders are not as competitive as they should be, despite taking it seriously, is cricket. Since New Zealand’s introduction to Test cricket in 1930, the New Zealand team (they weren’t known as the Black Caps until much later) has usually been at the bottom or near the bottom of the heap, the worst team going round. It took 26 years and 45 tests for New Zealand to register their first Test win. Australia wouldn’t even play their neighbours for a 27-year gap between 1946 and 1973, which must be rated as the ultimate cricketing cold shoulder.

New Zealand has a win/loss ratio of 0.47, the lowest of all test teams barring Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (India has the next lowest win/loss ratio of 0.77, showing that it has not always been the powerhouse it is now). A brief respite was found with the introduction of Sri Lanka to Test cricket (the whipping boys of the 80s and early 90s) and then a more permanent one with the introduction of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, who now seem to be the only teams New Zealand can reliably beat in test matches.

New Zealand, of course, has had famous victories, including the one in Hobart over Australia recently, where Doug Bracewell played his second match-winning hand in three Tests. Tests matches are often won on the strength of one innings or one spell, and great players obviously come up with match-turning moments more often than average ones. This led to the observation that New Zealand’s lack of success may be due to the fact that there has been a lack of great players, the type of player that can single-handedly change a match.

The Australian team of the early 2000s could claim five or six greats, playing together at the same time. By contrast, only two New Zealanders would push for consideration in an all time World XI. One of them, Clarrie Grimmett, didn’t even play for New Zealand, instead leaving New Zealand as a largely unrecognised and unheralded youngster who eventually made his name in the baggy green of Australia, becoming the first player to take more than 200 Test wickets. It would be a stretch to claim Grimmett, the great Australian leg-spinner, for New Zealand.

The other great, of course, is Richard Hadlee, who stands head and shoulders above any of his countrymen. He is a true cricketing great. When Hadlee was at his peak, in the 1980s until his retirement in 1990, New Zealand actually won more games than they lost. He was New Zealand’s greatest match-winner.

Hadlee spearheaded a solid bowling line-up, that was described somewhat harshly but with some justification by Graham Gooch thus: it was like facing the “World XI at one end, and Ilford Second XI at the other”. Do any other New Zealanders aside from Hadlee (counting Grimmett as a New Zealander, while true, would be disingenuous in the extreme) qualify as greats?

In an attempt to arrive at an answer, first of all, I started with the time honoured equations: a great batsman averages 50.00 or more, a great bowler under 25.00. No batsmen from New Zealand who has played 20 or more matches has averaged more than 50.00. Martin Crowe has the highest average of 45.00, and for a decade (1985-1994), he was considered one of the world’s premier batsmen (he averaged almost 54.00 during this period, the highest for any batsmen who played more than 20 tests in this era).

Supporters of Crowe would argue that he was a great batsman and anyone who saw him bat during the 1991-92 World Cup would be likely to agree. Crowe had all the shots (or at least all the shots of that era), possessed a classical technique, was adept off both the front and back foot and was a deep thinker of the game. He was hampered both at the start and at the end of his career – at the start by being rushed into the New Zealand set-up before he was ready (a common occurrence in a country where true talent is so rare) and at the end by a crumbling body that he tried unsuccessfully to push past.

Crowe is without doubt New Zealand’s best ever batsmen and as such may be the only New Zealand batsman to be genuinely described as great. There’s been several very good batsmen, like Glenn Turner, Martin Donnelly, Stewie Dempster, Bert Sutcliffe and Stephen Fleming. Turner is probably the next best, averaging 44 in Tests and the owner of 100 first-class centuries. However, a lot of his finest work was done at the first-class level and he missed six years of international cricket at the peak of his powers after clashes with administration (ironically, given his hard-nosed approach to player management during his stints as the coach of the national side).

Bert Sutcliffe was a majestic player and played in a weak New Zealand team (he was never on the winning side in 42 Tests) but his average of 40.00 qualifies him only as a New Zealand great, not a great of the game. Fleming was a special player, hindered by a poor ratio of converting 50s into 100s, whose average of 40.00 ultimately meant he underperformed at the Test level. Dempster (15 innings) and Donnelly (12 innings) didn’t play enough Test cricket to be regarded greats, although both had formidable first-class records.

On the bowling front, only three New Zealand bowlers average lesser than 25.00, Hadlee being one of them. The other two are potential greats who both had question marks beside their names, due mainly to their longevity.

The first is Shane Bond, New Zealand’s best quick bowler since Hadlee, a bowler good enough to have the third-best strike-rate of all bowlers (50 wickets minimum) in Tests – he got a wicket every 38 balls – and, by the same criterion, the fifth-best strike-rate of all time in ODIs. He was on the winning side 10 out of his 18 matches, an astonishing strike-rate for a New Zealand player and a statistic that probably shows his value to the team. Unfortunately, injuries tarnished his legacy and his career probably falls into the category of unfulfilled, rather than great.

The other bowler is Jack Cowie, whose career was interrupted by the World War II, a player who only played nine Tests but played them outstandingly well (45 wickets with a strike-rate of 45.00 and an average of just under 22.00). He was praised, at that time, as an outstanding bowler, and in the words of Wisden “had he been an Australian, he might have been termed a wonder of the age”.

There are of course allrounders to consider. Allrounders have a special place in New Zealand cricket’s history. Being a cricketing country that shows fight, one more dependent on grit more than ability, New Zealand have often had players who can bat and bowl, reliant on them to do the jobs that other countries would leave to specialists. Apart from Hadlee, three allrounders come to mind: John Reid, Daniel Vettori and Chris Cairns.

Reid, who played from the mid-40s to the mid-60s, was a giant of the New Zealand game but his average in both batting and bowling of 33-odd shows someone who was competent at both skills but a true great at neither. Vettori is someone similar; he has shouldered New Zealand’s bowling attack for more than a decade and has done well with the bat. However, one feels that he while he dominates the game in New Zealand, he is not a true great of the international game.

Cairns overcame the folk hero legacy of his father and was, for a time, the world’s premier allrounder – one capable of shredding attacks and also capable of bowling wicket-taking balls on a regular basis (his strike-rate was an outstanding 53.00). His talent was so obvious that, at times, it felt like he had underachieved. His stats (batting average 33.00, bowling average 29.00) suggest otherwise and are comparable to Kapil Dev (batting average 31.00, bowling average 29.00) or even Ian Botham (batting average 33.00, bowling average 28.00), and are better than Andrew Flintoff’s (batting average 31.00, bowling average 32.00). Cairns has a valid claim to be one of the game’s great allrounders. What possibly counts against him is a failure to have an outstanding series against Australia, the dominant team of his era, à la Flintoff in the 2005 Ashes.

This started as an exercise to try and show that New Zealand has produced more than one great player. Martin Crowe is a probable, Cowie and Bond are both would-have-beens and Cairns is, maybe, under-appreciated. An obvious question would be why has New Zealand only produced one unquestionably great player in 80 years of test cricket?

Do all the best athletes in Zealand play rugby, leaving the scraps of the sporting gene pool for cricket? Is it because of the temperamental nature of our climate, the poor pitches that have blighted the first-class game (thankfully, this has improved over the past decade). Is it just representative of our small population base? Is it lower expectations?

In New Zealand cricket, the equation for greatness would seem to be a batting average higher than 40.00 and for bowling, an average of 30.00 and below – much less demanding numbers than the standard in other countries. Whatever it is, there’s still the hope that a Williamson, a Taylor or a Bracewell can swell the ranks of genuinely great New Zealand players.

From Keith King, South Korea

Daniel Vettori has scored more Test runs than anyone else at No. 8 © Getty Images

Another Test, and another disappointment for that long-suffering breed, the New Zealand cricket fan. New Zealand cricket has never been a powerhouse but currently, the team is ranked eighth out of 10 teams, with only Bangladesh and Zimbabwe below them. They had just beaten Zimbabwe in a Test, but only just.

Australia are far from the team they were five years ago, when the team list read like the roll-call of all-time greats. Now they are seen as vulnerable and the possibility of New Zealand beating Australia in a Test for the first time since 1993 had been written up in the New Zealand press, with even ex-players expressing that the game was New Zealand's to win. Such hyperbole ignored the fact that much like the All Blacks, there is never a bad Australian cricket team. Some just aren't as good as others.

It also ignored the fact that the New Zealand seam attack consisting of Chris Martin, Tim Southee and Doug Bracewell, while probably the best New Zealand has to offer, is still well short of being world class. Martin, the aging but seemingly tireless spearhead averaged over 70 in Tests against Australia; Southee, while highly promising, still averaged over 40 in Tests and Bracewell had only played in one, the one in Zimbabwe that the New Zealanders only just won. True, Daniel Vettori is a classy spin bowler but not the sort of bowler to run through Australia in Australia.

Much of the optimism stemmed from the fact that in Brendon McCullum, Martin Guptill, Kane Williamson, Ross Taylor and Jesse Ryder, New Zealand have an in-form top five that potentially could be world class, potentially the best that New Zealand has ever had. Of course, games aren’t played on potential or on paper and the now traditional collapse of the New Zealand top order losing 5-96 (repeated to worse effect in the second innings with 5-28) was followed by the traditional lower-order recovery.

It almost goes without saying that the recovery in this first innings was led by Daniel Vettori, former captain and selector of the team and its No. 1 allrounder. In short, Daniel Vettori is New Zealand cricket. But is he New Zealand’s best batsmen, a statement that is almost always made on ESPNcricinfo by commenters and fans whenever he comes out to bat, usually in a precarious position where his country needs some saving. Daniel Vettori with the weight of a country and batting order on his shoulders.

Vettori is an unlikely batting hero. Bespectacled and gangly, he has an unlikely presence at the crease. It's not a presence that would suggest permanence that must frustrate the opposition. But he has admirable qualities of concentration, of being able to rise to the occasion when it is needed (and it's needed frequently). He bats within his means, using a home-baked technique that plays to his strengths. He plays late with little footwork, finding gaps in the field by placing the ball in unusual areas. He is especially strong square on the off-side and is effective at taking balls off his hip for well-placed runs on the on-side.

Obviously, if you just take his average which hovers just above 30, he is some way from being the country’s best batsman. However, he is a candidate for the world’s most improved batsman. If you only look at his average from 2003, the year where he made his first Test century until now, he averages 40 runs per innings with six centuries (before 2003, his average was 16.25 with no centuries).

The batting numbers of New Zealand players in the time period between 2003 and 2011 reveals a few interesting facts. Vettori is the highest run-getter in the period, and has the fifth best average during this time (15 Tests minimum), outperforming the likes of Brendon McCullum.

Of course, it goes without saying that he has been our most valuable all-round player. He has played the role of both main attacking and main defensive bowler, often bowling himself into the ground. Martin is the only other player to have captured over 100 wickets in this period. Shane Bond was perhaps the only New Zealand bowler who was more important to the team than Vettori, but unfortunately Bond only managed to play 10 Tests in this period due to chronic injury concerns.

Several players including McCullum, a player of rare talent but questionable shot selection, have a lower batting average than Vettori. This would suggest that McCullum, for one has definitely underperformed as a Test player. So why doesn’t Vettori bat higher in the order, given that he is one of New Zealand’s best batsmen?

He does seemingly have an unflappable character, capable of performing in situations under high pressure. Despite his ability and his results, there has been a reluctance to push him higher up the order, a reluctance shared by selectors, fans and presumably by Vettori himself. After all, over the last eight years (64 Tests), Vettori has averaged more than what Hussain, Atherton, Hooper, Atapattu, Wright, Kapil Dev, Ranatunga and Botham did over their whole careers.

There still remains the feeling that he doesn’t belong in the top six of an international team. When he has batted in the top six, his average is about 30 (this figure will be skewed from times when he batted as a night watchman in the earlier part of his career). In contrast, he averages about 40 at No. 8 (he is in fact the most successful No. 8 batsman in the history of Test cricket). For the time being, Vettori will continue to serve as New Zealand’s lower order savior, trying to remedy the flaws inherent in the talented but inconsistent New Zealand top-order.

From Alan & Philip Sutherland, Australia

The benefits will flow both ways if a couple of New Zealand domestic sides join the Australian T20 competition
© Getty Images

The recent four-nil drubbing of the Black Caps by an improving Bangladesh, while good for cricket generally, must shine a spotlight on where New Zealand are heading with their domestic game.

The simple fact is that New Zealand is not a large country and cricket is not its national sport. In the hearts of most New Zealanders, cricket will always come a distant second to the All Blacks rugby team. With just over four million people, New Zealand has a smaller population than three of the six Australian states. Therefore, the task in running a quality domestic competition is so much harder for New Zealanders than it is for their Trans-Tasman neighbours.

In other sports, like netball, rugby, soccer and basketball, New Zealand has solved this problem by joining an Australasian competition. This could well be the future of Antipodean domestic limited-overs cricket too.

The main argument for such a move is an improved competitiveness for player development. During the 2010 Champions League Twenty20 tournament, the Central Districts hardly set the world on fire. They were easily a class below South Australia and Victoria. In a joint competition, two New Zealand teams (rather than six), possibly representing either of the two islands, would face the six current Australian states.

The other sports have shown that crowds will come to watch a local team play an Australian one, especially if they can reasonably be expected to see their side win. Home matches scheduled in a number of venues on both islands would help strengthen the local spectator base.

That is not to say that one would want to see the end of the Plunket Shield. There is no great merit in joint first-class arrangements, but one would hope that an increased exposure to tougher competition in the shorter versions would feed back into the Plunket Shield and, therefore, into the Test team. Playing under diverse Australian conditions will do up-and-coming New Zealand cricketers no harm at all. Neither will it harm Australian cricket, for the benefits flow both ways. Scheduling would become tighter, yet there is so much to gain that it must, at some point, be considered.

From Suhas Cadambi, India

	Shane Bond added a touch of genuine class to a workmanlike side © Getty Images

Why don't you go get him?
I'm his biggest fan
You gotta tell him
He's still the man.
- Calling Elvis by Dire Straits, 1991

Mark Knopfler's lyrics ring true when we attempt to sum up our feelings over the last two years of Shane Bond's career. Through the injuries, the hints at giving up Test cricket altogether, the 'defection' to the ICL, the forsaking of a last chance to have a crack at the Aussies, and the final ride into the sunset, we've found ourselves hoping - time and again - that this wouldn't be the end.

But instead of wondering "what might have been?" once more, those of us who had the pleasure of watching Bond in action can choose to reflect on what a strange, exciting trip it's been.

Where the top players of the decade regularly courted controversy, Shane Bond was one for whom universal admiration seemed to be reserved. He was a purists' delight, generating speed from a lovely, smooth action which belied the stress it inflicted on his body.

He also embodied quite a few attributes of the great fast bowlers of yesteryear; there was the judicious use of the bouncer which was reminiscent of Andy Roberts, there was the ability to swing and cut it both ways - an asset which served the late Malcolm Marshall so well, and there were those yorkers which took one back to Waqar Younis' heyday. My dad likened his approach to the wicket and delivery stride to that of Fred Trueman's, but where Fiery Fred was never short of a word or two for the batsman, 'Bondy' preferred to smile and let the ball do the talking.

He was one of those players whose deeds emptied bars and classrooms alike. I recall a cold December day at college in Bangalore, 2002; we had watched the Kiwi seamers dismantle India's batting on a greener-than-green pitch in Wellington earlier that morning on TV, yet all the excited talk was not of the injustice of having to play on that wicket, but of Bond's ripping, inswinging yorker which proved too good for an in-form Rahul Dravid.

While he did save some of his best efforts for the Indian line-up and Brian Lara, for my money Bond's ability to knock over quality batsmen was never more evident than during his debut ODI series, against the Aussies and South Africans. Aided by Stephen Fleming's astute captaincy, he exposed Ricky Ponting off the front foot, gave Steve Waugh a testing time, memorably yorked Adam Gilchrist, and provided journalists with the line "The name's Bond, Shane Bond, and he likes his Martyns shaken not stirred".

Post-2005, following his return from a two year injury-enforced absence, Bond was a slightly different beast. Fitness issues meant he wasn't quite the all-out destructive force of early 2003; yet, he had added subtle variations and changes of pace to his armoury, and was more accurate than before. His performances on the slow Carribean pitches during the 2007 World Cup - where he took 13 wickets at 16 apiece with an economy rate of 3 an over - showed him to have evolved into a thinking man's bowler.

His final stint with the national side saw an increased reliance on the slower ball and the slower bouncer (especially in T20 games), but every now and then the magic of old would still resurface. Fittingly, a match-winning eight-wicket haul in his final Test against Pakistan last November left us asking for more.

Unfortunately, looking back at Bond's finest moments provides a sobering reminder of New Zealand's place in the scheme of things and their struggle for identity as a cricketing nation. That debut tri-series is now remembered for the axing of the Waugh brothers, if anything, and NZ's three straight victories against the Aussies did little to improve their perceived credibility as a touring side. Bond's 6-23 in the World Cup game in Port Elizabeth was a masterclass in strike bowling, but it was Brett Lee's haul which proved to be the match-winning one. He bowled New Zealand to their first ever series victory in the Caribbean against Lara's side in 2002, but they have never been invited back since.

Still, it can't be denied that New Zealand were a stronger outfit and won more regularly with Bond around, and he gave a workmanlike side a touch of genuine class. Bond probably didn't play enough Test cricket to be regarded as a 'great'. He will likely be remembered in the same manner as Frank Tyson or Lawrence Rowe, cricketers closely tied in with their particular eras, yet much revered by those who got to watch them.

His decision to quit while ahead was an intriguing one; it suggested he might have felt there was more to a cricketing life than seeing out one's days in the IPL. However, this is a sad thing for us because we won't have the consolation of watching him bowl for the Kolkata Knight Riders. Again, our collective thoughts appear to have been echoed in Mark Knopfler's musical account of the fan desperately trying to get through to Elvis Presley: "Don't you think maybe, you could put him on?"

From David Balme, New Zealand

Had the Champions Trophy gone ahead as scheduled, this tournament would be only relevant for who is here - not in Pakistan. Now it is a tournament that previews a Border-Gavaskar Trophy, and gives a window on the future of New Zealand Cricket.

New Zealand need to find a couple more international players to make an international team, they have been described as rebuilding, this means the only international players they had last generation are gone; not that the house fell down, as it seems to be doing as I write with Bangladesh. But rather, some have moved down the road to the rest home and none have yet stepped up from high school to fill there boots. India has home advantage, they are at home, yes, but sometimes you wonder if this is a blessing or a hindrance with the scrutiny they get. More importantly they have a large group with international experience. This reflects a combination of the Indian selection panel being indecisive, and the amount of cricket played by India. At least a couple of the top order they would put out could be a near automatic selection in the top team in New Zealand.

The New Zealand A squad is a mixture of those who have been in and out of the NZ top squad, and seasoned domestic campaigners who have strung two good seasons together. Reflective of its true strength would be a comparison of the batting averages, only Fulton has a first class average over 40. The batting might struggle either against Australian pace or Indian Spin. Their strength is they will become a team faster than the other two sides. The weakness is the question; do they have a quality anywhere on the field to succeed? Particularly can they conquer a tendency to face to many dot balls between the power plays and over 40? Players to watch Overall: Peter Fulton: A right-hand top order batsman. Tall, able to play pace and spin, correct all around the clock, and with a full ODI hundred. Fulton is near unique in the current NZ domestic scene, he averages >40 in First class and >30 in List A cricket. Last year was a terrible time to step up to the test number 3 spot.

Batting: Neil Broom: A right-hand middle order batsman. Broom had been a quiet achieve, with lots of contributions, but to few big scores. His average in the high 30's in both forms shows ability, but the chances to step up under pressure have not occurred - this is a chance to shine.

Bowling: Jeetan Patel: Off-Spinner. Patel has not got a great record, welcome to the life of a spinner in Australasia, but has played above himself in a NZ shirt. Also a death bowling specialist, something NZ always needs. These should be his conditions for a change.

Australia A have the most battle hardened players on show, it is clear that in the last two decades, anyone regularly making an Australian domestic team could be close to international cricket elsewhere. Their strength is aggressive batsmen capable of big scores fast, and aggressive pace bowlers capable of big halls. The weakness is spin.

Cameron White has yet to show even a domestic level of spin ability, he should be targeted by the Indian batting. Players to watch Overall: Cameron White: A right-hand middle order batsman, and Leg spin bowler. His batting should win games, captaincy might win games, and his bowling could lose games. Using his bowlers well and stepping up his own bowling effort will be the keys for success.

Batting: Adam Voges: A right-hand middle order batsman. Seems the most likely to step up a class, particularly in the one day arena. Hits hard and often, also very at good at closing an innings. Voges needs to learn how to score hundreds to become an international, hopefully this is the message from the selectors. As such he should bat higher than 6.

Bowler: Doug Bollinger: A left-arm quick, Bollinger had a very poor record till last season he sparked. Could play in the Border-Gavaskar, left arm quicks are valued everywhere.

A Point to Prove, Shaun Tait: Has shown in the past that he is the quickest bowler around at the moment. Is he well rested, or will the scatter gun miss the target. He needs to learn control and some variation in is second life.

Possible Performer: Peter Siddle: Has had good reviews and has also been noticed by the Australian selection panel. His record looks excellent. If he can stay fit enough to show it.

India A This is a line up some nations would want to swap with whole sale. It's time that the players who have been there step up, and the ones who want a go to show that they have got it. The batting is a mix of those who couldn't keep a place higher up and those who deserve a go. It looks, skilled, inventive, hard hitting, and competent. The pace attack is not sharp, but should be skilled. The spinners are useful with Chawla's leg spin likely to be telling. It is a surprise that a third spinner has not been selected.

India A's strength is that they have the longest middle order in the competition with some capable batters right down to the more experienced bowlers. Both the other sides look a bit weak at this level after number 6. The weakness is teamwork. So many of the players in this India A side will be looking out for themselves, they may forget that the team needs to win too.

Selecting a batting order here will be a nightmare. The biggest problem will be leaving quality players too late in the order to have an effect. Badrinath should bat high enough to show his class as a constructor of big innings as he has never been given the top team chance the others have.

A Point to Prove, Robin Uthappa: Is capable of more than he has shown recently. He also has the advantage of 50 overs to bat. He should be capable of influential innings.

Enjoy the tournament.