The West Indies test cricket team has come and been bowled over. It will now be March before the New Zealand team is again playing the long-form game.
In the meantime, the followers of the sport are exposed to a total of 22 one-day internationals and twenty/20 matches.
Because of the success of overseas twenty/20 leagues and because of the small crowds at test matches in most of the world - England, India and Australia can be exceptions - the future of test cricket is questioned regularly. In a fast-paced age of instant gratification, an up to five-day event can seem a tired throw-back to the past.
The issue has been again debated in New Zealand over the past few days, especially as the Black Caps have limited opportunities against the top teams of Australia, England and India. The West Indies test team itself is hollowed-out by the absence of stars who would rather play for the money in the twenty/20 leagues around the world.
For cricket purists, the matter is simple. Test cricket has so many subtleties, is so testing in so many ways, that it is superior. The shorter forms are fast-food, a quick and tasty hit that is soon forgotten. Tests are the banquet, to be savoured and remembered.
Many cricketers themselves prefer tests, although several of the ageing stars of the world game, including New Zealand's Brendon McCullum, have given up extended cricket and keep bashing away in twenty/20 leagues.
In India and Australia, in particular, the lucrative twenty/20 leagues draw the biggest crowds and the most cash. The tournaments also provide the fodder to fill the pay-television schedules.
Meanwhile, efforts are being made to modernise test cricket. The pink-ball day/night tests began last year in Adelaide when New Zealand played Australia, and the first such test in this country will be in Auckland next year against England.
Evening events capture bigger television audiences, and night tests seem here to stay.
Hopefully, too, the planned international test championship will add extra meaning to each test, putting matches into a wider competition and context.
There are also proposals for four-day tests. After all, the two West Indies tests were over within that time. Modern batsmen seem unable to sustain long innings, and less can be more. But does it really matter if some matches finish a day early? It is the potential for ebbs and flows over the four or five days which can make them so compelling, as does their variety. Given the pitches, the weather and the players, all sorts of outcomes are possible.
Test cricket is also built on strong historic foundations. Its statistics and records are part of its power and four-day tests could disrupt that.
Slow over rates are one of test cricket's frustrations. Momentum and intensity needs to be maintained through the 15 sessions. The fault is not just the time spent between overs and for stoppages, but with fast bowlers taking too long to get back to their mark between deliveries. They should bustle back like Otago and New Zealand's Neil Wagner.
The health of the following of a sport cannot be judged simply on spectators at the ground. As judged by traffic on online sites and newspaper readership, longer cricket would appear consistently to still be the number one format outside the shorter-form world cups. Most core supporters care far more about the results of tests than other internationals.
Generational changes could well come into play, undermining tests more in the coming years. In the meantime, New Zealand sports followers should revel in the complexities and skills of test cricket. We should value its rich traditions and celebrate that it comes from another era. Who knows? Test cricket's distinctiveness could become its primary asset.
