MEIKLE’S VIEW
That blasted Jacob Duffy.
If it was not for the Otago fast bowler, I would completely unleash and label what we have just seen in Zimbabwe as an outright farce.
Duffy is such a nice story — a top bloke, who grafted away for years before deservedly making his test debut for the Black Caps, and claiming his first two wickets — that my fury is a little tempered, as I do not want to devalue the greatest achievement of his career.
But let’s get honest here.
Zimbabwe should not be playing test cricket. They’re a joke, and while it is perfectly fine to celebrate the New Zealand men marking their biggest test win, indeed the third-biggest win for ANY team in the ultimate format, it is also justifiable to question what it all means.
The hapless Zimbos have played 128 tests. They have won 14 of those — a measly winning rate of 10.93% — and eight of those wins came when the Bangers were equally inept.
They are basically a club team who, for some reason, are retaining test status.
Can Zimbabwe get better without being allowed to stay in test cricket? Perhaps, perhaps not. But this isn’t a support group. Test cricket is, and should be, the preserve of the very best.
Only those nations who are equipped for the demands of five-day cricket should be allowed to play it.
In Zimbabwe’s case, they can barely survive five days over an entire series.
A closer look reveals this is a Zimbabwe team clinging on to their international status but soon to face a reckoning.
Their top six for the second test against New Zealand included 39-year-old Brendan Taylor, 38-year-old Sean Williams, and Craig Ervine, who turns 40 on Tuesday.
The rest are unproven kids, and it is almost cruel to keep serving them up as test cricket cannon fodder.
I know the Black Caps can "only play who is put in front of them", as they say.
But the basic pointlessness of this test series was revealed when, with the Kiwis at 601 for three after day two, people were openly salivating about the Black Caps pushing on to become the first test team to score over 1000 runs in an innings, and were pondering if Rachin Ravindra or Henry Nicholls — Henry Nicholls! — could have a crack at Brian Lara’s 400.
That is not test cricket. That is playground challenge stuff.
Another point is that, while the Black Caps have played plenty of good cricket in recent years, it is a stretch to say the XI for the second test was one that should be breaking all sorts of records.
In fact, you could name a completely separate XI that would have won the test quite comfortably.
Tom Latham, Kane Williamson, Glenn Phillips, Mark Chapman, Michael Bracewell, Nathan Smith, Kyle Jamieson, Lochie Ferguson, Will O’Rourke, Ajaz Patel, Ben Sears — you will never see that XI, but the fact it would likely beat a test nation by an innings speaks volumes.
Test wins should be hard-earned, and they should be memorable. This one was utterly forgettable. Though not for our man Duffy, obviously.
SECONI’S VIEW
Hayden, Hayden, Hayden.
Hopefully, that struck the right condescending tone.
Just because you endured a joyless season with the Highlanders, and can’t remember what winning feels like, that does not give you the right to dismiss the efforts of the mighty Black Caps or pile on the poor old Zimbabweans, who, in the words of every Highlanders coach ever, are doing their best.
What your hot take is missing is some historical context and deep, thoughtful analysis, which you won’t read here either.
And before you say, ‘hold on, you’re playing the man, not the ball,’ that is exactly what I’m doing.
Zimbabwe were terrible.
No.
Zimbabwe are terrible.
But listen up, my malcontent friend, now is not the time for snarky nitpicking or undermining opinions you fundamentally agree with.
Now is the time to revel in the beauty of Rachin Ravindra padding his batting average the way Kane Williamson could have done if he hadn’t opted to play in The Hundred instead.
It is time to celebrate Otago seamer Jacob Duffy claiming his maiden test wickets, or complain that the Southland right-armer went wicketless in the first innings.
Let us hold Zak Foulkes up to the light and prophesy the Second Coming.
Loosen that jaw because Henry Nicholls is back, baby, whether your teeth are clenched or not.
But every argument needs some structure and a coherent train of thought, so here is a list of the top four reasons Zimbabwe should retain their status as a test nation.
1. It gives former Otago coach Dion Ebrahim something to do. He is the Zimbabwe batting coach and, well, um ... yeah, it has not gone that well to be honest. They have lost nine, drawn one and won one of their last 11 tests.
2. One of the stats that got trundled out after the second test was that it was only the third time in history three players had scored 150 or more in an innings. Meikle will point to a stat like that as a reason to jettison Zimbabwe’s test status. Would he also have booted Don Bradman’s 1938 Australian team? They were pummelled by England by an innings and 579 runs at The Oval. Len Hutton (364), Maurice Leyland (187) and Joe Hardstaff (169) provided the backbone for England’s colossal first innings total of 903/7. Bradman got injured while bowling and Jack Fingleton did not bat either. But Australia were routed for 201 and 123. Actually, maybe Meikle is right. They should have booted Australia.
3. So what if Zimbabwe have a winning percentage of a shade under 11%? A lack of success has not thwarted Meikle’s beloved Highlanders nor put the Black Caps off. It took New Zealand 26 years and 45 tests to post their first win in the format. New Zealand’s overall winning percentage is just 25.20 — only Bangladesh (14.93%) and Zimbabwe have a worse record.
4. Computer says no. "Zimbabwe should keep its test status, but the ICC should push for stronger development pathways and better governance to improve competitiveness." (Thanks, ChatGPT.) — sport@odt.co.nz
