You would expect Norma Plummer to put the boot into New Zealand teams.
The West Coast Fever and former Australian coach is certainly not short of an opinion when it comes to the strength of New Zealand netball.
But this time she is joining, rather than leading the chorus.
Last week, former Australian captain Kathryn Harby-Williams sparked the debate when she suggested New Zealand should axe one of its five franchises. Her issue was with their performance and the numbers are hard to argue with.
New Zealand teams have had just six wins in Australia and a total of 34 wins against their Australian counterparts, whereas Australian teams have won 31 games in New Zealand and had a total of 91 wins against New Zealand teams.
It is not a great advertisement for netball in this country but fortunes can change rapidly in the ANZ Championship.
The New South Wales Swifts won the inaugural competition in 2008 and were expected to sweep all before them the following year. They slid all the way down the competition ladder to ninth, one place ahead of the hapless Central Pulse.
Coincidentally, the Melbourne Vixens won the tournament that year and then suffered a similar fate to the Swifts, slipping to seventh.
And just to hammer the point further, the Adelaide Thunderbirds missed the semifinals last year after winning the tournament the previous year.
The defending champion, the Queensland Firebirds, have an opportunity to break the mould this season. But what these examples highlight is form really is temporary.
The idea of culling a New Zealand team, based on performance, is nonsense, or at least that is how Netball New Zealand chief executive Raelene Castle sees it.
"Performance is cyclical," Castle said.
"We're only in the fifth year of the competition and we've had four different winners and we've had three different New Zealand teams make the playoff series. So we think the competition is working really well at the moment ... and on top of that, the games are as close as they have ever been."
Of more pressing concern to her is the financial performance of the five franchises and the national body has moved to address that issue. Earlier this year, its members voted to make significant changes to the management structure, which Netball New Zealand hopes will deliver new efficiencies when they are implemented later this year.
And cutting a team, even if Castle believed it was the right move to make, would not necessarily improve performance, deliver greater financial success or enhance the competition.
"We believe five teams is the right number to deliver on our performance goals of winning the Commonwealth Games and world netball champs.
"We also have commercial contracts in place with the broadcaster and other sponsors to have five New Zealand teams.
"If we had four teams, those contracts would need to be reviewed and valued downwards, so it does not mean by removing one team you would make them more financially sustainable.
"If we had four teams, we probably wouldn't be able to have any international imports, which we believe add colour and flavour to the competition."
Steel chairwoman Janet Copeland agreed with Castle's assessment.
"I'm concerned about the financial viability but I don't think chopping a team is the way forward."
Netball Southland and the Southern TeamCo, the company name for the Steel, recorded a consolidated deficit of $230,751 for the financial year ending November 30, 2011.
It was a significant setback but Copeland said the franchise was on track to at least break even in the current financial period.
The Steel has made considerable cuts to its player budget and is determined to "live within our means", she said.
"If we stop and look at it for a minute, I think our team is a great example of how the competition is working. There is not huge depth of top level players in New Zealand, so we've been forced to find younger players and bring them through.
"That has got to be good for the [Silver] Ferns long term. In our first year, with two brand new coaches and a whole brand new team, we've been competitive and I reckon that is a pretty good effort."
Copeland was also keen to point out there are nearly three times as many registered players in Australia (360,000) as in New Zealand (136,000), which perhaps goes some way towards explaining why the Australians win about three times as many games.
"It is a numbers game," she said.
"I think we punch way above our weight, especially down south. Our registered player numbers are really small and our financial base is really small."
