The third test

Don't worry guys. Don't get upset at the result in the third test. John Bracewell says "If we're patient enough and we're persistent enough eventually we'll end up with an era of very good cricketers,".

"We can't afford to (panic), our cupboard isn't that full anyway. We've picked the right guys, it's just keep exposing them (to test cricket)."

Phew! So that's alright then.

Of course you could argue that John Bracewell has been whistling the same frickin' tune for four years. And you could also argue that the reason the frickin' cupboard is bare is that most of our decent players have quit rather than play under him.

You could also argue that Bracewell's last sentence doesn't make any sense. But that would just be picky.

If you can be bothered reading them, Dan Vettori offers some more excuses here.

Personally I am sick of excuses. So reading Scyld Berry in the Telegraph was kinda liberating. He just tells it as it is. We can't bat, and we don't have a decent bowler.

Looking at the third test through the retrospectoscope, you do have to ask one question though. Why on earth did we go into a test on a wicket famed for swing with four into-the-wicket bowlers and a spinner? Inserting England and letting them score 364 was criminal. Of course being knocked over for 123 and 232 was criminal too, but then we didn't leave our best batsmen for the conditions on the bench. Tim Southee would have been as much of a threat on that wicket as any of the English bowlers, but instead we picked four seamers. Madness.

Still, if there is one positive from this test match it is that the loss was not the result of a single bad session. It was the result of a whole bunch of bad sessions. And Bracewell has been calling for consistency, so we must see this a step in the right direction.