IN 2015, when they were rebuilding their one-day international side, England ostentatiously tried to mimic New Zealand’s approach, with remarkable results. Now, when needing to reset their Test side, England would be wise to heed lessons from New Zealand once again.

Since the start of their home summer in 2013-14, New Zealand have enjoyed the finest era in their Test history.
They have won 37 Tests – including the inaugural World Test Championship final – and lost only 20, a win-loss record just beneath India and Australia. New Zealand’s record in this period – 1.85 victories for every defeat – is over twice as good as England’s return of 0.88 win for every defeat.

While it is easy for England to lament India’s demographic and financial heft and Australia’s climatic advantages, New Zealand’s hand is altogether less enviable. Cricket is not the national sport. The population is five million to England and Wales’ combined 59 million.

New Zealand Cricket has only one-eighth of the England & Wales Cricket Board’s revenue: £27.5 million to the ECB’s £207M. Yet they have achieved sustained excellence in Test cricket while their limited-overs sides thrive too.

There are two versions of the New Zealand tale. The first is the great man theory: essentially, that New Zealand’s success has been the result of a brilliant generation of players emerging in tandem. Kane Williamson, Tim Southee and Trent Boult, three of New Zealand’s finest ever players, were all born within 20 months of each other.

The second version of the New Zealand tale could be called the Whiggish view: that their rise has been an institutional triumph. With every passing year, this explanation becomes more compelling: that New Zealand’s success owes to more than just a coterie of exceptional players, but also to the broader system that the board have put in place.

For Rob Key now, in his first week as managing director of England men’s cricket, two aspects that have underpinned New Zealand’s Test rise are most relevant for England.
The first is pitches. Key has frequently lambasted the quality of county pitches; as Kent captain in 2008, he even called the ECB’s pitch inspection system ‘a Muppet Show’.

A generation ago in New Zealand, domestic pitches were held in equally low regard. From 1999 to 2000 to the end of 2004-05, batters in New Zealand averaged a paltry 27 runs between them – only fractionally higher than in the last five years of the County Championship.

The wickets seamed abundantly; bowlers had little need to do more that hit a length. Batters seldom had the chance to build long innings and rarely met bowlers of an ilk they would encounter if they graduated to Test cricket. Little wonder that New Zealand’s side were stuck in a funk.

The catalyst for change came in 2005. The New Zealand Cricket Players Association, the players’ union, pressured the board to introduce a ‘warrant of fitness’ – essentially, criteria for playing and practice facilities that any ground hosting domestic cricket had to meet.

Grounds men were not centrally contracted, but districts embraced their new responsibility to prepare wickets that were fit for purpose. The upshot has been that domestic pitches in New Zealand have gone from among the worst for batting to the most batting-friendly in the world. Since 2006-07, the overall batting average in New Zealand’s domestic cricket is 31.5 – 1.5 runs higher than in any other first-class domestic competition in this time.

“It has given batters the opportunity to bat for long periods and this has helped their preparation for Test cricket,” says Glenn Pocknall, the head coach of Wellington. “It’s challenged the pace bowlers to improve their skills or work on bowling quicker.” Spin is bowled more too.

New Zealand’s domestic system is now producing bowlers skilled with the new and old ball alike – Kyle Jamieson has taken 66 wickets at 18.7 apiece since his debut in 2020 – and batters, like Tom Latham, Henry Nicholls and Daryl Mitchell, with techniques well-suited to Test cricket.

New Zealand’s success in improving their pitches is tied to a broader area that England would do well to emulate: a culture that puts the national team first. Rather like the country’s rugby franchises, New Zealand’s provincial teams are designed to serve the national side: New Zealand Cricket even pays for a portion of each domestic head coach’s salary.

This symbiotic relationship means that New Zealand can drive domestic sides to put the national side first. The national head coach even occasionally influences domestic selection. Mike Hesson, head coach from 2012 to 2018, called up the Northern Districts head coach to ask if BJ Watling could be moved from an opener and specialist batter to a keeper-batter in the middle order;

Watling became arguably New Zealand’s best Test wicketkeeper. Promising young players are encouraged to move associations, even for only a season or two, to maximise their chances of game-time.
New Zealand’s provincial teams even accepted their schedules being pared back to serve the national team’s interests. In 2018, Cricket New Zealand reduced their domestic first-class programme from 10 rounds to eight in 2018 to fund more A-team fixtures. Like India, New Zealand have embraced the importance of A teams to bridge the gap between domestic and international cricket.

England have played just two first-class A matches at home since 2017, with counties opposed to the notion of losing their most promising players for A team fixtures. Little wonder that recent England debutants have been so ill-prepared: at the time of their Test debuts, the last 10 new players selected as specialist batters had played merely 18 Lions matches in total.

New Zealand’s vibrant A team programme has gone far to ensure that new players are Test-ready. Rachin Ravindra, an all-rounder who bowls spin, made his New Zealand A debut in the UAE before playing his first domestic game after excelling for New Zealand Under-19s. On Test debut in India in November, Ravindra batted unbeaten for 91 deliveries on the final day to clinch a draw.

New Zealand attest to how structural changes can produce a more robust domestic system, and players better-equipped to succeed in Test cricket. Yet the other lesson from New Zealand is altogether less palatable. Even if administrators fix a broken structure, it still takes another generation for players to emerge from the newly improved one. (The Telegraph)