KEY POINTS:
For two years now the Black Caps' top order has been bad. Ingloriously inept. Deficient in the ancient art of run-making.
Not a single player has put his hand up and made a cast-iron case for inclusion in the top five - including the once-untouchables, Stephen Fleming and
Nathan Astle.
The fact is New Zealand's premier batsmen have been, collectively, chronically short of runs for two long, floodlit years - since Sri Lanka came here on the tsunami-aborted tour at the end of 2004.
In 35 one-dayers since then, New Zealand's batsmen have been woeful. The fact New Zealand has won 18 of those matches is testament to its competitive attack, local conditions, and gutsy lower order.
So the question is not 'what can they do about it?', but rather 'why wasn't anything done sooner?' There is culpability here, not just on the part of the under-performing top five but on the four wise men who are paid to pick the best side this country of limited means can offer.
Perhaps they listen and believe someone like Tom Moody who last week said the batting problems had been overstated. "It's easy to point the finger at the batting now," he said with unerring accuracy, "but you might find in the CB Series the likes of [Ross] Taylor or [Hamish] Marshall suddenly establish themselves as top-notch international players."
That seemed to be the way John Bracewell was leaning as well when he arrived in Hobart for the Tri-series that starts for New Zealand today.
"It's just a glitch," he said of New Zealand's capitulation for 73 in the fourth ODI against Sri Lanka. "The guys are determined to put it right. It's just a glitch; I don't see it as any deeper than that."
But if an armchair critic with a computer can go to any number of statistics databases and find some horrific trends, then what have those who are leading this cricket team been doing?
Take, for example, the fact that since Christmas 2004, New Zealand's top five have registered 63 scores of under 10 (or, to put it more bluntly, have failed), while at the same time scoring more than 50 just 38 times.
It's not particularly scientific, but it's an indicator of where our batting stocks stand.
That's the cream of this country's batsmanship. Those two figures should be - if not 50/50 - then at least significantly better than the above ratio.
Just look at Australia. In the past 35 ODIs, their top five have posted 55 scores of more than 50, and 50 scores of under 10.
Even South Africa, who are in a 'rebuilding' period in their top order, have registered only 45 failures in that same period.
India and the West Indies have registered only slightly more failures than half centuries in their respective top orders during that time.
Even more glaring have been the horrific positions in which the Black Caps' top five have left their team. Just five times in the past 35 matches has the fourth wicket fallen with the total 200 or more.
It has fallen 15 times with the total less than 100.
While good bowling is nice, it is generally accepted that runs win ODIs. Your top five win ODIs.
Almost without exception, they have time to formulate meaningful innings whereas those batting at No 6 and lower often have to push hard from the outset. They also have the benefit of batting with the field up, meaning boundaries are a lot easier to come by.
While the controversial r-o-t-a-t-i-o-n policy has borne the brunt of much scorn and mockery, the truth is it has had precious little to do with New Zealand's plight. While the application of the theory might have been injudicious, it is not to blame.
Stephen Fleming perhaps said it best: "Coming in and out [of the side] is not a major factor - a couple of days off here and there is not an excuse - the guys have played enough cricket."
He's dead right. Ill-advised or not, with close to 25,000 international runs between them, if Fleming and Astle get spooked by a few days off here and there, they're part of the problem, not the solution.
The only part difficult to believe is not why players are shuffled in and out, but how so many have managed to survive for so long.
Step forward Hamish Marshall. In two years, he has failed 11 times while passing 50 just twice when batting No 5 or higher (he has now been shuffled into a No 7, or 'closer', position). Nobody can make a claim to be an international quality batsman when they are five times more likely to fail than succeed.
Fleming's past two years have been a strange mixture of failure and success with little middle ground. Like Marshall, he's been dismissed for less than 10 some 11 times, while raising his bat eight times.
Lou Vincent is another to have struggled and it is perhaps no surprise he is no longer in favour, having failed 11 times while passing 50 just five times.
Only specialist No 5 Scott Styris can claim to be doing his bit for the team. He has scored more than 50 five times, while failing five times as well.
There's a hoary old chestnut so beloved of cricketers that goes "form is temporary, class is permanent".
If that is the case, then New Zealand have some distinctly middle-class players.
Reasons not to be cheerful
No Chris Cairns safety net
With the big man primed for the later overs, the top order could bat in the confidence they had a bona fide match-winner to come in after them. There was hope that Jacob Oram would take over that mantle but, with just three 50s in 66 ODI innings and an average of 18.7, it is beginning to look a forlorn hope.
Lack of a really smart one-day specialist
The last New Zealand top order player who had a game tailor-made for one-day cricket was Roger Twose. The left-hander was crafty at the crease, always had a plan and though probably not test class, made the most of his ability in the shorter game. He averaged 38.8 runs and had an excellent strike rate of 75.4, far superior to many batsmen who are more flamboyant but less consistent, such as Nathan Astle and Craig McMillan.
Older eyes, slower hands
New Zealand's kingpins remain Stephen Fleming and Astle. They happen to suffer the same affliction that gets us all - every day, they get older. Astle in particular is an eye-hand player and it might just be that they're not as sharp as they used to be (although it must be said he is coming off a solid 2006). Their experience and ability will mean they still have their share of scores but the failures might increase also.
Tale of woe in the top five
If 50 or more represents a success and less than 10 a failure, this is how those who have batted more than five times in New Zealand's top order in the past two years (35 matches) have fared.
Stephen Fleming (28 innings): eight successes, 11 failures
Nathan Astle (30 innings): eight successes, nine failures
Hamish Marshall (23 innings): two successes, 11 failures
Lou Vincent (23 innings): five successes, 11 failures
Scott Styris (17 innings): five successes, four failures
Peter Fulton (12 innings): three successes, five failures