If you didn't know whether to laugh or cry after New Zealand's heartbreaking loss to Australia in Wellington, here's a suggestion. Cry.
It was such a typical New Zealand thing to do, not going that little bit further and coming up with the win.
Contrary to some opinion, I don't believe the match represented a Black Caps resurrection - the Auckland game for my mind was simply a poor performance and should be regarded as just that.
However, despite a brilliant night's entertainment involving a most unlikely run chase, the bottom line is this: the Black Caps have now lost the series and another game they should have won. In the end, you would almost rather they had been bowled out for 100 than lose a game from what was as close as you can get to an unbeatable position.
With six runs needed off the last over, two wickets in hand and a bloke on 40-odd from 30 balls, they should have bolted home with four balls to spare.
What happened in the first game at Eden Park - losing out against one brilliant performance from Brett Lee - is part and parcel of cricket at this level. It happens when you spend all of your time playing against the best players in the game. So when you finally get into a winning position by playing out of your skin, you just CAN'T afford to lose.
From many long years of experience I can promise you this - if any of the other top one-day sides had been in the same position, with the momentum on their side, they would have belted one of the first two balls of Mick Lewis' final over for four, and walked off with the win.
For sure, Lewis bowled that final over well. But smacking another four would have been no different from what had been happening during New Zealand's domination for the previous hour and a half.
It was a typically New Zealand thing to do. It was embarrassing - that having played so well, for so long, we failed to close.
Indications are that the All Blacks might finally be coming up with the World Cup goods, but even they have made a habit of playing great rugby, then getting beaten in the semifinals. While our prospects look promising now, it wouldn't be a surprise if we blow up in the semis in 2007.
Because that, it seems, is what New Zealanders do, and have been doing for so long as any of us can remember. As for why, I don't know.
But I do know that the match in Wellington turned on one individual piece of brilliance - Michael Clark's throw which ran out Brendon McCullum.
And if the roles had been reversed, no one in the New Zealand dressing room would have backed any of our guys to make that throw under pressure with the game on the line. We all know what would have happened - it would have missed by six inches and Australia would have won.
Australia makes the big plays - time after time after time. That's the difference between the men and the boys. That's why they are ranked No 1 and we are No 7.
To make things worse, after you get involved in a few games like that, as I have, it gets harder to keep believing that you know how to win. The Black Caps will be very disappointed.
I was surprised to see Andrew Symonds bat the way he did. When I played against him we were never too worried. He was a reasonable player but rarely did much against us.
We had plenty of legends to worry about such as the Waughs, Warnie, McGrath etc, and he was way down the list of potential problems. Without having ever analysed him in great detail (we never really had too), I always felt he was a good player of average bowling who would struggle against the best.
Poor old Craig McMillan has looked confused for a few years now. He looks punch-drunk, because he cops so much stick and so often. I'm not sure if he knows if he is coming or going.
But the batters implemented a decent plan at the top of the order and I don't think McMillan is really an issue, although his long-term outlook is probably best described as clouded. They looked good as a unit, and the Jacob Oram/Chris Cairns/Brendon McCullum ensemble at the end looks very sound.
As for the bowling, let's hope that Shane Bond will return soon. In pace, there is a sameness to the attack without him, and he also creates pressure that the other players can feed off at the other end.
Without Bond our attack will again struggle. With him, it's a completely different game.
<EM>Adam Parore:</EM> We're not up to it when pressure is on
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.