David Leggat: A three- test series is a proper test of a side's skills

Nathan McCullum of New Zealand. Photo / Getty Images

How Zimbabwe must have wished for a second test against New Zealand this week.

Come again, you say.

From their perspective they need as much test cricket as they can get. They would have been required to banish the negative thought processes which surrounded their desperate performance in the only test at Napier and make the most of their chances.

That would have given them two tests before the limited-overs component of their tour.

Three may have been pushing it - although those New Zealand players with a keen eye on numbers would have relished a chance to bolster averages - but in saying that tests should be played in chunks of three. As a rule that should be the absolute minimum. Two-test series are meaningless. They are not, ahem, a true test. Lose the first and there's no chance of bouncing back to win the series. Win the first and avoiding defeat in the rubber is a given.

Series need time to develop and take shape. There is an ebb and flow and a rhythm to a series. Two tests simply doesn't cut it.

In New Zealand's case, out of their last 13 "series", going back to 2008, just three have consisted of three matches - against India in 2009, Pakistan the following summer, both at home, and the trip to India in late 2010. Seven have been two-test campaigns with three one-offs, against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, twice. But lest anyone think it's simply the perceived second tier nations being given the bum's rush by a system overseen by the International Cricket Council, think again.

When Australia went to South Africa late last year, they lost the first test - rolled for just 47 in one innings - but scrapped back to level the series in the second.

What about the third, wailed the fans. Forget it said the planners.

Five of Australia's last eight test series have consisted of two matches.

Of South Africa's last six series, there has been an even split of three and two-test rubbers.

New Zealand have five test series between next month and the end of March next year. It is something of a curate's egg, though.

There is a two-test rubber in the Caribbean in mid-year; three against India away; two against Sri Lanka away, two against the South Africans in the republic at the end of the year and three when England arrive in the New Year.

Apart from the Indian trip the other series have been wrapped around T20s and ODIs.

Test cricket needs to be compelling. It is the supreme examination of a player's talents.

When played well it is also the sort of cricket the players most fondly remember, for all that it is invariably the version which finds it hardest to draw the crowds.

New Zealand's win in Hobart in December will sit with those players for the rest of their days.

When Pakistan were beating England in Abu Dhabi to take an unassailable 2-0 lead last week, officials threw open the gates, no charge. Crowds poured in. Considering the normal state of affairs when Pakistan are hosting a test in their home-away-from-home - vast tracts of deserted stands - it should strike a chord.

Remember the great majority of money comes from broadcasting deals, and put this in a New Zealand context. The turnstiles weren't exactly whirring at McLean Park last week. Would more people have turned up if admission was free? Would the loss in paying customers have made such a huge dent in the NZC coffers?

In terms of more eyes seeing test cricket and certainly helping the atmosphere, it's worth a thought for the future, although the next two series into New Zealand, South Africa and England, should be crowd-pullers.

If not, if spectators don't turn up in numbers, the problem will run deeper than we think.