Dana Johannsen: Cutting NZ franchise not the solution to lack of depth

Another round, another handful of embarrassing losses to New Zealand sides against their transtasman rivals.

And so the inevitable calls for a Kiwi team to be ditched from the ANZ Championship grow louder.

Even former cricketers are weighing in to the debate on radio, suggesting with New Zealand lagging behind Australia in the depth stakes, the only way to be competitive is to drop a team.

This argument, that has reared its head for the past two seasons, is rather simplistic. If depth is the problem then the answer isn't to cut a team.

Surely reducing the number of development pathways for young up and coming netballers is only going to exacerbate the situation.

Netball New Zealand should be fiercely protecting these pathways for they simply cannot afford to lose a team in the transtasman league. With only four Kiwi sides in the competition New Zealand's elite player stocks would be reduced dramatically.

It would mean there would be just 48 spots open to New Zealand players. Some of these places would inevitably be taken up by imports and former Kiwi internationals with no desire to wear the black dress again.

Therefore the number of players actually available for New Zealand selection would be more like 35 and it wouldn't be long before the Silver Ferns' performances would drop away.

It is not just Netball NZ advocating strongly for the five-five split.

While Australian coach Norma Plummer has said a New Zealand team should be axed, that does not appear to be the view shared around the Netball Australia boardroom table.

There are a whole lot of commercial reasons why the five-five split is important to the Australians.

The championship is an equal partnership between Netball NZ and their Australian counterparts. The strategy behind establishing a transtasman league was because effectively each country had what the other wanted.

Australia had seen the sport in New Zealand flourish under free-to-air exposure and recognised the opportunity to grow the commercial part of their business through a major broadcasting deal.

They also needed the corporate experience that Netball NZ could bring to the boardroom.

New Zealand, on the other hand, realised that the game had become as mature as it could under the National Bank Cup model and wanted the opportunity to develop their athletes through a tougher league.

But to get the competition off the ground, 90 per cent of the commercial revenue that underwrites the league came out of New Zealand.

Netball NZ were happy with this as they knew that if they could help develop the same level of interest and commercial support in Australia as New Zealand enjoyed, then as 50 per cent shareholders, they stood to gain a significant return in the coming years.

Now Australia have a free-to-air broadcasting deal and are experiencing huge commercial growth, it would be incredibly cheeky for them to turn around and say 'thanks for the leg-up, but you Kee-wees just aren't as good at netball as us, so how about you flick us one of your franchise licences as well?'

But eventually the two national bodies will have to recognise there are wider forces at play. I think it is inevitable that once the competition has matured, Australia's presence in the league will be increased to reflect the proportional player numbers.

But any such expansion should not be at the expense of a New Zealand team.