Triumph for New Zealand planning produces great win

Five wickets for Shane Bond, a first Test victory in the West Indies - only the fourth time they have lost in Barbados in 39 Tests - and all with a day to spare. What a day for New Zealand cricket.

The manner of the triumph makes the moment all the more satisfying, especially when remembering some of the trials previous New Zealand teams have had in trying to win in the West Indies.

Players like Glenn Turner, Bevan Congdon, Bruce Taylor, Geoff Howarth, Ken Rutherford, Jeremy Coney and many others will all appreciate what a triumph this has been.

The 51st Test victory by the side caps what has been a remarkable season for New Zealand.

It has been a time of innovation but it has also been a demonstration of the worth of a genuine fast bowler in Bond.

What a triumph also for New Zealand Cricket and their policy of taking Bond to Darwin to help him prepare in good conditions for this trip. Add in also wicket-keeper batsman Robbie Hart who played such a key hand with his first innings half-century and also Mark Richardson who scored key runs at the top of the first innings.

Surely this result has allowed New Zealand cricket to shrug off some of the perceptions of their own doubting public.

The criticism of New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming's decision not to enforce the follow-on in this country defied belief.

For a start, he was in Barbados, his critics were not.

But it is doubtful Fleming had ever been in a more powerful position in a match. He had three days to play with and was able to call all the shots.

His bowlers did exceptionally well to knock the West Indies over so cheaply in the first innings. And certainly the requirement of the bowlers had not been exceptional.

However, it is worth remembering that his main strike weapon Bond was still making his first tentative steps back from a broken foot while his spinner Daniel Vettori was still on a managed work load.

Surely keeping them fresher for later in the match and, more importantly, for the second Test to follow, was a far greater requirement for Fleming.

For anyone to claim that if the players were not capable of bowling with a normal work load then they should not have been playing was to have ignored the last decade of Test history for New Zealand.

Such criticism lives in the realm of fairyland. It is not worth pondering the thought of what might have happened had a West Indian batsman or two got settled in and worked the New Zealand bowling around. Fleming never allowed that eventuality to occur and his position was the stronger for it.

And if the West Indians were as exhausted as many of them claim, then why not put them back out in the field for another day while you build a position of utmost ascendancy. Every run you score leaves them with the knowledge that they face the devil of a job to save the match.

This has been a clinical and outstanding display of thinking.

It is about time some of the critics of the New Zealand captain gave him his due for having become the most successful leader in the game in this country's history and while there may be times when his field placings upset traditionalists, he has nevertheless achieved a record of significance when so often he has been denied the full strength in his attack that he would like.

He isn't the first captain not to have asked the opposition to follow-on. When New Zealand won their second Test, at Cape Town in 1961/62, John Reid decided not to ask South Africa to follow on. His position wasn't as powerful as that of Fleming, but he knew the situation best and how his attack could best cope.

This is a significant achievement in New Zealand cricket history. The first Test victory in the West Indies has been a long time coming but it completes the set of victories against every country overseas now, apart from Bangladesh where New Zealand has still to tour.