Wellington, Jan 3 : New Zealand's dismissal for 45 runs in the first innings of the first test against South Africa has deepened the gloom hanging over cricket in the country, threatening its status as the nation's most popular summer sport.
Fans expressed dismay on cricket forums and social networking sites on Thursday over the New Zealand team's latest on-field calamity—its dismissal in Cape Town in less than 20 overs for its third-lowest test total ever.
The poor showing followed a series of administrative missteps and public relations blunders which have tarnished the sport's image and popularity in the country.
Amid a general venting of anger online, disgruntled fans also warned they could start to switch off their television sets and boycott local games, exacerbating cricket's already fragile condition.
Many fans who posted reactions to New Zealand's anemic first innings on Wednesday said they were unlikely to attend matches when England tours the country next month because of their lack of confidence in the national team.
Others said they would stop watching Black Caps matches on television altogether, unable to stand any more disappointments.
While the fan postings could be viewed as a natural, emotional response to one of the worst days in New Zealand's cricket history, they also contained a deeper loss of faith in the future of the sport in the country.
Cricket New Zealand's messy handling of the sacking of former captain Ross Taylor last month alienated many fans. Coach Mike Hesson not only sacked the popular Taylor days before a test match in which he scored a century and a half century to lead the team to an unexpected victory, but Cricket New Zealand then appeared to deliberately confuse the details of his sacking.
The evasiveness turned an already divisive decision into a public relations disaster.
Fans still had that in mind when New Zealand, in its first test under new captain Brendon McCullum, sank to new depths on Wednesday.
After New Zealand's poor showing, South Africa reached 252-3 at stumps to take a commanding 207-run lead.
One New Zealand fan sarcastically wrote on Twitter, “this chap named Extras got the third-highest score (7) in this innings. Could he be the new captain?”
Grant Robertson, the deputy leader of the opposition Labour Party, tweeted “if you have children watching, send them to bed, this will traumatize them for their cricketing life.”
It wasn't an isolated poor performance. In recent years, New Zealand has slipped to the bottom of the world rankings in test cricket and even in one-day cricket, at which it once excelled.
Occasional glimmers of hope, such as its test win over Australia in Hobart in late 2011, have all been quickly extinguished.
Coaches have come and gone, most notably the former New Zealand opening batsman and successful India coach John Wright, who walked away from the team last year.
Wright hinted strongly at dysfunction at the highest levels of the sport, particularly since the appointment of the former Australia coach John Buchanan as New Zealand's director of cricket.
Buchanan subsequently recruited Kim Littlejohn, a fellow Australian with a background in lawn bowls, as New Zealand's selection manager.
Buchanan's rigid, academic approach and Littlejohn's unfamiliarity with cricket and New Zealand players have been cited by many fans as factors in the sharp drop-off in New Zealand's performance in recent years.
But some point to a bigger problem: the rising influence of players. For years, New Zealand's top players, assisted by the New Zealand Cricket Players Association, have increased their power in all parts of the game.
They have more control over the appointment and removal of coaches, the selection of players and the choice of playing style and tactics.
Current captain McCullum, former captain Daniel Vettori and veterans such as Jacob Oram and Kyle Mills—still on national contracts despite their advancing ages and various injuries—have had exceptional say over how cricket is played in the country.
Their power has rendered some former coaches, such as the Englishman Andy Moles, effectively lame ducks.
Wright sought to limit the influence of players and seemed frustrated that he wasn't supported in that effort by Buchanan or the New Zealand Cricket Board.
The board itself has also come under criticism.
In choosing board members, New Zealand Cricket emphasized business knowledge over cricket knowledge. Now, acknowledging that may have been an error, the board will soon vote itself out of existence and be replaced with a new board, likely one heavier in cricket expertise.
Among its first duties may be to help set New Zealand cricket on a new path that won't result in a repeat of the embarrassing first-day 45 in Cape Town.
