Put aside pot smoking in South Africa, player revolt in the West Indies or rows over who is entitled to a share of cars won in Australia, the players' revolt of 2002 is the darkest day in New Zealand cricket history.

Even bomb blasts and the aftermath in Sri Lanka in 1993 pale in comparison to the body blow that has struck the game in this country as a result of the intransigent stance adopted by the players in their confrontation with New Zealand Cricket.

It is ironic that at a time when the New Zealand game has reached a position of prominence on the world scene, largely as the result of corrective procedures inflicted on the game in the fall-out from the centenary summer of 1994/95, the foundations developed are being chipped away by the players who have already benefited most from the increased stature of the game.

It is doubly ironic that the man at the helm of the game here, Martin Snedden was himself a players' advocate during the late-1980s.

However, New Zealand cricket changed today. It changed in a way that has never affected a sport in this country before.

A wedge has been driven between players, administrators and the cricket public that may never be healed.

Certainly, the players, should they ever play for New Zealand again, will find themselves on the receiving end of a level of criticism the likes of which they have never experienced before.

Cricket in this country has, in a sense, been Americanised with a level of industrial activity that can only be seen as the forerunner of what is to come in other sports.

It may be that the result of this stand-off sees New Zealand fielding a side well below strength in the forthcoming internationals. And it may be several years before the lofty status of third-ranked side in the world is achieved again.

And even if the break-up of the Players' Association occurs with some players opting to accept whatever offers they can, they also leave themselves open to further criticism.

The ball game has changed forever.

The fortunate thing for the longer term good of the game, which has recovered from disaster before in New Zealand, is that the infrastructure is in place to help younger players develop.

One of the benefits of the re-structuring of the New Zealand game has been the development of the High Performance Centre at Lincoln University. Its presence may be the most vital piece of strategic worth in the history of the game here as it becomes the focal point in re-establishing New Zealand's international game.

It appears that the sticking point in the negotiations, after all the rhetoric, was the share of the NZC financial pool that the players are entitled to. They want more, in line with other countries, notably Australia.

NZC, having put in place their programme, say they can't afford it.

The players want more disclosure on the last year of NZC's involvement in the International Cricket Council (ICC) payout from Global Cricket Corporation which has the ICC television rights until 2007.

NZC have a four-year plan as the base of their finances, the players want to know more about the fifth year.

Perhaps they are just unfortunate that the income from the fifth year will be outside the contract period for some of them.

Plenty of past New Zealand players could reflect similarly that the passage of time had also denied them financial rewards.

But that is the way the cricket cookie crumbles.

Equally, it would be irresponsible of NZC to commit to contractural arrangements beyond which they have some expectation or control.

No matter what else may happen in this whole saga, November 5, 2002 will serve as the greatest day of shame in the game in New Zealand.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of New Zealand Cricket.

© CricInfo