In the classical strike scenario the bosses are often pictured as needing PR spin-doctors to sanitise their case and protect their wish for secrecy, while the nothing-to-hide workers usually rely on the sympathy and support of an impartial public. Well, cricket in New Zealand managed to turn all that around during the October standoff between the establishment - New Zealand Cricket and the strident, union-motivated New Zealand Cricket Players' Association. By the time both sides decided to stop this nonsense on Nov 4, NZC and its unflappable chief executive Martin Snedden were the popular heroes, and the NZCPA and its hard-nosed negotiator Rob Nichol were the tiresome and sometimes witless villains.

However, for five weeks or so it was a potentially disastrous dispute. The 128 members of the NZCPA, including all those of international rank, were on strike. India's tour in December-January was in jeopardy. The Tests, ODIs, and domestic four- and one-day matches among the six major associations would have had to rely on second-tier players if NZCPA members didn't break the strike.

The public outcry was considerable, radio talkback and newspaper editorials demanded common sense - and New Zealand's 90,000-odd recreational players were looking at their country's darkest cricketing hour. Jagmohan Dalmiya, the Indian board president, did New Zealand a good turn by saying that India would tour anyway, and play against whatever opposition was fielded. That worried the top players - they could see their present salaries going to other non-union novices, and the riches of the 2003 World Cup disappearing into someone else's pockets.

And so the players' association blinked first. Nichol was dropped as the negotiator, and Snedden succeeded in his bid to talk directly to the players. Chris Cairns and Stephen Fleming, the senior men, helped Snedden do some tweaking to the proposed payment scale, and peace broke out.

The financial fallout went like this. A revised NZC pay-scale offered an international and domestic payment pool of $NZ4.7 million. The NZCPA, sensing heavy income from the Indian tour and later ICC disbursements, wanted the players' money lifted to $NZ7.2 million. NZC offered other items, such as producing a new pay-scale for all domestic players, but said it could barely meet all its domestic commitments even after the $NZ4.7 million player allocation. In the Fleming-Cairns compromise, Snedden raised the pool to a million.

Snedden, who has gained a fine reputation for doing sensitive business in the open (such as player-conduct inquiries) had fired the first and decisive shot when he released a 22-page document listing all of NZC's financial obligations, to Test cricket at the top to seven-year-olds at the bottom. The NZCPA was furious at this release, for it laid bare the international players' salaries, and exposed the fact that the extra money they wanted for the top dogs meant less at the bottom of the pile. The average wage in New Zealand is $NZ35,000 a year. Yet here were the top Kiwi cricketers reaching into the $NZ200,000-300,000 stratosphere. And, judging by their low international rankings, not worth half as much. Joe Public did not like that.

The NZCPA had neither the infrastructure nor the skill to develop a solid publicity campaign. Nichol, a 31-year-old with a BCom and some talent as an entrepreneurial go-getter, came across as a humourless man who might have trade-union inclinations but lacked a feel for the game. When NZC set down a final ultimatum - agree by 4pm on Nov 5 or we break off and deal directly with the players - the association tried to short-circuit them by staging a press conference at 2pm the same day, saying it would not accept the NZC demands.

It might have been shrewd timing, but the conference was a publicity disaster. Nichol sometimes interrupted questions, and at other times offered answers that were either off the point or quite obscure. Heath Mills (co-founder of the association and brother of the current NZ player Kyle) seemed sound, but mostly silent. The third NZCPA man was Dion Nash, perhaps on the grounds he was a former Test player and knew what he was talking about.

Nash had a fiery and often unfortunate temper when he played, and this showed through when the questioners kept on probing. Nash eventually complained about all the bad treatment he had suffered from NZC over the years, and the trouble he had with contracts and injuries (later denied), and as the clincher said that NZC used to give their top three or four players plenty of money - "and then to hell with the rest of them". You got the impression that Nash was not among the top three or four.

This angry flood was the final straw. The players realised that their leadership had completely alienated the public - a poll gave NZC 80 points and the players 20. It was typical, afterwards, that the players claimed a share of the victory. In terms of money they had gained rises of 11-18%. But through their disorganised, patently selfish and misdirected strike they will have left an uneasy feeling in the minds of New Zealand cricket enthusiasts.

And what of the peacemaker? Well, it seems as if Martin Snedden, the former Test medium-fast bowler, is an early candidate for administrator of the year.

Don Cameron is New Zealand's senior cricket writer.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd