Captain praises McCullum and Styris after New Zealand fightback

Zimbabwe had made a good start batting first to reach 58 for one in the seventh over. But the bowling of man-of-the match McCullum (three for 16) and Styris (three for five) saw them lose their last nine wickets for just 26 runs, falling to 84 all out. Rain then forced the players off with New Zealand on 36 for one after 8.1 overs in reply, and with the weather not abating the Black Caps were winners by seven runs under the Duckworth-Lewis method.

Vettori said: "After a tough start it was good to fight back in those middle stages particularly with Nathan McCullum and Scott Styris, those two three-wicket overs really helped us. I think we knew it would be a difficult wicket to bat on later on with Zimbabwe having so many spin bowlers but the confidence in the middles stages, which we have shown in a number of twenty20 games, was there and we were pleased with it again today."

Meanwhile, one of the men behind the Duckworth-Lewis method has called on England captain Paul Collingwood to look a little closer to home before he is tempted into any further criticism of the rule. Collingwood was incensed on Monday night with a revised target which he felt played into West Indies' hands as the hosts beat England in a rain-shortened World Twenty20 Group D match at Providence. But Frank Duckworth, who helped devise the method which bears his name, has entered the debate.

Among his suggestions are that the International Cricket Council may want to investigate whether just five overs of a Twenty20 match is sufficient to constitute a D/L result.

But he also hints that England made some of their own trouble on Monday, by bowling eight wides in West Indies' innings.

"While Paul Collingwood may have been angry at Messrs Duckworth and Lewis, he might have been angry at Messrs (Tim) Bresnan, (Graeme) Swann and Co – who added to the four wides that they bowled before the rain by adding four more wides," Duckworth told wisdencricketer.com. "So, the West Indies target wasn't just 60 – it was effectively 52."

And Duckworth put the ball back in the ICC's court over regulations which stipulate five overs of a run chase can be deemed to provide a fair result.

"You're much more liable to get apparent distortion when you can have only five overs constituting a valid innings. The ICC ought to look into whether five overs for a valid match is appropriate."