***Official*** New Zealand in South Africa

[Perm]

That's a poor excuse. He had decent stints as an opener, a no.3 and a no.4. He failed in all positions. The only country he's consistently achieved against is Bangladesh. Were it not for 2 innings, both scored against dire opposition with virtually nothing in between, people would never have bothered with pursuing him as long as they have. A massive underachiever, and strangely overhyped on these boards. Glad to see the back of him.

Versus M Inns NO Runs Avg
Australia 8 15 0 212 14.13
Bangladesh 4 4 1 125 41.67
Pakistan 3 5 2 325 108.33
South Africa 4 7 0 307 43.86
Sri Lanka 4 8 0 104 13.00
West Indies 1 1 0 214 214.00
Zimbabwe 3 6 2 161 40.2

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that he has consistenly acheived against Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies and Zimbabwe. Whenever Matthew Sinclair does get picked, it seems to be most against Australia, playing 8 of his 35 Tests against them, and he has struggled against the best team in the world, hardly a crime. You say that his whole career has been built on one innings, with nothing in between. That's a blatant lie. It's true that he made a superb start to his career, but didn't do anything of note for quite a few games, a lot of those low scores coming against Australia. He has played some other good innings, his 150 against South Africa and has notched up four Test fifties aswell.

You claim the opposition was dire when he scored his double centuries against the West Indies and Pakistan, and I dispute that strongly. Any side that contains Courtney Walsh is a good bowling attack, while Reon King and Franklyn Rose were certainly decent Test bowlers. Also, you can't say the pitch was a road because New Zealand managed to bowl out their opposition for 179 and 234, pretty low scores for a side containing Brian Lara, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Jimmy Adams. The bowling attack he faced during his 204* wasn't of top quality, but Waqar Younis is one of the greatest seamers of the modern era while Saqlain Mushtaq was a fine spinner.

You say he's been tried as an opener, #3 and #4, and failed in every position. More lies. His record as a #3 is good, averaging 38.32 which is quite high by New Zealand standards, and that is the batting position he prefers and bats at domestically. It's not often that a batsman will suceed at Test level when pushed up to open the batting, a position he isn't familiar with and requires great skill, especially when half of his innings as an opener have been against Australia, facing one of the best seamers to have played the game.

You also say he's been given a decent stint in the side, which is a moot point. He was given a run of 18 Tests and did well, averaging 43.16, but was then dropped. During this time he batted primarily at #, but was pushed up to open on a couple of occasions, but then he was dropped for a couple of seasons. While he was out of the side, despite scoring runs in domestic cricket, we selected players like Chris Harris and Matthew Horne, and also proceeding to screw over Lou Vincent.

Sinclair has underacheived at Test level, an average of 35.31 is reflective of that, but is also not that poor by New Zealand standards, better infact than some of our legends like Bev Congdon and John Reid. However, he has been mucked around far too much by the selectors, pushed up and down the order, batting in the unfamiliar opening position. Also, misfortunate has been on his side, and I think he would've been more successful at Test level if he wasn't selected whenever we were about to play Australia, which he nor the selectors can't be blamed for.

In the end, an average of 46 for Central Districts and 56 for New Zealand A show he can do the business, it's just a shame his career has been so tumultous.

 

[Perm]

**** sake

 

[Athlai]

His debut was one of my earliest cricketing memories (besides faint fond blurs of M Crowe).

 

[Bahnz]

Versus M Inns NO Runs Avg
Australia 8 15 0 212 14.13
Bangladesh 4 4 1 125 41.67
Pakistan 3 5 2 325 108.33
South Africa 4 7 0 307 43.86
Sri Lanka 4 8 0 104 13.00
West Indies 1 1 0 214 214.00
Zimbabwe 3 6 2 161 40.2

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that he has consistenly acheived against Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies and Zimbabwe. Whenever Matthew Sinclair does get picked, it seems to be most against Australia, playing 8 of his 35 Tests against them, and he has struggled against the best team in the world, hardly a crime. You say that his whole career has been built on one innings, with nothing in between. That's a blatant lie. It's true that he made a superb start to his career, but didn't do anything of note for quite a few games, a lot of those low scores coming against Australia. He has played some other good innings, his 150 against South Africa and has notched up four Test fifties aswell.

You claim the opposition was dire when he scored his double centuries against the West Indies and Pakistan, and I dispute that strongly. Any side that contains Courtney Walsh is a good bowling attack, while Reon King and Franklyn Rose were certainly decent Test bowlers. Also, you can't say the pitch was a road because New Zealand managed to bowl out their opposition for 179 and 234, pretty low scores for a side containing Brian Lara, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Jimmy Adams. The bowling attack he faced during his 204* wasn't of top quality, but Waqar Younis is one of the greatest seamers of the modern era while Saqlain Mushtaq was a fine spinner.

You say he's been tried as an opener, #3 and #4, and failed in every position. More lies. His record as a #3 is good, averaging 38.32 which is quite high by New Zealand standards, and that is the batting position he prefers and bats at domestically. It's not often that a batsman will suceed at Test level when pushed up to open the batting, a position he isn't familiar with and requires great skill, especially when half of his innings as an opener have been against Australia, facing one of the best seamers to have played the game.

You also say he's been given a decent stint in the side, which is a moot point. He was given a run of 18 Tests and did well, averaging 43.16, but was then dropped. During this time he batted primarily at #, but was pushed up to open on a couple of occasions, but then he was dropped for a couple of seasons. While he was out of the side, despite scoring runs in domestic cricket, we selected players like Chris Harris and Matthew Horne, and also proceeding to screw over Lou Vincent.

Sinclair has underacheived at Test level, an average of 35.31 is reflective of that, but is also not that poor by New Zealand standards, better infact than some of our legends like Bev Congdon and John Reid. However, he has been mucked around far too much by the selectors, pushed up and down the order, batting in the unfamiliar opening position. Also, misfortunate has been on his side, and I think he would've been more successful at Test level if he wasn't selected whenever we were about to play Australia, which he nor the selectors can't be blamed for.

In the end, an average of 46 for Central Districts and 56 for New Zealand A show he can do the business, it's just a shame his career has been so tumultous.

Hee! He's only ever played one test match against the West Indies, so it's a bit difficult to claim, so it's a bit early to make any judgements on his form agains them. You can't really rank his performances against Bangladesh, a dreadful side, and Zimbabwe were already going into decline by the time he played them (though I will admit they at least provided his opposition). As you rightfully point out his performances against Australia have been dreadful, which only really proves that he's a minnow bully, incapable of matching it with the big boys. He's played the Australians in varying conditions, at home and away, and has always failed. Same against Sri Lanka. His high average against Pakistan is based on one test match. He's failed against them in all his others. By the end of that test match Waqar Younis was so exasperated by the deadness of the pitch that he started bowling spin such was the pointlessness of the affair. His gentle nude offspinners would've had Sinny out almost immediatley too, if it wasn't for the umpire missing a blatant lbw. His performances against South Africa have been pretty good. So that's one. But really that's a pretty poor assessment on the whole. His average at #3 is again inflated by those few innings, all of which were at the very beginning of his career, and again all of which were surrounded by a host of failures. His average in 2003 was 5, in 2004, it was 33 and in 2006 it was 20. The reason why he hasn't stayed in the side since 2002, was because he's never done well enough to justify it (again save after his 70 against SA). Well lets just agree to disagree.

I also noticed your comment on Lou Vincent. There was another play he dazzled when he first came onto the scene, and then followed up by playing rubbish for the next two years. He at least seems to have managed to sort out some of the massive flaws in his game, and I agree he should be given another shot in the test team. But Sinclair? No.

 

[Perm]

You say we should agree to disagree, and I support that. I don't think Sinclair should be in the Test side, although my reasoning is different from yours.

 

[Bahnz]

You say we should agree to disagree, and I support that. I don't think Sinclair should be in the Test side, although my reasoning is different from yours.

Hmmm? I'm intrigued.

 

[Perm]

Hmmm? I'm intrigued.

There are better options around, that's all. Fleming is a far better player than Sinclair, and I beleive Fulton will eventually get there, so hopefully if he gets a chance to bat in his preferred position he will do well. Styris is a must have in the Test side, a tough combatant who is solid in the middle order, while I can't see the selectors picking 6 batsman. Papps and Cumming are both better options to open, and Sinclair's age is against him, although it's not the same as the Cumming situation where Cumming deserves his chance and is the best player for the job.

 

[thierry henry]

The attack Sinclair made his debut double-ton against was most definitely crap. Franklyn Rose was an awful bowler.

Lou Vincent shouldn't be in the NZ team in either form. His best claim is probably as a pinch-hitting opener/slogger in ODIs but I'd rather we didn't resort to such novelty tactics.

 

[thierry henry]

I certainly hope Fulton makes the side. I think he proved last summer that he belongs in international cricket. I know that ODI performances don't=test selection, but imo strong FC performances + ODI success=test selection.

 

[slugger]

its been said sinclair wasted his opportunties etc?? its interesting to note the last test NZ played involved Sinclair who played as well as any one was expected as the condition of both games were testing for the players.

Here is a break down of Sinclair rocky road of 8 years after putting this all together I was shocked by the uncanny luck of been selected prior to or for a series against Aust.

**He was selected for 18 games straight from debut when he was dropped he avg. 43 if someone could finsd another NZ player who was dropped who avg 43 after 25+ innings Id be suprised. He was dropped after the series aginst Aust in Aust. He didnt do well against them but strangley I discovered he had the 2 top scores against NSW 88 and 79 only one other player had a score worth mentioning Richardsons 69.

He was then not picked for the next 10 games.

**was reselected for 2 games against Sri Lanka in SL his avg dropped down to 37. He was dropped again.

He was not selected for the next 6 games.

**then was plucked from nowhere to play the final match of the SA tour scoring a 74 and a 21. lifting his avg back up to 38. but guess what dropped again.

He was then not selected for NZ next 3 games.

**but was reselected for BD tour in NZ and played 4 games straight with 2 aginst Aust. in the 1st match he scored 69 the only score higher than that including both inn was Oram 126. his avg rose to 40. after the second game his avg dropped to a shocking 36.

He was not selected fro the next 10 games.

**Reselected for the 2 games aginst SL in NZ these were the last games NZ has played. Sinclair finished up with an avg on 35.

**since Sinclair debut game NZ has played 59 test matches Sinclair was not picked to play 32 of them, heres the kicker of those 32 games NZ never played Aust.

if you say sinclair is responsible for his own demise it is very debatable, any one that drops a player with an avg of 43 to his name needs their head checked. and then chop and change him this way and that just adds to the avg dropping.

 

[Flem274*]

Everyone here admits he has done well against SA. Considering the opposition, don't you think it would be a reasonable move to pick him?

 

[Bahnz]

its been said sinclair wasted his opportunties etc?? its interesting to note the last test NZ played involved Sinclair who played as well as any one was expected as the condition of both games were testing for the players.

Here is a break down of Sinclair rocky road of 8 years after putting this all together I was shocked by the uncanny luck of been selected prior to or for a series against Aust.

**He was selected for 18 games straight from debut when he was dropped he avg. 43 if someone could finsd another NZ player who was dropped who avg 43 after 25+ innings Id be suprised. He was dropped after the series aginst Aust in Aust. He didnt do well against them but strangley I discovered he had the 2 top scores against NSW 88 and 79 only one other player had a score worth mentioning Richardsons 69.

He was then not picked for the next 10 games.

**was reselected for 2 games against Sri Lanka in SL his avg dropped down to 37. He was dropped again.

He was not selected for the next 6 games.

**then was plucked from nowhere to play the final match of the SA tour scoring a 74 and a 21. lifting his avg back up to 38. but guess what dropped again.

He was then not selected for NZ next 3 games.

**but was reselected for BD tour in NZ and played 4 games straight with 2 aginst Aust. in the 1st match he scored 69 the only score higher than that including both inn was Oram 126. his avg rose to 40. after the second game his avg dropped to a shocking 36.

He was not selected fro the next 10 games.

**Reselected for the 2 games aginst SL in NZ these were the last games NZ has played. Sinclair finished up with an avg on 35.

**since Sinclair debut game NZ has played 59 test matches Sinclair was not picked to play 32 of them, heres the kicker of those 32 games NZ never played Aust.

if you say sinclair is responsible for his own demise it is very debatable, any one that drops a player with an avg of 43 to his name needs their head checked. and then chop and change him this way and that just adds to the avg dropping.

Urgghh. Alright I'll bite. In the six games before he was dropped Sinclair showed his trademark inconsistency and inability to get starts, when he failed to pass 30 once, including in two matches against Bangladesh. He was deservedly dropped. His average was not representative of how he was performing. You don't keep a player in the side because they have a high average, you keep a player in the team because they've performed well in the recent past. Admittedly the two are normally associated with one another, but not always. Damien Martyn had an average of 50+, but the Australians dropped him after the ashes, and it did him good. Sinclair hadn't succeeded for nearly a year. He'd had good opportunities to score runs against the likes of Bangladesh, but had failed there too.

As for his scores in first class cricket, firstly they were early in the tour and were soon outweighed by a string of poor performances, and secondly (and much more importantly) who cares how he performs for the Black Caps against First Class teams? Those performances don't go on his record, they had no bearing on the outcome of the test series and were against a lower standard of opposition. If anything, all those performances prove is that he can't hack it against top opposition.

He was reselected against Sri Lanka, played dreadfully for 2 matches, failed to take his opportunity, and was dropped again. As I've already said, he was unlucky to be dropped after his match against SA, but he only missed 3 games, he was hardly left out in the wilderness for years. Reselected for Bangladesh. They're dreadful, much worse then than they are now (and even now they're still a pushover in test cricket) so you can't read much into his form against them. And then came up against Australia again and was badly exposed (albeit in the unfamiliar opening position). Reselected against Sri Lanka. Again batted decently in his first innings back, and then played rubbish for the rest of the test series. Yes he did have some bad luck in playing Australia so often, but really he should have averaged more than 13 against them. That's tailender stuff.

Sinclair doesn't deserve a spot in the team. Fleming has always performed with far greater success in the no. 3 position (averaging 47), and there are plenty of fresh candidates on offer for the middle order. There, I'm done arguing this. If anyone feels differently about this, that's fine, I acknowledge your opinion, but respectfully disagree and yadda yadda yadda. Back to the SA tour.

 

[Flem274*]

So, firstly, so you think we have one less batsman than we should have in that squad? Secondly, who would you send over? I'm presuming it won't be Sinclair.

 

[Days of Grace]

Lou Vincent. We need a semi-aggressive opener. Can't allow the bowlers to dictate terms so much in the first hour or so.

 

[Perm]

Lou Vincent. We need a semi-aggressive opener. Can't allow the bowlers to dictate terms so much in the first hour or so.

No, we don't. We need an opener to score runs, which Cumming and Papps are much more capable of doing. Also, Vincent isn't even an opener.

 

[Days of Grace]

Alright then. Craig McMillan. Why not?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

He's not in the squad. Chris Martin is. Would you like to open with him?

 

[Perm]

Alright then. Craig McMillan. Why not?

He's not in the squad, and he would get murdered opening the batting.

 

[Flem274*]

Alright then. Craig McMillan. Why not?

Because he's retiring

Always wondered why Braces never used him in ODI's opening TBH. He's used everyone else. In tests however, he would struggle.

 

[Flem274*]

He's not in the squad. Chris Martin is. Would you like to open with him?

Watch what you say, Braces may be reading.