NZTailender said:
2. He's a class batsman and should be considered as part of the future of the middle order in tests. I see him as the long-term replacement for Fleming.
Let him replace Fleming when he retires then!
Seriously though, I agree with this. However, picking an out of form batsman who has had virtually no success at the level you're picking him at yet is asking for trouble in a way. I have no problem with Fulton playing really as I think he'll have a good test career, but not at the expense of Sinclair. If Ryder is to play, he's going to have to replace the guy who is out of form and has a really poor record - that's Fulton. I'd select Fulton to play in the first Test - I'd leave the middle order unchanged from the Bangladesh series - but I'd put him on notice. The best part of that situation, from my POV, would be the fact that when Fleming retires and the public pressure to replace him with a youngster grows, Ryder will still be in the bank so the selectors won't have to opt for Taylor.
NZTailender said:
3. You can't pick or drop someone on limited overs form.
Indeed. This is especially evident if said player is a proven failure in limitied overs cricket ie. Mathew Sinclair, but his career followed this recurring loop, time and time again:
* Gets recalled to the test side after other batsmen fail
* Plays okay; looks set to retain his place without doing anything special
* Gets selected in the ODI side on the back of that
* Fails in the ODI series
* Gets dropped from both forms
* Gets recalled to the test side after other batsmen fail etc. etc.
Doing it to Fulton now would be similar in a way, I agree, other than the fact that his limited Test career has been poor so far, and he did very poorly in the last series he played, which was against poor opposition. He doesn't really have anything "in the bank" so to speak as far as his Test career goes and he's quite obviously in poor touch. Sinclair's failings in ODIs were often simply due to the fact that he was crap at them, but Fulton showed the makings of quite a good ODI batsman as well before his form slump and combined with his poor series against Bangladesh, it's really not a coincidence, nor is it a case of him playing a form he shouldn't be playing.
I should note here that I'm not making any judgments on his quality as a potential test batsman based on a few ODIs and a series against Bangladesh as that'd be madness - merely his current form. Selecting a batsman with a poor record with lots of prove when he's in poor form isn't particularly fair to anyone. That said, I'd still do it, because it's the still the best option. Just not ahead of Sinclair.