The Skippy issue
I indulged myself this morning. I sat with a knowing grin, in a Yoda-like calm. I had been prescient. Not that I’m exactly sure what prescient means but it seemed like the word that would go best with how I was feeling. On Monday I wrote that Mathew Sinclair should be in the test team. Two days and 243 runs later, the rest of the country agrees.
Matthew Sinclair has been a nearly man for half a decade. His absence from the test team, considering three big test hundreds, another two ODI centuries and 11 international 50s, seems inexplicable when players like Papps, How, Cumming, Fulton and any number of Marshalls have been preferred.
This has not stopped people in cricket trying to explain his absence – he is a “difficult” person. That much was obvious from the first press conference after his debut 214 when he bigged himself up more than Tupac and Notorious ever thought seemly. Apparently when given laundry duty on tour he baulked. He’s not a “team player”.
He also has technical deficiencies. His style is best described as point and shoot, relying on his eye, not his feet. Selectors and coaches have always raised this as a reason why he has been left out.
Let’s examine those two charges. First, cricket has always been populated by "awkward customers". Jardine, Boycott, Dexter, Lara, Chappell, and our very own Hadlee RJ have all had egos so big they would have had to be squeezed into the MCG. For every fun-loving bloke like Cairns, Boon, Botham or Warne there have been the teetotallers, the drudges like Hobbs, Bradman, Pollard and Woodfull. Cricket is such an eccentric and wonderful sport for the very reason that it attracts the most eccentric of people. And team ethos means nothing when you are 27 for 3 and a seamer as good as Dale Steyn is running in at you ready to take your head off with 145kmh projectile.
So let's establish this once and for all – crazy lunatic individuals are the building blocks of any team. So let’s select Sinclair for five tests in a row and forget the fact that you wouldn’t want to invite him for a quick pint.
Secondly, technical deficiencies. Sinclair is an "eye" player. This means he is an excellent flat track bully, and his form is likely to dip exponentially in his mid-thirties as his reflexes slow up. It is not a reason to leave him out of the side – Nathan Astle, Andrew Jones, and John “Bogo” Reid were all eye players – and all of them carved great histories for New Zealand, almost unparalleled histories, until their mid-thirties, that is. We are such a small pool of cricketing talent that if we wait for the next Martin Crowe to turn up we will be playing third division test cricket with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.
So all in all I appeal to the selectors – sharpen your HB pencils, and scribble down the word "Skippy" next time you are looking for a batsman. And don’t give Sinclair a couple of tests – give him a whole summer.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
I think Sinclair should have been given a much better run in the side over the past 3 or 4 years especially when McMillan was not performing in the test side and the Marshalls were being picked as Sinclair could have easily batted at 5 or 6.
Although I don't think there is a spot for him right now unless he wants to open as Taylor and Fulton (who has performed rather well at international level) are the future and I see How as possibly the long term solution to our opening position so the only 'batsman', and I use the term lightly, you could drop would be Styris, who has only ever pretended to be a test batsman for Sinclair, which makes our batting lineup even less experienced.
The other option would be to drop a bowler and slot Sinclair in at number 5 with Taylor dropping to 6. This would further weaken our bowling attack which now missing Bond is looking rather feeble and very reliant on Vettori.
My problem with Sinclair is that he consistently demonstrates his expertise at national level, but when faced by anything resembling an international bowler he crumbles. It is all very well making the occasional big score in domestic cricket, but I don't think he can successfully make the quantum leap to the international level. This is not a problem unique to Sinclair. There is only one really fast bowler in the country and Shane Bond can't be everywhere to give aspiring batsmen the opportunity to practise against the quality of bowling they will face from the top o/seas teams. Which incidentally also points to our apparent inability to find and nurture potential quickies from an early age, so our batsmen WILL get that experience.
The real issue is the talent pool. New Zealand has such a small population, and cricket is not the number sport anyway. When you get someone with the ability - even if he has problems - you have to work with him. I agree that having stable but mediocre players is driving NZ cricket down, and quickly. You need the guys with the ability to win matches, the Bonds (fit only a 1/3 of the time, at best), McMillans (ditto, plus really inconsistent) and the Sinclairs. You may not have the comfort a Warne, McGrath, Hadlee or Crowe gave you, but occasionally you will be rewarded with a stunning victory.
Sinclair crumbles at international level? What a load of tripe. His last half century was at the Gabba against the likes of Warne, Gillespie and McGrath. He averages 48 against South Africa. Jamie How has a high score of 37 from 10 innings. Great.
Phantz - He has been found out repeatedly, rocking back and thrashing away. Let's remember he also followed that 69 up with 0 in the 2nd innings and then a double failure of 0 and 2 at Adelaide. His first-class record last season did not warrant a recall.
Cricket IS by far the #1 summer sport and NZ easily has a big enough cricketing population to be a lot better than it is right now.
Even South Africa, with 45 million people, don't actually have a pool of 45 million cricketers. Cricket's a sport played mainly by the English-speaking minority of under 2 million people located inside the overall white minority of under 5 million. Among the black and coloured communities over there cricket is a small, expensive and pretty elitist fringe-activity sport.
NZ really is punching BELOW its weight at present.
An interesting article Hamish. Mathew Sinclair has been most recently used as a rubber-band type of player who can temporarily fix a deficiency, usually one of the opening spots. His inconsistencies, particularly in the last two years, must be slightly attributed to the fact that he has only be selected very sporadically. Don't give him mixed signals; pick him for a length of time.
Teen 'will go to jail' rather than give up injured dog
Daily trivia quiz: February 10
'Very white' Australian rugby cops criticism
Ex-All Blacks star apologises for groping teenager
Kong movie ship scuttled in strait
Pattinson sex scenes 'disturbing'
Fantastic panoramic of Taranaki
Plan to claw back $1.7b by axing depreciation tax breaks
Teen 'will go to jail' rather than give up injured dog
Fifth of adults choose pets over partner
Samoa tsunami: A therapeutic response
Outrage as Key signals national park mining
Waikato Pistons sign troublesome talent
Teen 'will go to jail' rather than give up injured dog
Key confirms GST increase being considered
A pass for Key, but much more to do
Sanzar and Sky decide it's time to titillate the fans
Time for young gun Aaron Cruden to fire
Lindsay Lohan's Jesus Christ pose
Sinclair's career graph reminds of Vinod Kambli from India. Started with two double centuries on debut (against England and Sri Lanka I think) and then just faded away... or maybe not. His current career average is still over 50 - which is better than the 'established' players like Ganguly... VVS Laxman also could have had a better career graph (and he has no attitude problem either). Somewhere, these differences in the mindsets of selection committees result in an Australia... and the rest. I wonder if Ricky Ponting would have played this much if he was not an Austalian.