Paint it, Black: Sinclair Returns

(PREFACE: My entries on the blog so far fall into two definite categories: Some rather uninspired write-ups on University Life or something like it at Austin, and some slightly more inspired stuff on the Black Caps. I'm tempted to put them in separate blogs. For the time being, PAINT IT, BLACK will be my column dedicated to the goings-on in New Zealand Cricket.)

The naming of the squad for the first test against the Lankans saw the much anticipated return of Mathew Sinclair. It's hard to imagine that he made his debut seven years ago, double hundred and all, but has played only 24 tests since. His recall will be met with predictable reactions from the sceptics, who feel he isn't good enough for international cricket, but this could be a new lease of cricketing life for him. Will he be able to put his chequered past behind him, though?

His career has been a roller coaster ride since the 214, to put it mildly. Kiwi cricket's been starved of classy prolific batsmen for a long time now, so that innings invited huge celebration and the hope that he would be the next Martin Crowe. It was an innings of fearless strokeplay, especially his cutting and pulling, against the admittedly dispirited Windies. Disaster immediately followed, in the Trans-Tasman series at home. Australia were at their unstoppable best, he was cut down to size, and the limitations in his technique cruelly exposed. It's fair to say Lee and McGrath did to him exactly what Ambrose and Walsh did to Graeme Hick in his first series. The scars seemed to surface in every subsequent clash with the Aussies. The next season suggested he had come out of the Australian series a stronger player: the highlights being a gritty 150 in a low scoring test at Port Elizabeth, and his second double century against the Pakistanis at home. All this while, he was in and out of the one day squad, but capped the season with two hundreds in a tri nation tournament at Sharjah which earned praise from no less than Sunil Gavaskar. He had apparently established himself as Nathan Astle's opening partner, secured his test and ODI places, and demonstrated his class. That was as good as it got. The following season was the start of the slide for him.

The rematch series with the Aussies in Australia was a memorable one for the side given they came so close to pulling off an upset, but it wasn't a happy one for Sinclair. He was again undone by McGrath and co. despite getting off to starts, and lost his test place soon after. Ironically at the time, he seemed to have been typecast as a tests-only player and was not really considered for one-dayers, though he did play as a wicketkeeper batsmen for a couple of games in Sharjah when the think-tank was trying out available options following the retirement of Adam Parore. While the critics questioned his ability and temperament at the top level, the selectors clarified that he had NOT been discarded, but simply forced out of the playing XI since the competition for middle order spots was heavy. In the lead up to the 2003 World cup, he was a fringe selection for test match sides - always in the squad but never able to break in - yet he appeared to have cemented his place in the ODI squad as a number three, with some semi-consistent performances. During the 2003 World Cup, he was again a victim of bizarre selection policies. The New Zealand top order was largely out of sorts, and inexplicably the selectors preferred Lou Vincent and Craig McMillan ahead of him, wrongly in hindsight. A series of failures followed in Sri Lanka, when he returned to the test side. He was duly axed once more, and spent the next year and a half on the sidelines.

His last run with the National side pretty much sums up his career. He was asked to open alongside Mark Richardson in Bangladesh (as a replacement for the injured Michael Papps) at the start of the 2004-05 season and made a decent fist of it, adding two half centuries in the ODIs to go with his test return. Despite the weak opposition, that was a creditable return as most of the top order struggled on the slow wickets against the home spinners. Then, in completely opposite conditions, he was asked to contine as an opener - against the Aussies. Scores of 69,0,0,2 showed that makeshift openers simply do not work, least of all against Australia. I personally feel had he been given an opportunity in the middle order, he might have put his perceived Aussie-phobia straight. He seemed to be performing reasonably well in ODIs, but when Australia returned in February 2005 he made scores of 0 and 15 and was released by the selectors once again. The test team was plagued by injuries, yet the selectors ignored his claims. Now, on the basis of irresistable domestic performances (and a generally insipid NZ batting lineup), he gets his latest chance to do justice to his undoubted potential.

To put it all in perspective, for someone with his talent he's been treated unfairly by the last couple of selection panels. When set, he's a delight to watch and he's got an appetite for big scores all too rare among his peers. I'd like to think his best cricketing years have been mostly wasted away on the sidelines. At 31, his technical faults are unlikely to be improved upon and will keep the bowlers interested. However, given that players of lesser ability have been persevered with for longer, it must hurt that he hasn't been given an extended run in the side. He was not handled well during what should have been his best years, and must take it upon himself to establish himself in the side once and for all. Whether his return will be a damp squib or a triumphant one remains to be seen. With McMillan and Vincent out of favour, and Marshall and Fulton failing to deliver in the recent past, the door remains open.