I've read some people here say he has been "unlucky" to not be selected more often or even the rediculous comment that he is the 2nd best batsman in the country??
First of all he had a great start to his career, he got three very good totals, I won't begrudge him that and his innings of 150 vs sa in sa wasvery good. But since then whenever he has had an opportunity he has never looked like a classy test batsman. Even in the 70 odd he got in Australia in 04/05 he didn't look good and it was obvious he would not be able to score runs like that regularly. I think he is just a very good first class player that can;'t hack it at test level.
How can people not notice? Not only is he average vs quality pace bowling but he also is an average player of spin. To add to all that he looks very nervous every time he bats- all this talk about we need his experience in England is rubbish - he does not seem like a calm, pressure handling player anyway.
You know who we could do with in England? Scott styris.
Scott styris's test career>>>>> Sinclair's test career.
Obviously, I very much disagree.
For most of his career, Sinclair has had claim to suggest he is the second best batsman in New Zealand behind Fleming. I think that time has passed watching him since his most recent recall and following his performances for CD, which is indeed a great shame, but for many years he had to cool his heels while batsmen not really fit to shine his boots in Astle, McMillan, Styris, Marshall, Vincent etc got places ahead of him. Yes, I have seen their Test records and yes, I realise said records are indeed superior, but Sinclair has been victim so many things that to finish with a Test average of approximately 35 would probably be an achievement in itself.
When he was first dropped back in 2001, it was fair. Despite his ability and excellent First Class credentials, and despite the excellent start to his career, he was failing. This, however, was probably the last time he was rightfully dumped from the team. Since then, he has always been the man to sit out when the "next big thing" who averages 15 less than Sinclair in First Class cricket comes along, plays a few nice shots and catches the public eye comes along. At best, he's been the one to come in when injuries have hit, do fairly well and then get replaced, much like what happened in
this Test - all the while churning out runs in First Class cricket like few New Zealanders have ever dreamed of.
Most of all though, he has been victim to the focus on one day cricket and the small amount of Tests New Zealand have played in recent years. In the last few years, the pattern of the batsmen failing in a Test series then Sinclair being brought in, playing one game and looking better than his predecessors without doing anything brilliant, getting selected for the ODIs, failing in them (due to not being at all suited to them) and being dropped from both forms to start the cycle all over again has repeatedly plagued him. It's cache 22 for him really, though - he wouldn't want to get dumped from the Test side on the back of his ODI performances, but he wouldn't want to suffer from
the problem Daren Ganga spoke of recently and he certainly wouldn't want to become the forgotten man a year down the track when New Zealand play their next Test and want to select the next Jamie How or Ross Taylor.
What I find most humourous is your comments about his nervousness. Why do you think he looks nervous when he bats? Is it perhaps because he knows he's playing for his career every time he goes out to bat, and knows from previous experience that the selectors have virtually no patience or perspective with him at all? I've actually only seen him bat once for CD - footage I got from a friend in New Zealand - but I'd suggest that, going by his record, he wouldn't oft look too nervous out there batting for them. He's respected for the quality batsman he is and he has repaid the faith.
First Class Averages
Mathew Sinclair 47.10
Stephen Fleming 43.83
Mark Richardson 42.89
Craig McMillan 39.28
Nathan Astle 37.58
Lou Vincent 36.04
Scott Styris 30.69
Hamish Marshall 27.65
This is indeed a very simplistic way of looking at it (especially in the cases of Styris and Richardson) but it does point out just how good Sinclair is at that level. Surely a man of such awesome ability at First Class level - ability he did indeed show at Test level at times - deserved much, much, much better treatment than he got. This will probably be realised later on when people actually analyse his career properly instead of just over-reacting to a bad Test here and there and backflipping every 25 seconds, but it's something that can and should be seen right now.
It was shown in South Africa that Styris was finished as a Test batsman, for mine - he didn't look out of form, he just looked shocking. The same may happen this series to Sinclair (his First Class form for CD, which has been one brilliant constant in his career up until now, certainly indicates it) but as much as I'm sure Scott Styris won't be judged on that last series, Mathew Sinclair should not be judged on this one, and the criticism he's been getting is ridiculous.
One of the best blatant-but-funny duplicate accounts ever. 
