Should Martin Guptill be playing test cricket?

[_Ed_]

Guptill? Not really - he's 24.

[Blocky]

The idea that Sinclair wasn't worth a long run in the side always makes me wonder. He has been the most consistent first class cricketer since Martin Crowe. He showed he can score in tough conditions against South Africa and showed he had the patience to convert scores into big innings, all that was missing was consistency at the top level.

It doesn't help him that he's played more innings against Australia than any other side and did terribly against them (as did near every other NZ batsman). Take into account that in he was never really given a prolonged "spot" in the side and also batted in every position from #2 to #6 and you've really got to feel for him.

His average without Australia in the mix is 40.67, very respectable for a kiwi batsman and for a guy that spent more time wondering about his place in the side than actually playing for NZ.

He didn't get on with Fleming from what I understand and that cost him his place in a couple of situations. Had he been given the same amount of chances as Fleming, McMillan, Astle, Horne, etc - then who knows, potentially he could have made his average closer to his first class average, he certainly had the talent to do so.

In the case of Guptill, if he DOES go back and dominate at first class level - that's great. The guy hasn't done that yet, he hasn't shown consistency at FC and he hasn't dominated attacks, he needs to do that and develop consistency in order to come back.

Check guys like Steve Waugh for a sign of "Oh ****, I need to change my game to make it at the top level" and ask why very few NZers have managed this.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Blocky

The idea that Sinclair wasn't worth a long run in the side always makes me wonder. He has been the most consistent first class cricketer since Martin Crowe. He showed he can score in tough conditions against South Africa and showed he had the patience to convert scores into big innings, all that was missing was consistency at the top level.

It doesn't help him that he's played more innings against Australia than any other side and did terribly against them (as did near every other NZ batsman). Take into account that in he was never really given a prolonged "spot" in the side and also batted in every position from #2 to #6 and you've really got to feel for him.

His average without Australia in the mix is 40.67, very respectable for a kiwi batsman and for a guy that spent more time wondering about his place in the side than actually playing for NZ.

He didn't get on with Fleming from what I understand and that cost him his place in a couple of situations. Had he been given the same amount of chances as Fleming, McMillan, Astle, Horne, etc - then who knows, potentially he could have made his average closer to his first class average, he certainly had the talent to do so.

In the case of Guptill, if he DOES go back and dominate at first class level - that's great. The guy hasn't done that yet, he hasn't shown consistency at FC and he hasn't dominated attacks, he needs to do that and develop consistency in order to come back.

Check guys like Steve Waugh for a sign of "Oh ****, I need to change my game to make it at the top level" and ask why very few NZers have managed this.

Sinclair has said himself on this forum he gets on really well with Fleming.

Skippy was given a good run at first, and after ten tests his form deserted him on the most part and he was eventually dropped after 17 I think? That's fair enough, but the merry go round he joined after that was disgraceful. Sometimes I do suspect there are some players the selectors want to see succeed over others for whatever reason, and Sinclair was always one who got a harder run than the likes of the Marshalls for example.

[Blocky]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Sinclair has said himself on this forum he gets on really well with Fleming.

Skippy was given a good run at first, and after ten tests his form deserted him on the most part and he was eventually dropped after 17 I think? That's fair enough, but the merry go round he joined after that was disgraceful. Sometimes I do suspect there are some players the selectors want to see succeed over others for whatever reason, and Sinclair was always one who got a harder run than the likes of the Marshalls for example.

I think Matt is the sort of guy that wouldn't air out dirty washing nor make excuses for himself, he'll feel he never turned it on the way he should have at test level but the news I heard was that he wasn't liked in the team because he was very self-focused. Something I feel all great batsmen need to be.

I wonder had he got a good go at #5 behind the top order for NZ, would we now have a senior guy in the team averaging 45-50 to produce good numbers with the younger players coming through. It's a serious loss for NZ cricket.

[Blaze 18]

Sinclair is a member of this forum ? For real ?

[Flem274*]

Has/had a blog on here, and there was a live chat sesh at one point where we could talk to him.

Good times.

[Mike5181]

We could look at Broom and shuffle the batting order around a bit.

For mine

1.Macintosh 2.McCullum 3.Williamson 4.Taylor 5.Ryder 6.Broom 7.Vettori 8.Van Wyk

Or if Guptill is in the team then

1.Macintosh 2. McCullum 3.Guptill 4.Taylor 5.Ryder 6.Williamson 7.Vettori 8.Van Wyk

To be honest though i dont mind what we have now, we can just stick with it and only replace Hopkins(obviously) and use Broom if someones injured which they usually are anyway.

[Hurricane]

Wouldn't mind seeing Van Wyk in the team at all.