So Nathan Astle makes a triumphant (if somewhat fortunate) return to form, helps New Zealand to victory and is promptly dropped. Hamish Marshall must be counting his lucky stars.
I am not sure what sort of precedent this type of selection sets. What incentive does a batsman have to do well if a good score counts for naught, a poor run keeps you in the side and domestic form is deemed irrelevant? Selection seems almost to be by whim. If John Bracewell likes the cut of your jib you are in, and if he doesn't like you then runs are not going to get you in the team no matter how many you score. The New Zealand public seems relatively tolerant of this, but then we are a relatively tolerant lot. I suspect the mood might begin to change if things start to go pear-shaped.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't think NZ sports fans are particularly tolerant. If Bracewell is going to make a habit of defending unpopular players (McMillan) and dropping performers he may end up going the way of John Mitchell.
I think he's proving to be a really inconsistent coach who is starting to produce a one-dimensional team. For example, they've decided they're good at run-chasing so all they do when they win the toss is bat second (they may choose not to in the last two games against Sri Lanka, but they're irrelevant as the series is wrapped up).
What does Mathew Sinclair have to do to get back in the side? Or Michael Papps?
Bracewell's comment that the domestic scene is irrelevant as an indicator of international success shows that selection will be on whim.
On the matter of Astle, he has consistently shown over the years that once he gets back in form he stays in form until he takes a break.
Bracewell's 'coaching' will be exposed at the World Cup in 2007.
Post a Comment