Adam Parore: Enforced break gives Astle time to reboot

John Bracewell and his fellow selectors have done the smart thing wielding a large carving knife just before Christmas and the arrival of Sri Lanka.

Nathan Astle's ordinary form has allowed them to look past our most successful one-day batsman, giving him the chance of a rest and the opportunity to regain his best form in the State Shield.

From Nathan's perspective, while I'm sure he is disappointed, it is unlikely that he will be distraught at the thought of Christmas at home with his young family.

The point is that the selectors need to be thinking about the World Cup in the Caribbean early in 2007 and it appears that they are.

They know what they get from Astle, whose 15 ODI hundreds are easily the best by a New Zealander. It won't be a surprise if he's not used in the four one-dayers against Sri Lanka.

But unless his game falls away, I'd expect him to be at the World Cup.

Craig McMillan is a different case. Again, the selectors know what they'll get from Macca - and may have decided they don't want it any more. He may find his time in the wilderness is somewhat more prolonged.

This is the ideal chance to take a look at Jamie How and Peter Fulton.

I'm certain Fulton would have been next cab off the rank, as he's already had a brief taste of the international scene. I suspect it was a shootout between How and Jesse Ryder for the other spot. Two newcomers at the same time is sufficient.

Selectors don't always get it right, so credit where it's due this time.

Really, from Bracewell's point of view, there's no downside. If at least one of How or Fulton comes off that's one World Cup place ticked off.

If neither prove up to the job, Astle's waiting with a proven record to return and they'll look again at the likes of Ryder.

As for James Franklin, I think his ODI opportunities may be limited in the future. Left-armers are prone to being hit both sides of the wicket in the one-day game which means they really need to be top notch to survive.

It took Daniel Vettori a long time to become the leading bowler of his type going round, and he took some stick as he worked out how to handle ODIs.

Looking back at the Australian series, we should expect 300-plus to become far more prevalent in ODIs in the years ahead.

There was a time when scoring over 300 was a one-off, and just about guaranteed a win. Not any more.

As we saw on the recent Australian visit, when four successive innings produced 320 or more runs, batsmen are becoming smarter at making the most of their 50 overs.

What's happened is that where once a chase of 280 was regarded as just about out of reach, now many teams are confident, or at least optimistic, that they can hunt the target down.

Why? Players are getting better and with experience comes self-belief.

They have been in that situation more often than ever before in the ODI game. They know where they've gone wrong and are good enough to rectify mistakes.

For one thing, teams batting first start their charge with about 15 overs remaining. In my time, the usual modus operandi was to keep wickets in hand until five or six overs were left then take the long handle.

The role of the bowlers has become more passive. Unless they get a green top or crumbling pitch, they are often relying on batsmen to make mistakes.

And then there are some days when you just know that, despite setting a tough target, you're going to come second.

At Baroda in 1994, Ken Rutherford got a century, I got 96 and we reached a pretty competitive 269 for four in sweltering conditions.

Yet within half a dozen overs of India's reply we could see the game was up.

Sachin Tendulkar made a ton and Mohammad Azharuddin and Manoj Prabhakar bashed us about, and India cantered home with a couple of overs to spare and just three wickets down.

It was one of those days when we knew we were being worked over by world class batsmen who were simply better than us. That feeling is lingering in the minds of bowlers the world over.