Adam Parore: This is best selection panel I can remember

A lot of theories have been floated about the reasons behind Lou Vincent's axing, but it's hard to take any of them seriously - least of all the one officially offered by selection chief John Bracewell.

Bracewell's justification, that Vincent was dropped because he stated a preference to bat in the middle order, was a very strange comment, but I don't think it had anything to do with the ultimate decision to go with a new 1, 2 and 3.

More likely was that the selectors made a policy decision against opening with Vincent, on the grounds that they felt it time to develop some younger guys in the role. That left the Auckland right-hander vying for a place in the middle-order and he simply couldn't force his way in.

I don't believe he was victimised. He just wasn't good enough to get in the side. Bracewell and co were understandably keen to give Jamie How a run and, given Hamish Marshall's record so far, you can see why they wanted to give him a crack.

Adding more weight was the knowledge that Vincent wasn't a long-term prospect in the opening position, a point that everyone seems to be in agreement on. He was left to push for a place in the lower middle-order, and, given the way that Scott Styris, Nathan Astle and Stephen Fleming have been playing, he just ran out of room.

All sorts of conspiracy theories have flown since the decision was announced, including a suggestion that the more dramatic calls have been driven by fellow selector Glenn Turner - a hard-liner from way back - or even new High Performance chief Australian Ric Charlesworth.

But I'd have to say that this is the best selection panel we've had for as long as I can remember, in terms of the ability to introduce and develop new players. They've pulled half a dozen out of the hat so far this season, and all have paid some sort of dividend.

Most of the panels that I was involved with as a player had a ratio of about 10 screw-ups for every one success, but you can't fault these guys. With one of our best-ever batsmen, certainly our best-ever bowler, and a more contemporary voice in Dion Nash, you couldn't ask for much more.

Not only are these guys picking the right players, they're also defining the long-term development and strategy for the team, and that's something that's been missing for a long time. Players are okay for thinking on the fly, and for using the resources they've got to make the best of any given situation. But the selectors are far better placed for determining the long-term development of the team and, by definition, the most effective strategies.

Players aren't usually good at that, for the simple reason they're usually more concerned about looking after themselves. That's just human nature.

So it's hardly surprising the present selectors are trying to find solutions for the on-going opening bat problems. It seems we've had this concern since the days of John Wright and Bruce Edgar and are still no closer to a long-term answer.

We've tried all sorts of experiments but hardly any have come off. I think a lot of it's to do with the conditions here, and it's even harder at domestic level. In order to survive, you have to become almost strokeless.

Look at Mark Richardson; he had to strip his game back to just three shots to succeed. Wrighty also pared his game right down. Turner was, by all accounts, heavily accented towards defence in his earlier days. So were Edgar, Trevor Franklin, Blair Pocock, Blair Hartland and Darrin Murray.

As an opener, the name of the game in New Zealand is survival. Anyone who spends much time playing on our pitches would accept that as a prerequisite.

And because of that, our openers were usually quite fascinating characters in terms of their personalities. Often they need to be slightly crackers, like goalkeepers and, dare I say it, wicketkeepers. Turner was different and Shake (John Wright) was a chain-smoker; it takes something pretty interesting to do that job.

Conversely, guys who cut their teeth in the middle-order usually find the adjustment to opener very tough because of the rigid self-discipline required.

Look at Mathew Sinclair and Stephen Fleming, they were tried but were found to be far too normal.

That's why we've got so many players who can bat five.

We've always been over-endowed with middle-order batsmen.

I can't allow this opportunity to pass without making mention of this week's comments from West Indian superstar Brian Lara, who scolded us for daring to forget his team's magnificent legacy, and for being overly critical of the present outfit.

Well I'm sorry, Brian, but you can't contend that because you've produced more great players than us, no one over here is allowed to criticise you for the rest of eternity.

Nobody's questioning your former greats or the West Indies' pedigree, or the fact that you've produced some of the greatest players of all time - including yourself.

The point that's being made is that the present team is poor, and that's a judgment based on the evidence of performance and results over the past two or three years.

It's not meant to be disrespectful to anyone's heritage, it's just a straightforward observation at the present point of time.