Mark Richardson: Selection policy out of Sinc with our Redpath winner

It was Mathew Sinclair's most controlled, composed and accurate performance when he sat on stage last Thursday night and, in a thoroughly reserved manner, accepted the Redpath Cup for first-class batting over the last year. His manner was so controlled that I question whether or not it was tightly scripted by New Zealand Cricket (NZC) or was it simply the demeanour of a dog that has been hit too many times?

Personally, I was proud of his professional display on the night, although the TV man in me would have loved him to take the award, say something spiteful, give the selectors in the audience 'the bird' and ride off into the sunset - actually Lou Vincent might like to have hitched a ride with him.

However, for him to win an award that really should go to someone who had played all the test cricket on offer over the year was embarrassing enough for NZC without him adding to the humiliation.

Sinclair should take the rumoured contract on offer in South Africa because the game owes him more than the New Zealand cricket environment can offer him. Here is man capable of scoring two test double-hundreds and a 150 not out against reputable opposition, who is in the most prolific form of his life, yet cannot gain reselection into a troubled top order.

With this said, though, let's not forget why Sinclair lost his place in the team - inconsistency. Contrary to those ever-present conspiracy theorists, it had little to do with Sinclair the personality.

Mathew Sinclair is his own man. He is a little out of the box, for sure, but not in a destructive way. He has a very high degree of self-belief and displays it in a way that is not overly 'Kiwi'. He desperately wants to succeed and because of that can at times struggle to enjoy the success of his team-mates, simply because he wants to be that successful team-mate all the time. Yeah, he's different and, as we know, those sorts of people get picked on, but you'd hope not from the administration.

When Sinclair was in the team and performing he was just 'Skippy' - a bit odd at times but accepted as the number three. The problem for Skippy was that he lost form and lost his place. That is not uncommon but it seemed every time he got another go, everything was stacked against him.

He got thrust into the opening role against Australia; in fact he has probably played Australia a proportionally large amount of times in his short career. It seems every knee-jerk selection pre-, during and post-Australian series involved Sinclair either coming or going. He probably would have been a great number five and quite consistent in that position but when he did get his go in the middle it came against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. Sinclair was never great against off-spin, so starting against Muttiah Muralitharan on a turning pitch was always going to be tough.

The selectors want Peter Fulton, Jamie How and Hamish Marshall and that is their prerogative. But you must admit Sinclair's form is more than a little tantalising and perhaps he is a better player now - who cares if he's a better person?

-HERALD ON SUNDAY