KEY POINTS:
It does not take much to spark debate in cricket. This time all it took was 47 of the most uncultured runs and the floodgates opened.
Scott Styris or Mathew Sinclair (reprise)?
An unscientific poll among media would see support for Styris running at about 70 per cent for, 20 against with a few undecideds. Quite what Styris has done to earn such goodwill is unclear but as a profession, we are often guilty of turning these debates into popularity contests.
One question that has escaped scrutiny is: Why not both?
If you have been following the discourse, you would have heard commentators say Styris is the best and most consistent batsman in the country; that he was dropped only to give him a well-intentioned kick up the butt; and that he is certainly a better bat than Sinclair.
The first proposition is ridiculous, the second dubious and the latter fanciful.
Stephen Fleming is both the best test batsman in the country and certainly the most consistent. He has scored close to 7000 test runs and has rarely suffered any prolonged slumps. He averages near 40 and has done so for the bulk of his 13-year career. Nobody comes close to him for consistency and proficiency over a sustained period, with the only blight on his resume his inability to convert more than nine of his 52 scores over 50 into three figures.
The assertion that Styris is a better batsman than Sinclair seems based on the preference of Styris the person, rather than any hard facts.
Sinclair's first-class average is a whopping 17 runs greater than Styris' (47.51 to 30.69) and their test records are uncannily similar.
They have now played the same amount of test innings (48) and Styris' average is better by half a run. He has two more centuries and two more fifties. That is weighed against Sinclair, who cashes in when he gets three figures, as two double centuries indicate. Both have technical flaws outside off stump that can be exposed by good swing bowling but, if anything, Styris is slightly tighter. The one major difference is Styris has had an almost unbroken run to establish himself.
It is possible that Styris got the Ric Charlesworth treatment - that is to say, he needed to feel 'uncomfortable' about his place in the team - but the more uncomfortable truth is that without the bowling string to his bow, Styris was just another under-performing batsman. He had made one test century in three-and-a-half years and in that time had seen his average slip from an impressive 43.04 to 36.05. By anybody's standards, that is a significant decrease.
But let's not get bogged down in statistics. Disraeli had it partly right at least: statistics might not lie but they conceal some relevant truths. Take Sinclair at the Basin Reserve. His test average lifted by nearly a third of a run but his 47 was eye-averting in its ugliness; a goitre on his career.
It would, however, be a nonsense if he was dropped on the basis of it. The one valid point that Sinclair supporters keep hammering home is that he has never had an extended run in the side to prove himself; every time he bats, he is seemingly batting for his career. That's why you rarely see the free-flowing Sinclair that was evident when he had the innocence of youth and the mistaken belief that he was bullet-proof.
Sinclair knows better now. When he bats in tests now, he looks weighed down by chains. He will never be a consistent scorer against good bowling but he has the ability to post match-winning scores, though that hasn't been seen for some time at test level.
(Incidentally, note how Fulton's - two scores above 30 in 10 test innings - disappointing series against the world's most ineffectual test nation was never placed under the same microscope as Sinclair's.)
When Sinclair got the nod for the test series against Bangladesh, he effectively got the nod for England too - that must be seen through for the selectors to escape another home summer with any credibility left.
But does that mean Styris should continue to be omitted? No.
There is a solution and it's not particularly radical.
There is room for both in the order. Indeed, New Zealand would be an unquestionably better team with Styris in rather than out but it would mean the selectors abandoning their failed idea of trying to mould specialist openers into test openers, regardless of whether they have the ability to play at the highest level or not.
Craig Cumming has not convinced he belongs in the test arena. Uneasy on the eye and a prime leg before candidate every time he bats, his guts and resolve will take him only so far.
Matthew Bell is a better short to medium-term option than Cumming, while Jamie How appeals as a long-term option. But for now, with an eye to England, Fleming is the best choice to partner Bell. That would allow Fulton to bat three, Styris four, Sinclair five, Jacob Oram six and so on. That is unquestionably a better line-up but is dependent on Fleming's willingness to play out his career in a position he failed at last time he tried.
That was against Glenn McGrath though; Fleming has a century opening against England and although Matthew Hoggard could trouble him if he's swinging the ball, Fleming is better equipped than any to handle it.
Whether he wants to is another matter. After the 2005 Australia series, Fleming was unambiguous about where he saw his future, telling the Herald on Sunday: "I'm a middle-order player who has been batting in the top order and it's now my time to bat where I want to bat. It's not selfish, it's just a professional environment - that's my spot to play and there are other guys who have to push for spots higher up the order or lower down. I'm set now and I'll stay at No 4 for hopefully the rest of my career. But it does leave competition at the top so we have some dilemmas there. We need to develop the top order."
Things have changed. Just as Fleming couldn't contemplate opening back then (incidentally, his average at No 4 is only slightly better than his average as an opener), he probably couldn't envision a scenario where he'd be playing test cricket and not be captain.
The selectors made a big call taking the captaincy from him. This would be another big call - this time it would be undoubtedly the right one.
