KEY POINTS:
Mathew Sinclair went fishing the day he received the news most of us expected but somehow hoped wouldn't happen. He didn't catch anything.
On the way home, he ran out of petrol, then strained his ankle while walking to the gas station.
He returned home to find the cat had crapped on the carpet. He then dropped a can of baked beans on his toe while making a toasted sandwich and then discovered when he jumped in the shower that his wife had used all the hot water.
All of which is untrue, of course, except for the fact he went fishing - but at the end of the day, it was he who was gutted.
We've been here before. In 2005, his name was inexplicably missing from New Zealand cricket's chosen 20 - Chris Harris and James Marshall were preferred! The embarrassment of him being subsequently awarded the Redpath Cup forced the selectors to list him in 2006.
When noises started being made that the 20 would this year carry an extra wicketkeeper, you just knew Sinclair would be the unfortunate victim. So the question remains, how is an incumbent test player not one of the country's top 20 cricketers?
The obvious answer is the selectors are about to make him an 'unincumbent' when the team is selected to tour South Africa in November. If that's the case, then it is incredibly harsh.
In the year since Sinclair was re-signed on a central contract, New Zealand played a total of two tests against Sri Lanka.
Here's two statistics to consider when assessing Sinclair's test record. Up to 2001, when Sinclair started to be dropped and picked for the test team, he averaged 43.16.
Since 2002, when he began to get mucked around, he has averaged just 23.06.
The right-hander is not without fault. He has always relied on feel and touch rather than sound technique and is regarded as something of a flat-track bully. In that regard, he has plenty of company.
He scored far too slowly (SR 60.76) to ever be truly effective in his 45 one-day internationals and that provided the selectors with enough ammunition to drop him.
While his point is valid that he can't be expected to improve his one-day ranking unless given a chance, there are plenty of players in that boat. The selectors can't give everybody a shot just to check they haven't suddenly found a cure.
Perhaps the biggest problem is the weighting system used. Perhaps the 1:1.25 ODI to test ratio is not enough.
Those are fundamental questions that New Zealand Cricket and the Players' Association will have to address.
After all, if test cricket is the ultimate, and surely that hasn't changed, then how can a one-day specialist like Michael Mason be preferred to a test specialist, regardless of whether they bat, bowl or keep wicket?
All this will be cold comfort for an understandably disenchanted Sinclair. This won't make him feel any better either but it's sadly true: it's nothing you did, Skip, your face just doesn't fit.
