I also think Sinclair was unlucky to largely be picked against quality Australian and South African attacks, who can be unforgiving at the best of times. The comparisons with Hick, another first class genius totally mismanaged, are apposite.
Another fantastic post. As you say, Sinclair would’ve fitted in much better with the more nurturing environment of NZC today, where players are actually managed and looked after. It’s why someone like Darryl Mitchell can average 40+ in test matches and 50+ in ODIs. In another era, he would’ve been dropped after his first failure.
I can’t think of too many NZ cricketers who underachieved in the modern era due to mismanagement, as opposed to other reasons. Maybe Jesse Ryder , but let’s be blunt, how do you manage someone like him? (I realise that sounds a bit cruel; it’s not meant to be).
No I get where you’re coming from re: Ryder, there was only so much they could do at a certain point. And most of the other big what ifs (Bond) are injury related.
I also think Sinclair was unlucky to largely be picked against quality Australian and South African attacks, who can be unforgiving at the best of times. The comparisons with Hick, another first class genius totally mismanaged, are apposite.
Another fantastic post. As you say, Sinclair would’ve fitted in much better with the more nurturing environment of NZC today, where players are actually managed and looked after. It’s why someone like Darryl Mitchell can average 40+ in test matches and 50+ in ODIs. In another era, he would’ve been dropped after his first failure.
Mitchell is a perfect comparison actually!
I can’t think of too many NZ cricketers who underachieved in the modern era due to mismanagement, as opposed to other reasons. Maybe Jesse Ryder , but let’s be blunt, how do you manage someone like him? (I realise that sounds a bit cruel; it’s not meant to be).
No I get where you’re coming from re: Ryder, there was only so much they could do at a certain point. And most of the other big what ifs (Bond) are injury related.