Five changes to the test side

After the heavy defeats at the hands of the South Africans, it was understandable the selectors would ring in the changes for the Bangladesh series which starts today, viewing it as preparation for the upcoming series against England. Nearly half the side that lost to South Africa in the second test at Centurion have been culled. Here's a man-for-man look at the discards and their replacements, and my take on each selection:

1. Michael Papps out, Matthew Bell in: It was a fair call to leave the struggling Papps out, but the recall of Matthew Bell ahead of the hardworking Jamie How must have been a tough decision. Bell has been a bit unlucky not to have been considered for the last six years, given our perennial problems with opening batsmen, and perhaps he is ready for redemption following his outstanding domestic form. Jamie How will feel hard done by, but his non-inclusion is not a death sentence. The fact that he has nailed down a one day spot at the top of the order means he will continue to be in the selectors' minds.

2. Lou Vincent out, Mathew Sinclair in: Not much in this one. Both batsmen have very similar records at the test level, both have made no secret of their preference for the number three spot, and have been used almost interchangaebly; they have rarely played together in tests. Sinclair has domestic form and public sympathy on his side, having been overlooked for the most part under Bracewell, but his last test century was back in 2001. Vincent hurt his test career by declining to open the batting when his game was at its peak in 2006, but generally plays his best innings when the side most needs them. Sinclair is an instinct player with a good eye and lazy footwork, while Vincent has a bit of a reputation as a competitor and streetfighter. Despite the compelling case for Sinclair's return, I still feel Vincent has been made a scapegoat once again. But, having been dumped from the one day side also, he is unlikely to return this season.
What makes the ultimate selection even more marginal is the fact that they were battling for the number five slot all along, with Peter Fulton being marked for number 3.

3. Ross Taylor out, Peter Fulton in: Probably the easiest decision for the selectors. Despite his abundant talent, Ross Taylor showed looseness and lack of concentration in his first two tests in South Africa and has been overlooked for the more solid Fulton. The latter's record in five tests is nothing flash, amd he comes in on the basis of his consistent one day performances. While Fulton does look the best of the recent additions to the side in the last couple of years, he will be keen to hold on to number three so that he does not get pushed up to open the batting again. Unless Taylor has an exceptionally good one day series against England, he will have to wait a while for his next crack at the test level.

4. Scott Styris out, Jacob Oram in: Oram is not really a replacement as he was injured for the Centurion test, but he holds on to his spot on the basis of all round ability. This despite the fact that his bowling has lost some effectiveness over the last couple of years. Styris' omission is the contentious point for most supporters, as his experience and record of five centuries is difficult to ignore. In addition to this he's been the best performed of all batters in one dayers over the last year. I can't buy the point that he's only scored one century in the last three years, as he's missed quite a few tests through injury. The selectors may well regret this decision later into the season.

5. Mark Gillespie out, Kyle Mills in: Bringing an in-form Kyle Mills in to replace the injured Gillespie is the right decision. But the third seamer's position, when you keep in mind that Oram hasn't been consistent with the ball in recent times, worries me. As Hamish McDouall points out, "if Bell gets in ahead of How and Styris, purely on domestic form, what the hell does Andre Adams have to do to leapfrog Messrs Mason and O’Brien?" The ongoing feud between Bracewell and Adams probably means that Adams' chances for a recall are nil. But if we end up in a situation where there's no penetration in the attack whatsoever, who knows?