How's lease has expired for the moment

The New Zealand selectors decided Jamie How's lean patch had grown too thin, and cut him from the squad for the remainder of the one-day series against the Windies. Was it a decision that needed to be made, or should they have gone for consistency in the one-day makeup?

Despite the immense potential he showed in the back-to-back series against England last year, the consensus is that Jamie How has been allowed to underachieve for a long time now. He averages 23 in tests, which could partly be put down to his poor start in 2006 when chop-and-change seemed to be the name of John Bracewell's game. He has fared comparatively better in limited overs, averaging 34 but with a strike rate of 70 that hasn't impressed too many. The selectors have clearly marked him out for an extended run in the test side, given he was retained ahead of Aaron Redmond (who had contributed more than How in Australia and Bangladesh) for the West indies tests. But they now feel he needs to go back to domestic cricket to regain his form, following his two failures in the one day internationals so far. Clearly they have one eye on the tests against India in March and need their first choice opener firing.

My issue with his axing, and the subsequent selection of rookie Martin Guptill as a replacement, is the timing. How had partially redeemed himself with a half century in the Napier test, and his selection for the one-day series was seen as an opportunity to play himself back into form. But if that was the case, his two innings so far didn't appear to warrant a knee-jerk reaction. He made 27 in the rain-affected game in Christchurch when most of the batters went missing, and his dismissal yesterday of a pull stroke was just the sort which happens when you're on a bad trot. It seems odd that the selectors couldn't cut him some slack for the remaining two games, because this decision effectively means he is unlikely to be included for the Australia ODIs. A series against high quality Aussie bowling might be beneficial for How as preparation for the India tests. Then again, it offers a chance to blood an in-form Guptill, who is regarded as test material in some quarters. Considering the uncapped Neil Broom has already been called up in the wake of Scott Styris' injury, the selectors could have gone for an experienced alternative such as Peter Fulton, or perhaps even James Marshall.

Prior to the axing, there was plenty of comment on How's inclusion. Dylan Cleaver in the Herald feels that having both How and Daniel Flynn in the lineup is a liability, given the orthodoxy of their approaches. On the other hand, Mark Richardson argues that limited over cricket would be beneficial to both the incumbent openers, How and Tim McIntosh. Insightful arguments, but given the nature of limited overs batting and its emphasis on strike rates, I doubt the selectors would be ready to take a punt McIntosh anytime soon. However when Richardson compares the case of McIntosh to his predicament of being pigeonholed as a test player, you begin to wonder.