Adam Parore: Sinclair and Vettori among the bonuses from Bangladesh

COMMENT

Two big pluses have come out of the test series in Bangladesh as far as New Zealand are concerned.

One is that several players have had the chance to find some form on the eve of the far more gruelling trip to Australia.

There has been plenty said about the standard of the Bangladesh side and whether they deserve test status.

I'm not going to weigh in here because I don't know enough about the reasons they are in the test arena. They might, for example, have a strong junior or youth programme and in 10 years will be a decent test side.

They had to start somewhere.

The important thing from New Zealand's point of view was to make sure they returned some good performances and recorded convincing wins.

Take Mathew Sinclair, who scored a bucket of runs in South Africa for New Zealand A, then grabbed 70 in the first test at Dhaka when getting a late call into the present team.

People talk about his lack of foot movement and technical shortcomings. But let's be clear: I would rather have someone not technically out of the coaching manual but in good form than a technically sound batsman out of touch.

If Sinclair can get through the new ball when the pitch is doing a bit early - and he will not be alone in struggling in that situation against Australia's high-class opening bowlers - then Australia could be a terrific trip for him.

The pitches are tailormade for him. They have great consistency of bounce and he's a strokeplayer.

The other big plus is the return to form of Daniel Vettori. He picked up eight wickets in the first test at Dhaka and a further 12 at Chittagong in the innings and 101-run win.

He had copped a fair bit of flak in the last few months as the wickets dried up.

It's worth remembering that from May 2002 until the end of the England series last June, Vettori took just 28 wickets in 16 tests, in which he bowled in 22 innings.

But he's spinning the ball sideways, beating the bat again, and it will do wonders for his confidence.

Dan's a level-headed guy, but he has had to wear a heavy stream of criticism over whether he had lost his flight, penetration and ability to turn the ball.

It's come back at the ideal time with Australia round the corner. The last time we were there he took 13 wickets. We need him at his best there this time, too.

Much has been made of whether Martin Crowe or Stephen Fleming is the better batsman, in the wake of Fleming overtaking Crowe as New Zealand's leading runscorer this week.

That's a fairly flat argument in my book. To me it's far more interesting assessing who is the superior player, taking all aspects into account.


I believe Crowe was a superior batsman and I suspect that view won't have changed when Fleming eventually retires, even though he will probably have racked up a few thousand more runs.

But Fleming edges Crowe when all areas of their game are considered, such as leadership, planning, fielding, catching and decision-making.


Crowe was a man alone when he was in charge in the early 1990s. He suffered from having a cluster of poor players around him - remember the heroes of the 1980s had just about all retired - and was not helped by weak management.


Fleming is an outstanding leader. He canvasses opinions from senior players, from management and from people whose views he respects, and he is an assiduous planner.

He will have been working on the Australian tour for weeks, if not months.

You often learn more about the opposition from spending time with them, whether over a beer or in an airport lounge, than any amount of far away planning can produce.

Fleming is great mates with Shane Warne. I'll guarantee every word out of Warnie's mouth has been stored away to be used against Australia.

* Adam Parore is a former New Zealand wicketkeeper.