Starting Rotation The madness of the Trent Boult decision

As New Zealand’s bowlers were getting flogged around Bay Oval in the first test hammering by England, many cricket fans posed the same question they had asked just a few days beforehand – where the heck is Trent Boult?

It’s the topic that has lit up cricket fan pages online and water cooler discussions, with the vast majority of punters rightly left wondering what on earth the Black Caps’ brains trust is up to?

New Zealand’s fourth-most prolific wicket-taker in test history wasn’t part of the home side hammered in the first test and now trying to salvage a series draw in the second test in Wellington.

Brief background, as explained by Stuff cricket writer Ian Anderson: Boult became a free agent last year, not wanting to be on call for all forms of international cricket in an increasingly packed programme, which is now interspersed with a string of lucrative domestic Twenty20 leagues.

Essentially, he’s able to pick and choose when and for who he plays. That also means NZ Cricket has replaced him in its centrally contracted squad of 20. The Black Caps had to move on without him, with priority given to players who were available for every game.

However, if Boult is available and NZC wants to select him, he can still play for NZ, as he did at last year’s T20 World Cup and, hopefully, will do so at this year’s 50-over showpiece. Basically, we’re looking at pinnacle events.

Here’s the thing; a home test series against England is a pinnacle event in every way. Okay, if the Black Caps were at full strength, you can understand why they would overlook Boult. But they weren’t. Kyle Jamieson is out for the series and Matt Henry was missing from the first test due to the birth of his child, though is back for the second.

So instead of going to Boult, they went to domestic toilers

Blair Tickner and Scott Kuggeleijn.

Another journeyman, Jacob Duffy, was also ahead of Boult in the queue.

The argument? What message would it send to the likes of Ticker, Kuggeleijn, Duffy et al, who had done all the hard work, if they were overlooked for someone who had essentially walked away from the Black Caps?

That argument has had support from former Black Cap Dion Nash, who felt making special allowances for someone like Boult might cause conflict within the squad.

Sorry, this is professional sport, a flagship series, and you don’t get handed test caps just because you’ve put in the hard yards or your nose might get put out of joint. You still have to be good enough and better than the other options.

The best available players should have been selected for this series, and that means Boult.

The divisiveness argument is questionable – I fail to see how the vast majority of the team would not have welcomed a player of Boult’s calibre, realising it obviously made them a stronger chance of winning a test series.

It’s also an entertainment business – fans fork out hardearned whether attending in person or watching on pay TV, and they deserve to see the best Kiwi team possible.

Sure, if it was the Sri Lanka series, or if the Black Caps weren’t understrength, it’s an entirely acceptable decision.

But these are special circumstances.

As former England great David Gower said:

‘‘Maybe this is the time to give him a game if he’s willing.’’ Of course it was the time.

If it’s not the time, when is the time?

Surely it means we will never see Boult play test cricket again.

The best available players should have been selected for this England series, and that means Trent Boult.