If you believe that then you haven’t been paying attention either to how Maxwell plays cricket or what astute cricket followers have been saying. That is exactly how I expected him to bat in that situation, just as he did in the ODI last summer when we needed him to play a mature innings. Do you know why? Because he’s not some machine you set to 10 when you bought it and you can’t get it to ever stop operating on full speed. He’s perfectly capable of reading a match scenario and changing gears. He’s also just supremely talented and sometimes he plays a risky shot and gets out. So does everyone. Renshaw has been dismissed twice in Test cricket already having a massive heave down the ground. Nobody cares because of his solid reputation. If Maxwell got out playing the same shots he’d be dropped for two years.

Basically if the ability to mix defence with calculated aggression is not what you expected of Maxwell, then you don’t know cricket and you’re the reason it is so frustrating for other cricket fans who clearly see what Maxwell would bring to the table.

Just imagine Maxwell getting 20 Tests like Mitch Marsh has. He could very well have cemented his place as a key member of this team. He wouldn’t be averaging 20 I’d bet. At least you know he’s going to have days where he really turns it on. Marsh, Maddinson, Doolan, Cartwright, a long list of players tried and discarded … and we could have picked Maxwell years ago, stuck with him, and reaped the benefits.

Quite frankly anyone who did not or still doesn’t see the potential of Maxwell as a Test number 6, is a short-sighted fan (or selector) who probably doesn’t understand the game as well as they might think they do. Maxwell should have been persisted with three years ago. It could not possibly have gone worse than everything we’ve tried in this position.

What some people fail to understand is that a) Maxwell has gears and is capable of relying on a pretty solid defence, and b) Test match batting is a game of calculated risk and backing your own technique or style. Maxwell doesn’t need to play like Renshaw to be successful, and Renshaw doesn’t need to play like Maxwell to be successful. There is a place for both approaches and both men.

Maxwell is constantly criticised for playing rash shots and told he’s not worthy of Test cricket. Would these be the kind of rash shots we’ve already seen Smith, Warner, Handscomb and even Renshaw get out to this series? The fact is, you do need to take on the bowling sometimes. Smith has said himself that you can be aggressive if you’ve earned the right through a solid defence. At least when Maxwell takes a calculated risk, like yesterday, he is very very good at it. He hits you straight back over your head for six and then goes back to doing what he was doing. Handscomb wouldn’t be averaging in the teens this series if he’d been able to gamble at the right times and get away with it like Maxwell has. (I rate Handscomb too).

Surely Maxwell proved once and for all he understands game situations when he came out in that ODI last summer after the top order crumbled, and guided us back to safety with a mature half-century. It was clear that day (if not earlier) that there is so much more to his game than many give him credit for.

And yes, he can also switch hit a bowler for 6 and play the same ball to 6 different places depending on how you’ve set the field. He can take the game away from you in a session. He can bowl very handy spin that in favourable conditions could be extremely important. He’s one of the best fielders in the world. And he’s not Mitchell Marsh or Nic Maddinson.

I honestly can’t believe it takes this one innings for people to see why Maxwell at 6 makes sense.

Too many left handers already. I’ve gone for as many right handers as I could.

People will reasonably point to Zampa’s poor first class record, but my gut feeling is he would have been the best pick for this tour. Yes he goes at 50 per wicket in Australia. However, most international spinners also struggle in Australia. What Zampa does well is bowl very accurately and target the stumps. He gets just enough turn to be a threat in India with the helpful pitches, but he won’t bowl a bunch of long hops and full tosses like Swepson would.

Zampa would basically bowl like it’s a one dayer, nice probing lengths, very straight, and asking the batsmen to take him on when he actually can offer some variation unlike Lyon.

I feel it’s one of those times we needed to throw out the manual and take a risk. Lyon is not going to work. I would potentially even back Maxwell to return more economical figures than Lyon if given a proper go.

Warner
Renshaw
Smith
S Marsh
Handscomb
Maxwell
Nevill
Starc
O’Keefe
Zampa
Hazlewood

Three different types of spinners gives us plenty of options depending on who is batting and who is looking dangerous in any given session. Obviously can’t happen now. I think we are going to regret this ridiculous faith in Lyon.

I like Cartwright as a player but not for India. He’s basically just a batsman over there, I don’t want him bowling much at all. 5th option needs to provide a threat, unlike here at home where handy is good enough.

I don’t rate Lyon in the sub continent. I think SOK will nag away at two runs per over and get LBWs and bowleds. Even in this match Lyon is getting to bowl more overs, more chances, and has one scalp from a desperate slogging Misbah. SOK is my first spinner for India, absolutely.

What’s going to happen to Cartwright then? He will be smashed out of the attack. I can let go of Faulkner, but I definitely want 3 quicks + SOK + batting /off spinning all rounder.

If Cummins was deemed fit I’d have him at 8 over Faulkner. But it won’t happen. The main thing I want to see is 3 quicks and 2 spinners (SOK + batsman who bowls off spin). That balance looks right to me, with Lyon easily replaced by either Maxwell, Turner or Head who will overall bring more to the team than a struggling Lyon.

Can’t deny that, it worries me too but I think the formats are different enough for him to overcome it. If they are trying to smash Faulkner all over the park he stands a good chance to take wickets. More importantly it’s a gut feel selection; Faulkner makes things happen and over there his cutters and variations might just draw the odd false shot. He’s not the most dangerous bowler, but we have to look big picture over there. He will be far more threatening than Cartwright and honestly could score as many runs as anyone else in the top 7. If he averaged 35 with the ball and 30 with the bat we would have got value ahead of a specialist. I can see Bird really struggling in India. And I can see Faulkner finding a way to take wickets and score runs. Same with Maxwell, I’d back him to get some wickets with the helpful pitches. And in all likelihood he would score more runs than someone like Khawaja anyway. Sub continent is the place to gamble on bits and pieces players to fill the empty spots.

India is all about getting the most value from the few positions up for grabs. All-rounders can work there because you need both bowling variety and batting depth. I’d have Maxwell or Turner at 6 as the second spinner with SOK. Lyon is not doing enough to justify a place ahead of an accurate off spinner like either of these two who will provide key runs. They would probably do a comparable job in those conditions. My third seamer would be Faulkner because if you can’t have outright pace and swing you might as well have variety and Faulkner offers plenty, along with accuracy and a decent FC record. He’d do a job. Now there are five bowlers and a very deep batting line up: Warner, Renshaw, S Marsh / Khawaja, Smith, Handscomb, Maxwell, Nevill, Faulkner, Starc, O’Keefe, Hazlewood. Also five right handers in the middle order.

Absolutely. We should be doing everything possible.

Thank you very much.

Couldn’t agree more Andy. In fact Matty Hayden requested exactly that from the curator of Allan Board field prior to that 2001 series, and Indian conditions were replicated for him as best as possible.on a practice wicket. The results speak for themselves. I believe more innovative thinking like this is required for all nations to compete better away from home.

I agree with that. It would be great to see a real focus on Test cricket development, and your idea to have contracts with stipulations could help that.

I’d happily sign guys like Silk, Doolan, Burns, Bird and Sayers to tailored 4-day cricket contracts right now and hope it pays dividends.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. In the end it comes down to the type of balance you’re looking for. I think our specialist batting situation is so desperate that we’re almost better off just batting deep rather than thinking we can actually rely on 6 specialists to do the work they’ve proven they can’t do.

The sacrifice I’m willing to make for one of our completely out-of-form walking wickets to not be in the team is to have a less-credentialed batsman like Faulkner coming in down the order and giving us 5 specialist bowlers. No doubt it’s an attacking approach, and many would say foolish.

I’m aware it could fail spectacularly, but I’ve lost all confidence in our batting stocks to the point I’d be happy to replace one of them with an all-rounder.

We’ve had issues bowling teams out in the second innings and I don’t think four bowlers (when two of them are Siddle and Lyon) are going to be enough to blast out this opposition. I honestly believe we need 5 bowlers to get the job done because different styles suit different situations. It’s very handy having that 5th bowler, especially one like Faulkner who offers something quite different to the rest of the attack. I can see Faulkner being dangerous on 4th and 5th-day pitches with all his variety – more so than Lyon that’s for sure.

Just to be clear, if Watson was 100% fit to bowl as much as we needed him and Mike Hussey was still around at number six, I’d scrap this and go with a more conventional line-up.

I wish we had 6 international-class batsmen (one of who could bowl tidily when required) so this debate didn’t even need to be had.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. I think there’s a strong chance Agar will be in the Test team by the time England comes to Australia. Deep down, away from the public backing, I’m not convinced Clarke has a lot of faith in Lyon. I think he’d ideally love to have a spinner who could loop the ball and turn it back, and genuinely threaten international batsmen.

As an Australian fan I hope Lyon proves me wrong. But I predict a pretty tough time of it for him in England against these right-handers.

Henriques has a first class batting average of 31.67 and a bowling average of 27.16.
Faulkner has a first class batting average of 29.11 and a bowling average of 22.34.

Henriques has batted at 7 for Australia and proved toothless with the ball.

So just how crazy is it to suggest Faulkner might be picked at 7 in England? As far as I can see, not that crazy at all.

I don’t think the selectors are looking at Faulkner as a possible third seamer ahead of any of the big 5. They’re thinking about him as a number 7 in the event Watson a) doesn’t get picked, or b) can’t bowl.

I’m surprised more people don’t see this as a viable option and one that we may very well be watching in two and a half weeks.

Sorry you’re right, I got a bit carried away. But he has batted in the top 7, which essentially means he’s playing as a batting all-rounder for his country and his first class batting record is nothing to write home about.

The fact he slotted in behind Wade in the order pretty much shows where he’s at as a batsman. Does anyone think Henriques or Maxwell are all that more accomplished batsmen than Faulkner? Maybe slightly, but there wouldn’t be much in it. And Faulkner is twice the bowler either of them are.

My suggestion is that Faulkner at 7 is not THAT different to what we have done in recent times already. It’s certainly not as far-fetched as some people seem to think it is.

Do you think Lyon has the tools that Ajmal and Swann have? It’s not always just a matter of time; it also depends on the action and the capabilities of that action. Is Nathan Hauritz the complete package now that he wasn’t six years ago? I’d say he’s pretty much the same old Nathan Hauritz. And it wouldn’t surprise me if Nathan Lyon remains the same Nathan Lyon, perhaps slightly more consistent and wiser.

Here’s the big question: do you think Nathan Lyon will be Australia’s number one spinner in 3 years?

I’m prepared to confidently say no. I don’t even think he’s a better bowler than Jon Holland – he’s just had more international exposure which means he’s obviously more experienced right now. I believe Holland would take more wickets at Test level.

Add Cummins to that, if he ever manages to stay on the field. Personally I think he’s more far talented than even Pattinson, but his body is still a huge concern.

Perhaps in the not too distant future we’ll see something like:

Hughes
Silk
Khawaja
Clarke
Smith
Wade
Faulkner
Starc
Agar
Pattinson
Sayers/Bird

Next in line:
Doolan
Burns
Paine
Siddle
Holland

He’s not far away at all, but I do still query his ability against quality swing building. I get the feeling he’d be a nicker at international level where they’ll probe around his off stump more consistently. Very talented and improved player, though, and at least he belongs at six unlike our plethora of left-handed opening batsmen. And like Warner, you could add a few numbers to his batting average from fielding ability alone.

It would be quite amusing, but even I am happy to draw the line at five batsmen, a keeper and five bowlers.

Really? So it’s that unlikely we would pick Haddin at six given the following factors:

1. Wade has batted at 6 in our two most recent series.
2. Henriques has batted at 5 for Australia!
3. Maxwell has been considered a batsman at all
4. Faulkner is every bit the batsman Maxwell is
5. We don’t have a standout number six batsman. In fact we don’t have a genuine middle order batsman in the entire squad apart from the captain. Everyone else is an opener.
6. Watson might not be able to bowl at certain times in the series, bringing us back down to only four bowlers unless you promote someone like Faulkner or Starc as a bowling all-rounder. I think Watson needs to be treated as a batsman.
7. Our strength is our fast bowling and the selectors will be very tempted to play more than 3 of them to try and blast England out.

Based on all that, you really think you’re as likely to wake up in a big bed with stephie rice on one arm and natalie imbruglia on the other arm? Good luck.

That’s a very balanced reply, and I don’t strongly disagree with anything you’ve said.

I do however think we have the potential to bat deeper than the other teams you have mentioned. Most international teams have a couple of handy lower-order batsmen as you mentioned, but few would have someone like Siddle or Harris coming in at number 11. That is a seriously deep batting order when you consider Siddle is coming off back-to-back 50s in India – more than most of our actual batsmen. You have to get Siddle out, he won’t hand you his wicket on a platter that’s for sure.

I’d also suggest that Faulkner is easily and Starc is probably a superior batsman to Shane Warne and Brett Lee.

It’s a fair comparison, though, and you’re right there’s probably not a lot between the two eras.

If I thought our number six batsman could contribute significantly to our performance then I wouldn’t be thinking this way. But if we face facts – i.e. that Haddin is almost certainly going to do better at six than whichever opener we would shove down there – then we might as well just pick a bowling all-rounder 7 and a handy 8 to 11. I’m assuming that anything we get out of Watson is a bonus as he’s too likely to be unable to bowl when we need him to be considered our fifth option.

Lyon is there based on incumbency alone, surely. It’s quite obvious he’s not the most gifted spin option for Australia, but some people need the door kicked down before they’re willing to accept a changing of the guard and make a tough call. Gilchrist waited too long behind Healy, and Agar may end up waiting too long behind Lyon.

The issue with Lyon is that he will only ever ‘do a job’ as they like to say, but he will never win the match for you. He will never consistently look like picking up multiple top-order wickets. He’s serviceable, but that is hardly going to win us The Ashes.