Fresh from a summer of cricket and cricket commentary, many Roar readers would be familiar with the same old cricket cliches which are rolled out time after time.
Among my most hated of these phrases are: “He threw his wicket away”, “He went out playing a dumb shot” and “He should be more watchful”.
All three miss the point of batting. Batsmen are there to make runs.
Going out playing a shot should not be considered a crime; batting for four hours and making thirty runs should be.
The reason I bring this up is all the Glenn Maxwell bashing I hear. Everyone keeps telling me he goes out in ridiculous ways. They’re probably right.
But why does that matter?
Statistically Maxwell’s an international standard player. In ODIs his batting average is 35 at a strike rate of 125.
That’s the same average as Adam Gilchrist, but his strike rate was “only” 90.
Add in the fact Maxwell is one of the best fielders in the world and a viable part-time spinner and you have a player who is surely good enough to get a game in the national 50-over and 20-over teams.
But people don’t judge Maxwell rationally. They judge him on his style. Players who take the game on and suffer the consequences must be genuinely world class, like Gilchrist was, or the public lashes them.
Maxwell is not the only one to be judged harshly for playing an aggressive game. Others include Andrew Symonds, Mark Waugh and David Warner (perhaps by coincidence, all showed immense talent in the field as well).
Each of them have displayed the ability to do just about anything with the bat, and also a tendency to go out softly.
This has frustrated many a fan. Yet statistically, Symonds, Waugh and Warner are or were fine batsmen.
All average about 40 in both Test and One Day cricket except for Warner, who averages 30 in ODIs. Obviously others have average more but those averages indicate they were solid international cricketers.
Their aggression also helped their partners ease into their innings without the pressure of needing to score, and made the bowlers worry about where to put the ball.
People tend not think about that though. They prefer to comment on how Mark Waugh’s Test average could have been higher, or how they don’t trust Warner to open the batting.
Of the three Symonds is the most similar to Maxwell. Waugh and Warner were clearly always specialist batsmen. Early in his career Symonds was very much a batting all-rounder. Maxwell is in the same category now.
Maybe in a few years Maxwell will learn to harness his immense talent, maintain his attacking instinct and refine his shot selection, much like Symonds did.
I, for one, think he has the talent to one day play as a batsman in Test cricket if he’s managed properly.
Yes, Maxwell throws his wicket away and yes, at times, he plays some awfully dumb shots.
But at least he’s taking the game to the opposition and when he does get going, he changes games. If you don’t like these kinds of batsmen I suggest you’d find great pleasure in watching Joe Root.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I think he needs to show far greater match awareness. There is a massive difference between being 'attacking' and being 'reckless' or even 'dumb', but sadly, it's not a difference Maxwell understands just yet.
Michael Frawley
Guest
Yes, good call, of course it's not ok. I was more trying to make the point that I'd prefer an attacking batsmen who occasionally throws it away than someone who just looks to occupy the crease. If you want attacking batsmen you need to be prepared to take the good with the bad. Of course if you want guys who only ever go out bowled, caught behind the wicket or lbw, that's fine. Just don't expect them to score at any great rate.
Andy Capper
Guest
Correct...Maxwell is way more exciting to watch :)
Barnsey
Guest
Please don't use the name Waugh and maxwell in the same article, please!! -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Geoff Lemon says it best with "The Show That Might Turn Out To Be Quite Good But Is Currently Getting Mixed Reviews." He is reckless and immature in his batting at the moment, but gets away with it due to his potential.
Andrew
Guest
The problem is if he plays the way he does and it works, it's good job and if it doesn't, it's criticism. I agree he needs to play more orthodox shots when we need him to stick around but if its advantage team, go for it. (Just not every ball!)
bryan
Guest
This is one of the reasons moneyball was invented
David Parncutt
Guest
Whilst I agree that Maxwell certainly has the potential to have a big future in limited overs cricket he deserves a lot of the criticism he is getting. Taking the game on can be a good trait and is especially good when opening the batting - knowing that the 6 batsmen coming in after you can adjust their style based on your performance. The problem with Maxwell is that he takes big risks when his team can't afford to take them. He doesn't open the batting, he usually comes in 5-7 and when his team is struggling at 4 for not many instead of playing a straight bat for a few overs he often plays across the line, failing to adjust his game style for the situation.
The High Shot
Roar Pro
Maxwell's overblown reputation is probably less his own fault than it is the fault of the creepy, teeny-bopperish, slavering worship that most of the Channel 9 commentary team inflicts on us. Brayshaw and the perennial echo-chamber Slater in particular go on about him as though he's Bradman with the bat, Warne with the ball and Rhodes in the field.
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
It's all about the context in which it occurs. "Batting for four hours and making thirty runs" is sometimes exactly what is necessary. By all means if it's the last over of an ODI/T20 then silly shots are going to be played and excused readily, but when your team is in trouble and you're seemingly set, slogs across the line that result in a dismissal are quite rightly going to attract criticism.
Simon
Guest
Part of it is not actually Maxwell's fault. He is partly a product of his own making, and partly a victim of circumstance. For example, he had not say whatsoever in: - His undeserved nickname - "The Big Show". - His undeserved selection in the Test team in India. - His undeserved million dollar IPL contract. Blame his Vic team mates (and James Brayshaw) for the nickname, blame the national selectors for the test spot and blame the 'all dollars and no sense' Indian millionaires for the IPL contract. All Glenn can do is show up and play cricket. We just wish he would do it with a little more discipline and awareness.
Razza
Guest
If the BIGSHOW Maxwell sticks to his big hitting instead of trying to be fancy with stupid shots that are a gamble more then anything, then he wont be picked on. So what do we call Simmons now ??, the SUPER BIG SHOW, what an innings, so if he was known for his big hitting and quick centuries 100 off 39 balls and lastnght 100 of 50 odd, where was he in one day and T20 matches against the Poms ?? and does that mean he has the skills for test matches ??.
Sportnut
Guest
See article below about Rogers influence on Warner. Until Maxwell shows some change in his approach he will cop the criticism.
Squidward
Roar Rookie
Everyone just wants to belittle the big show
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Haha! Great minds, or something, something?
Brett McKay
Expert
Michael, you're not seriously suggesting that as long as Maxwell makes runs, his method of dismissal doesn't matter, are you? THAT'S the reason Maxwell is criticised, that he wastes starts, that he does indeed throw his wicket away, and that he lacks match awareness!
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Michael, if you get out playing a ridiculous shot, at an important time in the match with your team desperately needing you to stay in, you can't possibly be saying that it's OK, as long as you scored some runs beforehand, or reached your average? Surely?