Nick Kyrgios, Bernard Tomic and Glenn Maxwell share awesome natural ability, but all three have trouble harnessing their biggest asset.
Kyrgios has a short-fuse temper and a foul mouth, Tomic a hot and cold relationship with his peers, and Maxwell invents new ways to let himself and his team down.
But if ever they get their acts together and concentrate on their natural talents, Australia boast a trio of world-class sportsmen.
There have been encouraging signs lately all three are making headway promoting their assets, and leaving the rubbish in private.
Kyrgios is into the third round of the Australian Open at Melbourne Park thanks to two straight sets wins playing plenty of magnificent tennis – all power, precision and placement.
He’s beaten a couple of Pablos – Carreno Busta ranked 68, 6-2, 7-5, 6-2 in 91 minutes, and Cuevas ranked 41, 6-4 7-5, 7-6 in two hours.
Both matches were won because Kyrgios kept his cool and concentrated on what he does best, serving booming aces or unplayable serves, and cracking huge drives off both wings, either down the line or across court.
It’s been fascinating watching him concentrating on his talent, and using it to the full. He’s boomed 35 aces to just 18, cracked 87 winners to 54, and won 202 points to 161,
If there’s one area Kyrios can improve it’s his unforced errors that have been 50 to 54 – far too many, but he’s in such an aggressive mode it matters not if he keeps winning in straight sets.
Next up the very talented Tomas Berdych who will feed off any Kyrgios mistakes. That’s when the unforced errors will come into play.
Tomic wasn’t anywhere near as clinical as Kyrgios in his four-set win over Denis Istomin in the first round – 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. In fact, the match stats would suggest Istomin was a lot closer than the scoreline suggests.
Istomin out-aced Tomic 23-16, struck more winners 56-51, and made less unforced errors 35-43.
Tomic scored more points 137-123, and converted four out of ten breaks points, while Istomin converted just one of 14.
But a win is a win, and as both Kyrgios and Tomic behaved impeccably, they are both on the right track.
That leaves Glenn Maxwell.
Matt Wade, Maxwell’s Victorian wicketkeeping mate, did him no favours when he nicknamed Maxwell the ‘Big Show’ early in is career.
To his credit, Maxwell never liked the tag, especially when his batting was more of a no show than a big show.
And yesterday at Manuka, Channel Nine’s Mark Nicholas bracketed Maxwell with AB de Villiers and Virat Kohli as the world’s most dangerous ODI batsmen.
Absolute bollocks, with Nicholas not doing Maxwell any favours either.
Fact, Maxwell has enormous natural talent and power, but he doesn’t, as yet, know how to handle it.
If he gave away the hero shots like the reverse sweep and cowboy shots altogether and played every ball on its merits, Maxwell would be a far better batsman, and a far better team man.
But as long as his backside points to the ground, Maxwell will never match de Villiers or Kohli.
Maxwell’s 1704 runs at 36.25 from 59 games with one century and 13 half-centuries will never compare to de Villiers’ 8403 at 54.21 from 196 games with 23 centuries and 47 half-centuries.
Or Kohli’s 7204 runs at 51.82 from 170 games with 25 tons and 26 half-centuries.
Just let Glenn Maxwell be Glenn Maxwell, providing he plays every delivery on its merit, and uses his extraordinary natural talent to the max, instead of butchering it with far too many low percentage shots.
I look forward to the day when Nick Kyrgios, Bernard Tomic and Glenn Maxwell realise their full potential.
It will be a great era for Australian sport.
Chris Love
Guest
I am asking this as a serious question to the roar editors. Can we please have "expert" removed from David's profile and "clickbait" replace it? Seriously.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Warner's World Cup was very average and is incredibly inflated by a pointless massive century against Afghanistan. You take that out and he averaged 27.83 over the other seven (22, 34, 9, 21* - against Scotland - 24, 12 and 45). Whilst Warner is a supreme talent in Test and T20 cricket, I'm yet to be convinced of him in ODI cricket.
rtp
Guest
I didn't realise Warner's WC was that good (although the 171 against Afghanistan no doubt helped). Starc is our most important player - and probably the most valuable player in ODIs in the world. But Maxwell would just about by my next pick in a world XI. He typically bowls 6-10 overs in a match thereby allowing the team to have quality batsmen all the way down to number 8.
bryan
Guest
2015 WC... biggest event in ODI for last 4 years.. GJ Maxwell (Aus) 324 @ 64.80 with 182.02 SR SPD Smith (Aus) 402 @ 67.00 with 91.57 SR DA Warner (Aus) 345 @ 49.28 with 120.20 SR Oh and 6 wickets. Who do you think had the best tournament?
Paul D
Roar Guru
Was worth suffering through that pap above just to read this comment. Glorious. David - I know an excellent geriatrician here in Brisbane if you want a referral to assess your declining mental competence.
spruce moose
Guest
Well that's not true. Is just in this case, he's said nothing illegal. However, these are still the words of a biased scribbler who should have retired before his credibility expired.
Tom
Guest
I love that at the time of writing there is 100% consensus against the author. If there's one thing this despicable and idiotic article has done is unite cricket fans together in a way I'm not sure I've seen before. Congrats to david for that. Now can someone get rid of the "expert" next to his name, maybe change it to "clown", or "goose".
MJB
Guest
Did you seriously just tell a middle-order ODI batsman to not play low percentage shots? Did you actually compare a cricket all rounder to a couple of sulky tennis players? Did you find that 'expert' tag underneath your name in a Christmas cracker?
MJB
Guest
/thread.
TomCarter'ssprintcoach
Guest
Yeah, the current no. 1 ranked batsman in our team, which isn't bad for a guy not in the top four, needs to do more: http://www.icc-cricket.com/player-rankings/mens-odi (not saying these rankings are conclusive, but not the worst indicator going around). And at 27 should have scored more than guys who have played 3 to 4 times as many games, whilst batting outside the top 5 like most of the people listed. Sure. Ok. Don't compare a guy playing a team role, and being arguably the second best player in our WC wins, to two guys that think 4th round/QFs in a Grand Slam once a year is be all and end all. And I echo everything everyone has said about lumping Maxwell, who is exemplary off the field, with the Nick and Bernie show.
peeeko
Roar Guru
agree, if he is trying to attract comments he is succeeding. and yes i fell for it
peeeko
Roar Guru
excellent analysis Sir, loved it
peeeko
Guest
well said
Kaks
Roar Guru
Freedom of speech mate, as much as we all disagree with what D.Lord has to say, he still has the right to say it.
anon
Guest
Fair enough, you can justify having him play in tests, but there's no way you can justify playing Shaun Marsh in one dayers.
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
All fair points. But the bigger picture is: who else were they going to pick in that period? The past few SS seasons have been dominated by older players / those recently retired. There really hasn't been many younger players bashing down the door yet to be picked. Look at Sheffield Shield batting stats. Let's just take 2014/15. I've put a bif of commentary next to the names. When you look at this list, they didn't have a heap of choice? AC Voges 104.46 (picked) M Klinger 58.11 (probably considered too old - he was battling with Voges) CT Bancroft 47.15 (battling for an opening spot, taken by Burns) CJ Ferguson 52.25 (similar to Marsh - underwhelming shield record) EJM Cowan 47.94 (been there, done that) JA Burns 52.86 (picked) MP Stoinis 49.06 (all rounder) PM Nevill 76.4 (picked, keeper) SE Marsh 64.18 (you can see why they like him in this list) RJ Quiney 42.93 (been there, done that) Go back another year (I'm not gunna paste these ones in as can't be stuffed) and there's M North, Quiney again, C White, a couple of wicket keepers... perhaps the only other one was Tom Cooper but his shield average is 34.
anon
Guest
If we go back to the start of 2013 he's scored 500 ODI runs with 151 of them coming against Scotland at an average of 50 with an abysmal strike rate of 73 (scored 151 off 151 against Scotland). Take out the innings against Scotland (because it's like playing grade cricketers) and his average becomes 38 and his strike rate becomes a laughable 64. In tests, since the start of 2013 he's batted 19 times in tests for an average of 43. Respectable, but this includes a 182 in his most recent innings and a 148 against South Africa nearly 2 years. In the intervening 17 innings he's played his highest score was 99 and he scored less than 2 runs on 6 ocassions. Basically his first big score in 2 years against New Zealand recently saved his hide because before that there was a 17 inning period over nearly 2 years where he averaged 28. His ODI strike rate of 64 (if you exclude the Scotland inning) in the last 3 years is incredibly selfish.
Long Retired Flanker, Still in Pain
Guest
Was this submitted on the editor's day off? If not, can you explain why you approved it, Ed?
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
Check your stats, not quite correct. Maybe left out the one * in tests? 1... last 9 test innings he has averaged 43. Take in a few more innings and it goes up to 47 2... why would you remove the 182 anyway? Even if you do, it's 26 not 16 3... in ODIs... let's take a larger sample size of last 10 innings, for example, and his average becomes 59 Not bad really? Edit just realised your ODI avg for him in past 3 matches was also 59.... my calc at least shows consistency over several years.
Kaks
Roar Guru
Thats the scary thing, for most of us we can see how good he currently is even though he hasnt even developed to his full potential. As you said, we have Smith who is our version of AB, Williamson, Kohli. Yet we have a guy who sits quite low in the order who can hit 50 off 20 balls late in the innings who bowlers struggle to bowl to because he has every shot in his repertoire. Whats not to love?