Maxwell tees off again, but Australia limp to victory over Sri Lanka

Like many of David's age, it's new and they don't like it.

On a different note I have a piece up on the side titled Paralympians of cricket. Think you will enjoy it.

David I loved your article until the last two lines. You still have sand in your jocks about Maxwell

maxwell is a match winning player and a best player of t20 format. i love to watch maxwell batting.

"His runs before he teed off in his last two spectacular digs were 0, 6, 0, 0, 3, 46*, and 4 before he was dropped – average 9.67." And yet, even with that slump, Maxwell's ODI batting average is 33.26, which is solid for an all-rounder, particularly one who is scoring at the amazing strike rate of 126. Compare Maxwell's 33 batting average to other well-regarded ODI batting all-rounders like Ben Stokes (25), Moeen Ali (28) and Corey Anderson (32). And David I have to disagree with you that Maxwell "can't bowl". He has averaged 30 with the ball over the past 2 years in ODIs....what more could you want from a batting all-rounder?

Maxwell ought to be the frontrunner to replace Voges at 5. Instead, the selectors will take a punt on some player with a sub-40 average like Head or Handscomb.

If Marsh and Nevill were more reliable I'd love to see Maxwell in there, but a 5-7 of these three is too big a risk. I could be persuaded to use Marsh at 8 as third seamer and bring in Maxwell that way

Having watched him in a couple of shield games Matth, if given a chance will flourish in test cricket. He is a very astute red ball player. Forget the firework shots, his technique is as good as any. A naturally gifted player.

A while back Maxwell was the only ODI batsman in history with an average over 30 and a strike rate over 125. His recent run has brought that down but he is still a rare commodity. And in T20 where losing your wicket means very little he is worth his weight in gold. I would love to see him get a run in tests, rather than just parachuted into the sub continent when everyone else is failing too. But unfortunately I don't think you can afford maxwell and Marsh in a top 6 unless your keeper is called Gilchrist or Flower.

Maxwell is a match winner and they are rare. He would be my first picked. As Matthews said, I am glad Maxwell isn't playing the One Dayers. Also need to pick Faulkner as a bowling all rounder.

He's loads more value than Henriques

You don't think players don't go through form slumps David? Mark Taylor went over a year in test match cricket without a run. It happens. His career record for the type of player he is is excellent. You need to get off your high horse and understand, white ball cricket has changed. No more Geoff Marsh's unfortunately for you.

I have noticed that Maxwell gets his scores consistently when others struggle. He also loves the tough opposition and conditions to get him concentrating. Border and Waugh had these qualities. If he was a selfish bloke this wouldn't be the case. Loads of ability and loves a challenge. If he was a NSW player he wouldn't be judged so badly? They wanting batting in the test team instead of Henriques.

No one said he wasn't out of form David. Ronan is talking about his career statistics. But hey, he was only the ODI player of the year in 2016... You just have it in for the guy. You fail to accept that his role in the side is exactly as Ronan states, to be explosive. He does not bat in the top 4, the positions that are meant to be occupied by the "consistent" batsmen that score centuries.

What it did show was the decision had been made before the 46* in the 2nd last ODI in the West Indies. And, on the basis of Henriques coming into squads (test/ODI) that included people like M.Marsh and Faulkner shows that they were willing to make the 'statement' to Maxwell more than worrying about replacing him with someone who wouldn't be surplus to requirement and who didn't actually demand selection. This is my hope - that this was a 'calculated' slap in the face to Maxwell. However - when discussing international currency - we now look at Henriques - who batted top 6 in a test match and was trialled last night at #3 in the T20. ODIs:12, 6, 2, 3, 9*, 4, 6 ,4 Tests: 68, 81*, 5, 0, 0, 2, 4, 4 T20s: 1, 12, dnb, dnb, dnb, 1 So - can we forget about Henriques - please. As for Maxwell - who was named our ODI player of the year at the Alan Border medal back in January, after being selected in the World side out of the 2015 ICCWC - that he lost his currency so rapidly despite 169 at 56.33 in his previous 4 ODI's in Australia and sure he had had a lean trot in NZ - you'd think though that the notion of being 'due' was illustrated by his clubbing 46* off 26 balls that lifted Australia to a 'comfortable' 8 ball win chasing over 280 - you'd think that would be sufficient for most credentialed players to be given the tick for the short format.

Maxwell is a high risk, high reward player. I would definitely have him at 6 in the test side as he will come off more times than Mitch Marsh does. Plus he's not injury prone like marsh is.

David - I actually agree with you on Maxwell's recent form. If he mixes brilliant with 0s I'm ok with that. If he can't get it going for 6 innings in a row he needs a little break to recharge and find some form. If he can find that in t20 then great - bring him back in. He should be in the ODI team for the next series.

Ditto on your (Ronan's) point. Maxwell is so far a class above - for example - compared to a plodder like Henriques. And - for the Australian public and selectors - the challenge again is to accept Maxwell for what he is rather than bemoan what he isn't. That was challenge that Andrew Symonds and Shane Watson both presented. Heck - a challenge that Pakistan has faced for 20 years with Afridi. Can Mr.Lord simply accept that the 'X' factor that Maxwell provides is well worth while within the line up - especially in short form cricket - however - Maxwell has a pretty solid first class record and we Victorians know that he's produced some excellent red ball innings when things were exceptionally tough. And this perhaps is a key - there are red ball times when it's very hard to bat for a long time - so, the capacity to impact heavily and to challenge the fielding side is not something to be sneezed at. What is a crying shame for his development is at a month shy of turning 28 that he has only played 43 first class matches. That isn't a failing of G.Maxwell who averages 41. Contrast to Head - who at 22 1/2 has played 2 more FC matches, batted 13 more times, scored a couple of hundred more runs - but - at avg below 33 with 3 100s and 19 50s compared to Maxwell with 5 100s and 16 50s. So Maxwell 50+ 21/70 compared to Head 22/83. Now - D.Warner - came in as a white ball specialist and has been evolved now into a red ball specialist - a FC avg of 50+ - however, at age approaching 30, outside of test cricket Warner has only played an extra 22 first class matches. What's my point?? Maxwell has - by modern standards - done enough in red ball cricket to be seriously considered - and really, really should have been seriously considered for the test tour of Sri Lanka. The fact that Henriques got in the test squad to start with was astounding - that he batted as a top 6 batsman in a test match is such an underselling of the baggy green that a Royal Commission ought be demanded. Henriques has 63 FC matches, 100 hits, and passed 50 on 19 occasions for an avg a bit over 31. The side already had Mitch Marsh. So - how the heck does Henriques get any where near it (the test XI)?? The sad reality is that the north of the Murrumbidgee anti-Victorian bias (that only the world beating stats of S.K.Warne were able to deflect but even then there were Sydney based experts calling for Macgill instead) threatens to completely derail the career of Maxwell and that will be Australia's loss (a little similar to how P.Siddle wasn't used in England last Ashes series in a horses for courses approach that the English were dumbfounded by).

Spot on Ronan.