Glenn Maxwell has arrived as a Test batsman, but can he stay?

David Lord Columnist

By David Lord, David Lord is a Roar Expert

 , ,

58 Have your say

    It’s been fascinating reading and watching the reactions to Glenn Maxwell’s first Test ton.

    The reports and comments have ranged from “I told you so”. to the arrival of another Messiah, and he’s cemented his berth in the Ashes campaign next Australian summer.

    Maxwell now has an international century in all three formats.

    Yesterday he became the 13th to achieve the feat, joining the likes of Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma, Chris Gayle, Brendon McCullum, Mahaela Jayawardene, Faf du Plessis, and Shane Watson.

    Let’s compare the trio of Maxwell tons.

    His first was a ODI 102 against Sri Lanka at the SCG in 2015 in his cowboy days that included 10 fours and four sixes, facing just 53 deliveries.

    His second was a blistering unbeaten 145 in a T20 clash with Sri Lanka at Pallekele last year, with 14 fours and nine sixes of just 65 deliveries. Another cowboy innings.

    But his best international century by the length of the straight was this innings of 104, at Ranchi. The knock came from 185 deliveries, with only nine fours, and a couple of sixes.

    It was an innings of pure quality with plenty of dedication and patience in a record fifth wicket stand of 191 against India, in India, with his skipper Steve Smith.

    Will the 28-year-old realise that the Test ton was exactly what the Australian side needs at six?

    There’s no room for a hit and miss cowboy wearing a baggy green cap.

    And I hasten to add there’s no reason why Maxwell can’t still be the entertainer, or the Big Show, in limited overs formats by utilising his tremendous power and precision more intelligently.

    He was there for the long haul at Ranchi, but when he played the big shots his head and feet were in position, with no windy woofs, they were all clean strikes.

    There’s a long and fruitful future playing every ball on its merits, and leaving the low percentage trick shot reverse sweeps and ramps in the shed.

    He’s rated as an all-rounder, but his offies have yet to surface at Ranchi.

    Don’t expect any heroics with the ball, especially as Steve O’Keefe and Nathan Lyon are the senior spinners.

    Australia's Steve O'Keefe celebrates the dismissal of India's Ajinkya Rahane

    They’ve already bowled 21 cheap overs between them, and are likely to bowl a whole lot more before Steve Smith calls on Maxwell.

    In the meantime Maxwell can save plenty of runs in the field and force the odd run out, as consistently one of the world’s best fieldsmen.

    But if he gets the chance at Ranchi, hopefully he’ll bowl darts from around the wicket as he’s likely to extract more lift than either O’Keefe, or Lyon.

    And if adrenaline is required, Maxwell must surely have that asset freely flowing through his veins after the innings of his life.

    Let’s see how it all pans out.

    David Lord
    David Lord

    David Lord was deeply involved in two of the biggest sporting stories - World Series Cricket in 1977 and professional rugby in 1983. After managing Jeff Thomson and Viv Richards during WSC, in 1983 David signed 208 of the best rugby players from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and France to play an international pro circuit. The concept didn?t get off the ground, but it did force the IRB to get cracking and bring in the World Rugby Cup, now one of the world?s great sporting spectacles

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (58)

    • Roar Rookie

      March 18th 2017 @ 4:05am
      El Loco said | March 18th 2017 @ 4:05am | ! Report

      Oh boy, as always, where to start?…

      Firstly, enough with this derogatory “cowboy” term. When has he played like a cowboy, and I only understand that by interpreting your descriptions, other than circumstances dictating? Even the outrageous 37 off 28 in the UAE I’m willing to bet my children (and they’re super cute) that that was under instructions from Lehmann to “play his natural game”.

      Secondly, does Maxwell need to realise his century at number six was what we needed, or the selectors? Maxwell just did exactly what people keep claiming he can’t do, but straight away you’re acting as if he’s too stupid to understand its value.

      Thirdly, why rank his centuries, they were all valuable in different formats. The T20 one, well sure it was T20, but it at least revived a diabolical tour. The ODI one was in a World Cup match against Sri Lanka where the innings was suddenly in a precarious position after losing Clarke and Smith in quick succession with 177 on the board. Cue Maxwell and 13 overs later we’re comfortably approaching 350 (and the Lankans gave us a hell of a fright in a big chase, they were critical runs). Now the test century, absolutely magical, they’re all rippers.

      Anyway, another Lord article, another riled response, mission accomplished.

      • Columnist

        March 18th 2017 @ 7:11am
        David Lord said | March 18th 2017 @ 7:11am | ! Report

        Congratulations El Loco on your selective memory, completely overlooking the fact consistent runs are the only currency for international selection.

        Let’s compare three Australian all-rounders from different eras:

        Doug Walters (1965-1981) scored 15 Test tons from 125 visits to the crease, but no ODI centuries in 24.

        That’s 15 hundreds from 149 visits, or an international century every 10 visits to the crease.

        Adam Gilchrist (1996-2008) made 17 Test tons from 137 starts, 16 ODI tons from 279, and no T20 centuries in 13.

        That’s 33 international centuries from 429 visits, or one every 13 starts.

        Glenn Maxwell (2012-current) has made one Test ton from seven starts, one ODI century from 74, and one T20 ton from 36.

        That’s three international centuries from 117, or one every 39 starts.

        Currency El Loco, currency.

        • March 18th 2017 @ 7:25am
          soapit said | March 18th 2017 @ 7:25am | ! Report

          is it selective memory to choose the world greatest keeper batsman as example to compare against?

          or to include compare rates of one day hundreds directly against test hundreds as if they have the same opportunity to occur (word is you have watched international cricket before so you should know they dont)?

          its no wonder you reach the conclusions you do with analysis like this (tho id bet the conclusions come well before the analysis is attempted).

          remuneration david. remuneration.

        • Roar Rookie

          March 18th 2017 @ 7:29am
          El Loco said | March 18th 2017 @ 7:29am | ! Report

          You’ve chosen two random players from history to compare with Maxwell, and I have the selective memory?

          • Columnist

            March 18th 2017 @ 8:10am
            David Lord said | March 18th 2017 @ 8:10am | ! Report

            El Loco, I could select any Australian middle order batsman from any era and he would have a better strike rate than an international century every 39 digs.

            You don’t get picked on that stat.

            Can’t you see that if Maxwell improves his success rate, he would be among the first picked in every format?

            There’s absolute;y no argument he has the ability, but it’s his application that is questioned, as one in 39 proves.

            Currency El Loco, currency.

            • March 18th 2017 @ 9:05am
              SonOfLordy said | March 18th 2017 @ 9:05am | ! Report

              I think it’s more relevant to compare Maxwell to the mug who has batted number 6 for the past three years.

              Maxwell is a vast improvement on Mitch Marsh and deserves his place in the team until his form doesn’t warrant selection or someone better comes along in Shield cricket.

            • Roar Rookie

              March 18th 2017 @ 9:07am
              El Loco said | March 18th 2017 @ 9:07am | ! Report

              It’s barely worth it, but here goes:

              Stop counting T20s where centuries are a rarity, and there’s little generational comparison.
              Stop acting as if centuries are the only currency in ODIs.
              Then look at just their test records, Maxi scores a ton every seven innings, beating your old mates Doug and Gilly. I don’t stand by this because I know it’s an inadequate statistical analysis.

              Then finally stop making silly claims that would be better buried deep in the comments section of a cricinfo article.

              Relevance David, relevance.

            • March 18th 2017 @ 9:22am
              Peebo said | March 18th 2017 @ 9:22am | ! Report

              Lunacy, David: lunacy

              Gilchrist was an opener in ODI’s. Maxwell bats 5 / 6 in ODI’s and it’s rare to make centuries batting that low. You’re not just apples and oranges on that, you’re apples and soiled dacks.

              If you want to evaluate Maxwell meaningfully on centuries per innings, find another all rounder who batted 5 / 6. And then let’s see their average and strike rate while we’re at it.

              PS Roar, why do you publish such shamelessly biased rubbish like this?

              • March 18th 2017 @ 12:31pm
                Joshua Burnell said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:31pm | ! Report

                For example Steve Waugh must be worse then Maxwell. I mean only 3 hundreds in 288 ODI. Maxwell gets a hundred every 7 test innings v 8.25 for Steve Waugh I mean how bad is Waugh and look Steve Waugh failed to ever score a 2020 hundred I mean ever. Actually look at another the great Don Bradman never scored a single ODI hundred or 2020 hundred I mean how useless is he

        • March 18th 2017 @ 8:13am
          Marcus said | March 18th 2017 @ 8:13am | ! Report

          In fairness to Maxwell, in the short versions of the game he doesn’t often bat in a position where there’s enough balls available for a ton. (Even for him)

          Comparing him to Gilly who spent the majority of his career opening isn’t a fair comparison.

        • March 18th 2017 @ 10:57am
          Don Freo said | March 18th 2017 @ 10:57am | ! Report

          David…T20 innings only go for 20 overs. Do you really expect a #6 batsman to score a century in a few overs?

          Your Dougie didn’t score any. See what selective stats can do.

          Easy to score a Gilly ton if you open the batting. If Maxi opened, he’d have stacks.

          As a FC batsman, he has a record you can’t dispute. He has batted responsibly for a long time in Shield and Test. Do you follow Shield cricket?

        • March 18th 2017 @ 12:13pm
          Brian said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:13pm | ! Report

          Maxwell plays 6 or lower in most formats outside of T20 (and we saw what he’s capable of when opening in that format). Of course it’s harder for a six in ODIs to score a ton; he has the highest SR out of any batsman in history to average over 30 to make up for his lack of centuries, which is his role in the ODI side, but that’s also what feeds the illusion that he’s nothing but a slogger. If you examine his domestic stats, he often scores clutch runs when his side is in deep trouble, which is what you want from your lower middle order.

          Maxxie’s knock yesterday, and knowing that Aus have someone in the shed capable of swinging the game with the bat, was a sure sight better than watching Mitch come out looking like a number 11 outside of a few cover drives or slogs to the fence before nicking off or plonking his front foot down and being LBW’d Watto style. Thank god we have only have to view the classic sour Marsh look that he and his brother have perfected after getting out twice this match.

        • March 18th 2017 @ 12:27pm
          Joshua Burnell said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:27pm | ! Report

          I didn’t mind the article but that comparison comment on Gilchrist v Walters v Maxwell based on 100s and records is the worst piece of jounalism ive seen in a long time. It came across as an ill informed comment on here not from a supposed professional writer. I like your stuff often partly because it divides opinion but that comment is almost a trump fact its that bad

        • March 18th 2017 @ 3:10pm
          John Erichsen said | March 18th 2017 @ 3:10pm | ! Report

          T20 tons, in the context of test cricket, should be considered “Monopoly money”. They have no worth away from that specific game, no matter how many hotels you have on Mayfair and Park Lane. Given how flat modern limited overs pitches are, even centuries in that format need a “not to be taken seriously” label when considering test batting prospects.
          However, given that you have used them, comparing Walters career with Maxwell’s is pointless. It was a different world then, especially in ODI. 220 was a competitive total and 70 runs was man of the match. Now 220 is a target for the 35-40 over mark.
          Compare Maxwell with Shane Watson instead. Tests- 4 tons from 109 innings. ODI- 9 tons from 169. T20- 1 ton from 56. 14 international tons from 334 starts, one every 24 starts.
          Mitch Marsh perhaps- Tests- 0 from 35 innings. ODI- 1 ton from 44. T20- 0 from 9. I century from 88 starts.
          Maxwell’s innings was most surprising. Of course, I had heard Glenn share how important test cricket is to him. I had even heard him talk about his new found maturity as a player. I just hadn’t seen any evidence of it. Now I have. Am I sold on Maxwell at six? No way, but I am keen to see if this was an out of body experience that’s never to be repeated (like Tony Mann’s 105 in Perth, 1977) or the start of something wondrous.

        • March 19th 2017 @ 12:02am
          Matth said | March 19th 2017 @ 12:02am | ! Report

          Seriously that is a ridiculous comparison. There is way more opportunity to score centuries in tests. Walters and Gilchrist played plenty. Maxwell has played 4.

          It is much easier to rack up ODI centuries if you are an opener like Gilchrist. Maxwell comes in at 5 or below.

          Not a good effort at all.

    • March 18th 2017 @ 7:01am
      Jameswm said | March 18th 2017 @ 7:01am | ! Report

      “He can’t do it”.

      He does it, so the response is “That’s only once, can he do it again?”

      What next – “that’s only twice”?

      How can you criticise him for a cowboy innings in a T20? What relevance does that have?

    • March 18th 2017 @ 8:08am
      Chris Love said | March 18th 2017 @ 8:08am | ! Report

      I am surprised David even managed to say anything complimentary about Maxy considering the garbage he’s written against him in the past. I would have thought an article about David Warner’s failures would have been more appropriate.

    • Columnist

      March 18th 2017 @ 8:21am
      David Lord said | March 18th 2017 @ 8:21am | ! Report

      Don’t lead with your chin Chris, you want David Warner’s career stats?

      He’s made 18 Test centuries in 115 visits. 13 ODI in 91, and no T20 tons in 63.

      That’s 31 centuries in 269 digs, making an international century every nine visits.

      A tad better than Glenn Maxwell’s one in 39.

      Sure Warner’s having a tough trot in India, but he has proven form to fall back on, Maxwell hasn’t – yet.

      Big difference.

      • March 18th 2017 @ 9:25am
        soapit said | March 18th 2017 @ 9:25am | ! Report

        still persisting with this method of comparison despite its obvious flaws being repeatedly pointed out to you above?

      • Roar Guru

        March 18th 2017 @ 10:13am
        The Bush said | March 18th 2017 @ 10:13am | ! Report

        You do realise Warner opens right?

        You can’t honestly believe the things you write.

        In fact the funniest part is that Warner is meant to be a T20 superstar and despite opening, doesn’t have a T20 century…

        • Columnist

          March 18th 2017 @ 2:06pm
          David Lord said | March 18th 2017 @ 2:06pm | ! Report

          Get a grip Bush, the only reason Warner came into the conversation was because Chris Love insisted I should concentrate on Warner’s failures instead of Maxwell.

          Don’t forget Warner was originally pigeon-holed as purely a limited over batsman who would never make in the five-day game. He sure proved those selectors very wrong.

          • March 18th 2017 @ 11:44pm
            Rob said | March 18th 2017 @ 11:44pm | ! Report

            And you have pigeon holed Maxwell!

      • March 18th 2017 @ 10:59am
        Don Freo said | March 18th 2017 @ 10:59am | ! Report

        They are really, really good numbers for a number 5 or number 6. Excellent conversion.

        You lead with your chin every time you type.

      • March 19th 2017 @ 3:20am
        Chris Love said | March 19th 2017 @ 3:20am | ! Report

        Oh wow, David Warner is a wonderful batsmen but only has proven form on flat tracks. Based on his career to date, it’s pretty clear that he is a flat track bully. Comparing opening batsmen via way of centuries against lower middle order batsmen is plain ass clownery.

    • March 18th 2017 @ 8:38am
      Rob JM said | March 18th 2017 @ 8:38am | ! Report

      Maxwell has a similar level of ability as Virat Kohli. The main difference is the that Virat controls his aggression in the longer form and has patience.
      Maxwell has now shown he can control his innings, and will be the ideal No.6 for a few years to come. His off spinners that don’t leak runs are all you need in a 5th bowling option.

    • March 18th 2017 @ 9:02am
      SonOfLordy said | March 18th 2017 @ 9:02am | ! Report

      With one opportunity Maxwell has done more than what Mitch Marsh has done in the last three years at Test level.

      He’s a batting all-rounder coming in at number 6 remember.

      All I ask for is consistency in the selectors decisions.

      If Mitch Marsh can be awarded 20 Tests based on NOTHING, then Maxwell should keep his place for another 20 Tests based on scoring a century.

      • March 18th 2017 @ 9:23am
        soapit said | March 18th 2017 @ 9:23am | ! Report

        i do kind of get it in that fast bowlers tend to need more rest and so a fast bowling allrounder can add more than a spinning alrounder.

        tho marsh wasnt getting much of a bowl anyway.

        • Roar Guru

          March 18th 2017 @ 10:16am
          The Bush said | March 18th 2017 @ 10:16am | ! Report

          No one’s disputing the benefits of a true pace bowling all rounder. But Marsh averages 20. May as well just pick a fifth bowler. Play six bats until you can find a true all rounder.

          • March 18th 2017 @ 11:01am
            Don Freo said | March 18th 2017 @ 11:01am | ! Report

            Actually just under 22…the same as Richie Benaud, that great all rounder.

            • Roar Guru

              March 18th 2017 @ 12:03pm
              The Bush said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:03pm | ! Report

              I’m actually a M Marsh fan, it’s not his fault the selectors have picked him when his form, confidence and apparently health are not presently up to it.

              But get serious mate. First off Benaud averaged 24, so three runs more. Secondly he had a bowling average of 27 (world class for a spinner in any generation). He was a front line bowler. Finally, the majority of his career (two thirds) was spent batting at 7 or lower.

              • March 18th 2017 @ 12:22pm
                Don Freo said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:22pm | ! Report

                2 runs more. Just contextualizing. You seem to expect Marsh to average what a specialist batsman averages but you now seem to say that’s ok for Benaud because he bowled.

                Try to settle on an argument that you can sustain.

              • March 18th 2017 @ 7:20pm
                Scuba said | March 18th 2017 @ 7:20pm | ! Report

                Benaud batted at 8, did he not? Alan Davidson was the all rounder in the test team of that era, so no idea why a comparison with Marsh the Lesser’s batting average is relevant.

              • March 18th 2017 @ 5:08pm
                SonOfLordy said | March 18th 2017 @ 5:08pm | ! Report

                Marsh is a lousy batter and a mediocre bowler at Test level.

                Benaud was a great bowler and a handy batter. He’d have been selected if he had no batting ability.

              • March 18th 2017 @ 6:57pm
                John Erichsen said | March 18th 2017 @ 6:57pm | ! Report

                Apart from his first couple of tests, when Marsh looked like he may deliver everything the selectors could see in his “promise to be the Aussie Andrew Flintoff”. He just hasn’t looked like he belongs in test cricket. It isn’t form, confidence and health. Its deeper than. I wonder if he knows in his heart that a test number six needs to average more than low 20’s in first class cricket. (Its 28 now but was 24 when he debuted)
                He has tried different approaches but until he believes he belongs, he won’t. I would imagine believing is easier when you average 40, rather than 20 odd.

              • Roar Guru

                March 18th 2017 @ 7:11pm
                The Bush said | March 18th 2017 @ 7:11pm | ! Report

                What are you talking about Don? I didn’t raise any argument or comparison, you did. All I’ve done is point out that they’re not comparable as players, one was a genuine bowling all rounder who batted down the order and was world class.

                The other is batting in the top six, so selected as a batting all rounder and is not fulfilling that role. The only reason any comparison is interesting is to note that Benaud averaged more the bat and still batted lower in the order and was able to be a world class front line bilwer. And the batting averages are three runs different, 24 v 21, make sure you contextualise accurately.

            • March 18th 2017 @ 12:21pm
              Brian said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:21pm | ! Report

              Marsh has the worst average in history in his position, and the second worst of a top 6 bat to go with his horrifically bad 38 bowling average. If that doesn’t get your papers stamped then I don’t know what will.

            • Roar Guru

              March 18th 2017 @ 12:22pm
              Michael Keeffe said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:22pm | ! Report

              The difference being that Richie Benaud only batted 19 of his 97 innings at number 6. The majority of his innings were batted at 7,8 or 9 in the batting order. And also that Richie Benaud took 248 wickets at an average of 27. Surely you’re going to give up defending M Marsh at some point Don Freo…

              • March 18th 2017 @ 12:38pm
                Don Freo said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:38pm | ! Report

                I’m not defending Mitch Marsh. I have said he shouldn’t have been selected for the past year. The difference is, that if a player is selected, why not support them? He certainly did well in that first test.

                What I am doing is challenging the spitting bitterness of supposedly Australian fans who act like Poms with their comments. What is it with this growing hatred by cricket fans. It is a fantastic sport but for so many of you, you view from the gutter. Smile.

                You and Brian sound like David Lord.

                So many elevate Benaud to Australian great as an all rounder. Benaud was a bowler. If you accept Benaud as an all rounder, stop demanding a higher standard from Marsh.

            • March 18th 2017 @ 6:47pm
              John Erichsen said | March 18th 2017 @ 6:47pm | ! Report

              Nobody considered Benaud a batting all-rounder and he didn’t bat at six very often. Its not Mitch Marsh’s fault that the selectors have set him up to fail, by selecting him too soon and batting him too high in the order. Many of us wanted, hoped even dreamed for Mitch to succeed where Shane Watson, had all too often, let us down.
              When Marsh was dropped earlier this summer, we all thought the selectors had finally grasped hold of reality when they admitted that Mitch wasn’t a batting all-rounder. That never prevented them from making the same mistake of selecting him to bat at six yet again. Still, we hoped that Mitch would finally turn promise into performance, potential into product.
              However, Marsh was still his own worst enemy at test level, continuing to arm his detractors with plenty of ammunition, especially those seeking a specialist batsman to occupy the number six spot. The probability is that Maxwell has, in one mature disciplined innings, where he played like a specialist batsman, made Mitch Marsh test stock market prices crash through the floor. Domestic 4 day runs are now the only currency Mitch works with, so far as test recall goes. He will have short format opportunities and rightly so, but for his test career, red ball runs are gold.

              • March 19th 2017 @ 1:08am
                Don Freo said | March 19th 2017 @ 1:08am | ! Report

                Everybody considered Benaud to be an all rounder.

          • March 18th 2017 @ 11:02am
            Rob JM said | March 18th 2017 @ 11:02am | ! Report

            The amount of conditioning to become an elite batsmen or fast bowler (or wrist spinner) precludes all but the most naturally gifted individuals from being proficient in both fields. On the other hand a batsmen who bowls finger spin has much fewer demands placed on his time or body.

      • March 18th 2017 @ 12:18pm
        Brian said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:18pm | ! Report

        The irony is that if Mitch scored even 50 in India his backers would use that as justification for his selection for the next year or two… Hell, they were talking up his THIRTY in the first test, and he probably would have been picked this test on the back of it despite costing us the game last match (yes, I’m blaming it on him. If we had a proper batsman at 6 we would have won that game).

        • March 18th 2017 @ 12:30pm
          Don Freo said | March 18th 2017 @ 12:30pm | ! Report

          How is that irony, Brian?

          It is really weird that those of you who complain that Marsh will be selected for the “next two years” are still mentioning him in an article that criticizes Maxwell who just scored a century.

          Surely Australian fans should celebrate such a great dig. Why diminish his performance by raising the topic of a player you say we should all forget?

          • March 19th 2017 @ 3:30am
            Chris Love said | March 19th 2017 @ 3:30am | ! Report

            Don, the bitterness isn’t directed at Marsh but the selectors that have shown such blatant favouritism for such a long time.

            The fact Marsh was selected for the tour let alone be played for the first two tests should result in he sacking of all the selectors that backed him. He was dropped from the side because of poor form, went back to shield and performed even worse then brought straight back in while Cartwright gets a solitary chance. Maxi has shown his talent for the world to see for years now. He was marvellous during the World Cup and hasn’t played near the amount of shield cricket due to other commitments with ODI/T20 to base a non selection on. Especially if you’re basically giving M Marsh 24 almost straight tests with ZERO form.

            • March 19th 2017 @ 11:04am
              Don Freo said | March 19th 2017 @ 11:04am | ! Report

              Then make the criticism of the selectors…not of the players.

              Even then…why the bitterness, sadness or anger? It is a sport….a source of delight.

              Live in England or India if you want to whinge.

              • March 20th 2017 @ 1:19am
                Chris Love said | March 20th 2017 @ 1:19am | ! Report

                Can we not expect that cricket Australia does the right thing by the country and the fans by paying big salaries to selectors that should be doing the same. But we get incompetence and favouritism with nothing objectively to back it up and we should sit back and let it happen? We’d go into the toilet pretty quick with out this level of scrutiny.

              • March 20th 2017 @ 1:44am
                Don Freo said | March 20th 2017 @ 1:44am | ! Report

                You argue with an unjustifiable premise. These selectors…and the panel preceding…have presided over a total turnover of cricket talent…with great success. Some of the retired players are all time greats…and yet we have had very few flat patches with their replacements.

                Our selectors have had us constantly at or near the top despite the exit of talent. If they are being paid big dollars (which I very much doubt), they have earned it.

                You call it favoritism or racism or incompetence because the selections are not your selections. Well, Chris, you are just wrong. They have got a lot right. Have you not been watching or reading about their current form in India? Where is the 4-0 you predicted with your gloom and doom, half-empty glass?

    , ,