“Righto, fellas. One of the top six has got to get a big one today if we are any chance of chasing this down.”
Sound familiar? Probably. One can bank on every coach or captain declaring this each weekend, at almost every level of cricket. And the reason for it is pretty simple: because the top six players in every batting order, are the batsmen.
It is their primary job to score runs. Why is it, then, that in the national team, a number six doing that, has got to do something else as well?
After Maxwell’s crafty and gutsy century at Ranchi, that lasted 198 balls, many were proven wrong about the talented Victorian, and many more were excited that perhaps the black hole in the Australian order had been filled.
Sighs of relief emanated from a selection panel that were being bashed from pillar to post for their almost sycophantic support of Mitch Marsh – even Lordy afforded Glenn some praise.
Alas, we want more. Michael Clarke has announced Maxwell’s position is not fixed after one innings, and nor should it be.
However, the former captain has cited his lack of bowling at the international level as the reason. He only bowled four overs in a Test match where his compatriots toiled for the other 206 overs, and almost 12 hours, only to take nine wickets.
As much as I hate to agree with him, Clarke is right, Maxwell was under bowled, but this is no reason for him to find himself out of the team. The Australian public seems to have an obsession with the inclusion of a star all-rounder, and we seem to think that number 6 is reserved for this player. This leaves me scratching my head.
Let’s take a trip down memory lane, and look at some players of a bygone era who occupied the position in the batting order that every ten year old asks to make their own.
Michael Hussey
Just reading his name will bring a smile to the face of any cricket purist. 19 Test centuries, and owner of the number 6 position. Technically perfect, he earned the nickname ‘Mr Cricket’ and one would be hard pressed to find an Australian cricket supporter who could say a bad word about him – well maybe the fact that he only took seven Test wickets – or did we all forget about that?
Steve Waugh
Batted at 6 for the much of his celebrated career (79 innings) and bowled little, especially late during a very successful period for Australian cricket. One would hardly categorise ‘Tugga’ as an all-rounder.
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Moving outside of Australia now, Chanderpaul notched up 2528 runs at number 6, at an average of 64.82. His bowling average was 98, however, but he faced up front on, so no one cares that he was no good with the ball.
Sir Gary Sobers
Evidently the point of comparison for Glenn Maxwell. Sobers was the owner of an impressive batting average of 57.78, and claimed 235 Test wickets with the ball. He also played golf left and right handed. Come on Maxi, why can’t you deliver like old mate Grafield?
I’d be way out of line to suggest that an all-rounder is not a valuable asset to any cricket team. But you’d have to even stupider to pick a token one in place of a real batsman.
I do not seek to suggest that Maxi will be the answer to all of our batting questions, far from it, but I do believe to drop him in favour of a ‘more genuine’ all-rounder would be an unwise course of action.
Contact Andrew Young on Twitter.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
In the place of concrete answers, all we have is speculation. As for Ranchi, it seemed like Smith did not want to take the chance that India would score freely against the part-timers (Maxwell, Smith, Warner), more than a problem with Maxwell himself. It would explain why SOK bowled so many overs. As for Maxwell not bowling in the ODIs, is it at all possible that he felt not bowling Maxwell would develop his batting? Force him to specialise in one skill, especially with Travis Head's off spin available?
James P
Guest
Steve Waugh not an all rounder? He most definitely started as one and then gradually moved into being a batsman who bowled rarely due to injuries. He rarely batted at 6 after 1995. Prior to that, he bowled 960 overs in 69 matches with 67 wickets at an average of 38.
Andrew Young
Roar Guru
yeah that's a good point, Chris. His off-spin is indeed more than handy and ought to be used as an effective "chop-out" mechanism. But his bowling is far from integral in maintaining his position in the team.
qwetzen
Guest
There's got to be something we're not being told about why Smith won't bowl Maxwell. And I wonder whether it's known by journos. Maxwell played 7 ODIs last summer and wasn't given an over in any of them. It was a bit of a story but no-one seems to have asked Smith why he didn't bowl him. Then we had Ranchi and the only comment from the Oz bunker was Lehmann saying it was the captain's call and he had no problem with it. And again, there isn't any real criticism of Smith anywhere or anyone pursuing the story. It just doesn't feel right. There must have been some 'interesting' discussions over the last couple of months between Smith and the selectors.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Agree that it would be stupid to drop him. Disagree that the Australian public are the people with the obsession about the number 6 needing to be an allrounder. It's been the Australian selectors, for a long time that have had the obsession. They also should have been the ones to tell Shane Watson that's what his roll was in the team. Watto would have come in for far less criticism had he been batting at 6. Selectors can't rest on the ol chestnut that the captain gets the team he wants anymore. Smith has under bowled every all-rounder they have given him. It was criminal that Maxy didn't bowl 15-20 overs in that test. Not criminal towards maxi but towards the frontline 4 that he bowled into the ground, especially after Starc went home. Did he want 3 more sent home also? Gee didn't they do well though. If one of them breaks down this test you can chalk it up to his management of his bowlers in the third test.
El Loco
Roar Rookie
"even stupider to pick a token one in place of a real batsman." Very well put. It's become common lately for the selectors to use the term "the all-rounder spot" as if it were a thing and always has been, infuriating. We used to laugh at England in the 90/00s as they trotted out bits-and-piecers like Craig White, Dominic Cork, Ronnie Irani, now we're obsessed with the same mediocrity.