Glenn Maxwell must play in the Ashes

Edward L'Orange Roar Guru

By Edward L'Orange, Edward L'Orange is a Roar Guru

 , ,

68 Have your say

    If Glen Maxwell is overlooked for the opening Test of the upcoming Ashes series, it will be a snubbing at which even Usman Khawaja would blush.

    Since returning to the Test team, in India earlier this year, Maxwell has averaged 37 from eight innings, including a century in India.

    David Warner averaged 43.25, thanks to back-to-back centuries in Bangladesh. Matt Renshaw averaged 18. Steve Smith is the sole batsman to average over 50, with 63.71, largely down to his 178* in Ranchi. Peter Handscomb averaged 43.83, thanks to a 72*.

    » 2017 Ashes TV Schedule

    Finally, Mathew Wade, the only other batsman to play all four games, averaged 29 from seven innings.

    Maxwell sits comfortably in the middle of these averages, above Renshaw and Wade, but below Smith, Handscomb and Warner. This is perfectly respectable from a player just returning to the Test setup.

    Also of note was Maxwell’s moderate strike rate of 56.80. Compared to the six innings from his previous stint, where his strike rate was 70.18 and he averaged 13.33, it is clear he has matured and improved.

    In the three seasons since Maxwell was last dropped from the Test team, in October 2014, Victoria, have won all three comps. Unfortunately, during that time other international duties meant that Maxwell only played a total 15 innings for the Bushrangers: one in 2014-15, nine in 2015-16, and five in 2016-17.

    However, he scored 545 runs at the respectable average of 41.2. He was in and out of our ODI and T20 teams during that time and did not have much time to settle, but during the 2015-16 season, in which he played six matches, he averaged 56.

    Smith’s reluctance to bowl Maxwell, even in ODIs, is well documented. Nevertheless, under Smith’s Test captaincy, Maxwell has bowled 30 overs for one wicket – the rate of a handy part-timer.

    This alone, of course, is no reason to include him in the team, but combined with his excellent fielding and on-field presence, Maxwell is a useful player to have.

    However, the Australian set-up seems to have an obsession with a pace-bowling allrounder, as evidenced by the persistence with Mitch Marsh. We like to have three pace bowlers, one spinner, and an allrounder to take the pressure off the quicks.

    This not necessarily how a Test team should be constructed, the preference for a pace-allrounder perhaps being related to the toothless pitches produced in Australia these days.

    But with the Gabba probably being the country’s best all-round pitch, and the second match a day-nighter, our bowlers should be able to manage even if the pitches are roads. This being the case, Maxwell deserves his shot.

    Glenn Maxwell bowling against Pakistan

    Photo: AAP image

    As a brief example of what Maxwell could bring, simply look at his match against Bangladesh in Chittagong.

    In the first innings he scored a patient 38. He batted for two and half hours, facing 98 balls, at his slowest-ever strike rate of 38.8.

    In the second innings, with Australia pushing for the win, in just 20 minutes, Maxwell smashed 25* from 17 at 147. This kind of variation, if he can manage more high scores, is what makes him such a valuable cricketer.

    It was not always so. This last knock is what we have expected in the past, except the next ball he would probably shank, attempting a switch-hit-reverse-something and be caught on the boundary.

    Maxwell is a skilful athlete with an impressive array of shots, a good eye, and world-class fielding. So it has never been a lack of skill that has dissuaded people from favouring him, but rather a certain lack of temperament.

    However, since his last run in the Test team, his shot selection and excitability have been somewhat tamed.

    Maxwell has the ability to play the role of not only the match-winning basher, but also the steady number five or six.

    His performances in India, and steady showing in Bangladesh, mean he deserves a chance to start in at least the first two Ashes Tests.

    Do you find yourself logged out of The Roar?
    We have just switched over to a secure site (https). This means you will need to log-in afresh. If you need help with recovering your password, please get in contact.

    This video is trending right now! Submit your videos for the chance to win a share of $10,000!

    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 (68)

    • September 19th 2017 @ 8:43am
      jameswm said | September 19th 2017 @ 8:43am | ! Report

      I think he’ll get first shot at the no.6 spot, but he’ll need to nail it down in the first 2 tests. Cartwright might well be a better bat and will be waiting in the wings. He will exert a lot of pressure if he scores 1 or even 2 tons in the lead-up Shield games.

      It’s a very important spot. We haven’t been getting many runs from no.7, so no.6 becomes crucial – even though 8-9 can bat.

      They could both play – but only if Handsomb keeps, which won’t happen in the short term.

      Nevill and Carey could also exert a lot of pressure on Wade if they score big in the Shield.

      • Roar Guru

        September 19th 2017 @ 9:05am
        Edward L'Orange said | September 19th 2017 @ 9:05am | ! Report

        I agree James, he will need to nail down the spot or Cartwright will get a shot.

        My team for the first Ashes test is:

        Renshaw, Warner, Khawaja, Smith, Handscomb, Maxwell, Wade, Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood, Lyon.

        But you’re quite right that Carey and Nevill will be in the mix. Those first Shield rounds will be very interesting.

        Joe Burns also gets forgotten in all this. Should Renshaw struggle, he’ll be in. He should be in the mix down the order too, but apparently his nerves get the best of him waiting to bat.

        Also, apologies to the readers about the clunky article. The editors cut it down pretty brutally (as is their right), but they removed much of the context and argument around the statistics, making it a bit grim to read.

        • September 19th 2017 @ 9:31am
          jameswm said | September 19th 2017 @ 9:31am | ! Report

          Edward I think that’s the team they will pick and I would pick the same except for no.7.

          That team actually has a pretty settled look about it, certainly more settled than whatever team England pick.

          If our top 4 can wear down Jimmy and see off the new ball, we cut right down on England’s ability to take wickets. Broad needs to be watched, but the rest should just be milked.

          Bowling wise – Hazelwood, Cummins and Lyon are consistent, and if Starc is near his best they will be a tough proposition, especially for the newby top order England will play.

          • Columnist

            September 19th 2017 @ 3:38pm
            Ronan O'Connell said | September 19th 2017 @ 3:38pm | ! Report

            Interesting to see Carey started the season in blazing touch on the weekend with a pair of tons in Adelaide grade cricket.

            The fact that there will be 3 rounds of Shield before the Ashes squad is picked means a lot could change. We could see a bolter or two.

            • Roar Guru

              September 19th 2017 @ 4:08pm
              Edward L'Orange said | September 19th 2017 @ 4:08pm | ! Report

              Very interesting to hear, Ronan. Do you happen to know what Carey is like on the field? Is he vocal in the mould of Haddin and Wade, because I think that could matter.

              • September 19th 2017 @ 4:16pm
                Marshall said | September 19th 2017 @ 4:16pm | ! Report

                God I hope not.

              • Columnist

                September 19th 2017 @ 4:56pm
                Ronan O'Connell said | September 19th 2017 @ 4:56pm | ! Report

                No idea Edward but the majority of keepers are very vocal, Nevill is a rare mute.

        • September 19th 2017 @ 10:58am
          qwetzen said | September 19th 2017 @ 10:58am | ! Report

          If we’re picking players who are currently injured then I’d much rather have Pattinson than Hazlewood. He’s unarguably a much better bat and imo the best bowler of The Big Four. He does more with the ball than Hazlewood and, unlike Hazlewood, isn’t afraid to bowl in the vicinity of the stumps.

          • Roar Guru

            September 19th 2017 @ 11:53am
            Edward L'Orange said | September 19th 2017 @ 11:53am | ! Report

            I have to disagree mate, on a number of points.

            Firstly, if we play Starc and Cummins I think we need a Hazlewood type bowler, not another aggressive but potentially expensive wicket-taker. Hazlewood has the ability to bowl much tighter lines than the other 3 in the big four, and this is of great value at times. He also has a very effective opening partnership built with Starc.

            Second, while I agree Pattinson is a better bat, I don’t think this should come into the conversation when discussing bowlers.

            And Finally, I find it very hard to rank the big four. In the official rankings it is Hazlewood, Starc, Cummins, Pattinson, but I think we can agree these are not always the best indication. But the only other ranking is potential, which is a very tricky thing to judge. It also dismisses the role a player plays in the team e.g. pressure builder vs. pure wicket-taker.

            But I would say that Pattinson has never been the same after he was forced to chance his bowling style, and his best results since have been from him reverting to his old style, which then led to injury.

            Gun to my head, as it stands right now, I’d order them: Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood, Pattinson.

          • Roar Rookie

            September 19th 2017 @ 12:28pm
            Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 12:28pm | ! Report

            Pattinson over Hazlewood? You realise where Hazlewood is currently located on the test bowler rankings, right?

          • September 19th 2017 @ 1:26pm
            jameswm said | September 19th 2017 @ 1:26pm | ! Report

            Wow. Hazelwood is currently the no.5 rankes bowler in the world, and no.2 behind Jimmy Anderson (who quite incredibly is ranked no.1 – let’s have a look aftert the Ashes). Hazelwood averages 25 at home and in his career.

            No way would I contemplate dropping him.

          • September 19th 2017 @ 2:42pm
            matth said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:42pm | ! Report

            I agree Pattinson is a gun.

            It’s a tough one, because Hazlewood overall has been very successful, so there is no reason to drop him. His only poor tests have been in Asia, where he wasn’t suited. Also from an injury perspective, I would be reluctant to have Starc, Cummins and Pattinson all in the same team, especially if we don’t play a pace bowling all rounder.

            Given our injury rates, Pattinson will get a chance sometime during the Ashes and if that happens, no matter who he replaces, we won’t lose anything.

            My main wish is that the three pace bowlers we pick are 100% fit. If Starc or Hazlewood are not fully fit, then we should not hesitate to put Pattinson in.

          • September 19th 2017 @ 2:52pm
            BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:52pm | ! Report

            My hunch is that Pattinson is the best of the four. His Shield and county form this year has been insane. But Hazlewood has performed fantastically and has proven himself to be one of the best pace bowlers in the world. He also adds some nice variety to the attack. Pattinson is very dangerous but also liable to go for runs like Starc is from time to time.

            If I were playing Pattinson it’d be as a swap for Cummins, but Cummins has the performances on the board to make himself undroppable. Sadly Jimmy will have to wait his turn for now.

            • September 19th 2017 @ 4:20pm
              jameswm said | September 19th 2017 @ 4:20pm | ! Report

              Starc could make way right now, unless he shows he is back to his best.

              If Handscomb keeps, you can contemplate Pattinson batting at 7, Cummins 8 and Starc 9. It’s as good as we have now anyway. Then you pick all 4.

          • September 21st 2017 @ 7:31pm
            John Erichsen said | September 21st 2017 @ 7:31pm | ! Report

            If Usman Khawaja has reason to feel hard done by for being dropped, how much more reason would Hazelwood have. 118 test wickets in 31 tests as 25.75… How can anyone consider dropping him from the test team??
            PS. I rate Pattinson very highly but can’t see how anything but injury sees him get a nod.

    • September 19th 2017 @ 9:42am
      AGordon said | September 19th 2017 @ 9:42am | ! Report

      Interesting article Edward. I suspect the early Shield games are going to be crucial to the makeup of the First Test side.

      As I see it, there are really only 3 positions that are up for grabs; numbers 3, 6 & 7. Khawaja, assuming he bats well in the early part of the season, should lock down number 3 and if Maxwell shows the same restraint and consistency, he too should be in the side at 6 for all the reasons you’ve described. Wade as keeper…… I still think the jury’s out, even though Boof seems to love him.

      It’s been ages since the Shield has been so important to the selection of a Test side. Hopefully Maxwell does himself justice and gets som runs. A few wickets would be a bonus.

      • Roar Guru

        September 19th 2017 @ 9:51am
        Edward L'Orange said | September 19th 2017 @ 9:51am | ! Report

        I think a lot of the reason Wade is favoured by the team leaders is that he himself is a leader, and vocal on the ground.

        Against England that confrontative attitude has so often been one of our weapons, so I’d be willing to bet that if Wade averages anything over 30 in the first Shield rounds he’ll be in the team.

        The quiet argument against Nevill is that he is too quiet, and they think Poms would like that.

        The big unknown for me is Carey, as I haven’t had a chance to watch him play yet. If he is vocal and aggressive behind the stumps he’s a real chance.

        • September 19th 2017 @ 10:06am
          AGordon said | September 19th 2017 @ 10:06am | ! Report

          Completely agree about Wade. He needs to make a few big scores; centuries would be nice but a couple of 60’s or 70’s in the Shield would be handy. The selectors also have to understand we’re not going to get Gilchrist-like production out of number 7, and be happy if the tail collectively can add another 100 or so

        • Roar Guru

          September 19th 2017 @ 2:16pm
          Chris Kettlewell said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:16pm | ! Report

          Wade’s an interesting one, in some ways he’s the keeper by default. Nevill really didn’t do as well as people would have hoped, and while he’s scored runs going back to the Shield, I’m not sure he’s the answer. And outside of Nevill there aren’t a lot of options.

          You’ve got Carey, who’s been getting talked up a lot, but his first class average with the bat is just 25. So if we are looking for not only better glovework but also more runs from the keeper, then he still has a lot to prove.

          Whiteman has looked good at times, averages mid-30’s with the bat, so not great but not bad, but by all reports he’s likely to be out injured pretty much all season.

          Wade has moved back to Tassie. But the other options in Tassie have been Paine, who’s was right in the mix for the Aussie position a few years back but just hasn’t been the same since his injuries, and Jake Doran who many were talking up when he was playing under-age cricket, but he’s still got a long way to go to show he can mix it with the grown-ups.

          Queensland will have a new keeper this year. So you never know what’s possible there, but unless they are flawless with the gloves while scoring back to back hundreds in the opening rounds of the Shield while Wade fails miserably, it’s hard to see them picking a keeper based on 2-3 Shield matches.

          So basically, where, just a few years ago it looked like there were some exciting young keepers coming through, now the cupboard looks a little bare in that department for Australia.

          • Roar Rookie

            September 19th 2017 @ 2:25pm
            Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:25pm | ! Report

            Jimmy Peirson? Pretty similar to Lynn in terms of run-scoring ability and is definitely on the rise, but not sure he’s a standout with the gloves. Does well for the Heat though, haven’t seen him have a howler.

            Seen a lot said about Carey, but also wondering how many of his dismissals can be put down to just being able to keep to Sayers all season.

            Personally I would go back to Nevill. Produced some good knocks in tough situations, was pretty clean with the gloves, and performed better than Wade has since his recall. Give the young keepers a few years to build themselves up.

            • September 19th 2017 @ 2:32pm
              BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:32pm | ! Report

              Yeah Nevill I think is a nice safe option. Will hold his catches and made a lot of runs in the Shield immediately after being dropped. If he can bat solidly in the early Shield rounds this season I’d be bringing him back as a medium-term keeper while we wait for one of the younger guys to step up.

          • September 19th 2017 @ 2:29pm
            BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:29pm | ! Report

            It’ll probably be Jimmy Peirson for Queensland. Averages 34 from his 5 Shield games, no hundreds though. Opens the batting for Brisbane Heat from time to time.

            The impression I get is that he’s another aggressive batsman who can keep rather than a specialist gloveman like Whiteman, Carey, or Nevill.

    • September 19th 2017 @ 11:50am
      Tanmoy Kar said | September 19th 2017 @ 11:50am | ! Report

      Maxwell is a ODIs and T20s specialist which he has shown in the 1st. ODI (in T20 format) against India. How far he will be successful in the Ashes only time will tell.

    • September 19th 2017 @ 12:18pm
      Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 12:18pm | ! Report

      Ever heard of a guy called Travis Head? It seems he will have to move States to get what is rightfully his – the Batting All Rounder position at Number 6?

      • Roar Rookie

        September 19th 2017 @ 12:34pm
        Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 12:34pm | ! Report

        The same Travis Head who averages 34 in first class cricket? In what universe does that make the spot “rightfully his”?

        • Roar Guru

          September 19th 2017 @ 12:50pm
          Edward L'Orange said | September 19th 2017 @ 12:50pm | ! Report

          Beat me to it Matthew. I like Travis, but he has not proven he is yet ready for that test spot.

          • September 19th 2017 @ 1:28pm
            jameswm said | September 19th 2017 @ 1:28pm | ! Report

            He might well work his way in, but Head’s not first cab off the rank yet. He needs a very strong Shield season or 2 first.

          • September 19th 2017 @ 1:36pm
            Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 1:36pm | ! Report

            Yep – that is him. That young kid (currently 23) who’s performances are improving year on year (insead of that ageing 28 (almost 29) year old that is the stagnant Maxwell).
            You know – the guy that was 2012-13 Player of the National U19 Championship, who also made his Shield debut at the age of 18 (which partly explains his lowish average) and was the 2015/16 Shield Player of the Year (for those that think he hasn’t done anything to deserve the spot yet).
            I repeat -0 he will need to leave SA to play in the test side!

            • September 19th 2017 @ 1:44pm
              jameswm said | September 19th 2017 @ 1:44pm | ! Report

              No he won’t. He will just need to score a lot of FC runs.

            • Roar Rookie

              September 19th 2017 @ 1:53pm
              Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 1:53pm | ! Report

              Young, promising player? Yes. Test standard? Nope.

              If he came into the SS at a young age and initially struggled to cope, why would the reverse happen for international cricket? Seems the trend would continue if anything.

              Every state has players who have been hard done by in regards to international selection, this persecution complex is getting pretty tiring (and that’s from a QLDer). Maxwell’s averaging more, has more experience and has been consistently performing well in first class cricket for a number of years. That spot is his to lose.

              I don’t see how this policy of immediately throwing in every player with a bit of promise is going to improve our sides. If anything, it’s doing the opposite – what happens if they get put into the international arena and they can’t cope? It’d be really interesting to think about what would’ve happened to this new selection policy had we not won the 3rd test against SA.

            • Roar Guru

              September 19th 2017 @ 1:54pm
              Edward L'Orange said | September 19th 2017 @ 1:54pm | ! Report

              Mate, like I say, I think a lot of Head, but non of those things you said are really impactful when considering test selection. As Jame’s said, he just needs to score runs.

              Saying Maxwell is almost 29 adds nothing, that’s the peak of a cricketers career. If anything, Head’s youth acts against him, not for him.

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:02pm
                Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:02pm | ! Report

                Yeh – lets stick with Maxwell with a Test Average (26) lower than his age instead of a young player who is obviously on the rise and already has experience in the ODI and T20 ranks! Sounds like a plan – a bad one but it is a plan.

              • Roar Rookie

                September 19th 2017 @ 2:09pm
                Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:09pm | ! Report

                Maxwell has averaged 37 since his recall – higher than Head’s FC average. He averaged 56 in the last SS season, and 41 over the past three. But sure, an unproven rookie is a much better idea.

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:22pm
                Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:22pm | ! Report

                That average of 37 since his recall is hardly worth a mention and lower than Head’s First Class average over the same period. What point are you trying to make here? It seems that Maxwell has made 1 century in 7 tests and has an average of 26. How does that justify his inclusion in the Test side?
                Head is also hardly an “unproven rookie” given he is now a permanent fixture in the T20 and ODI sides and, as previously mentioned, already has a Shield Player of the Year Award!

              • Roar Rookie

                September 19th 2017 @ 2:33pm
                Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:33pm | ! Report

                Hardly worth a mention? He scored a test century in India. How many players have done that recently? 37 in four tests with a century is better than most of our other batsmen in those tours.

                His last stint of 3 tests was years ago, back when he was struggling for consistency and constantly getting himself out in stupid ways. Now he’s matured a bit, and has been among our highest run scorers of late in all formats. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

                Maxwell’s test average has been lower than Head’s FC average? That’s test cricket. Maxwell’s FC average, on the other hand, has been higher. That’s more relevant.

                Head might have played some limited overs games for Australia, that doesn’t prepare him for test cricket. Let him score lots of runs for a few more seasons, that’ll show that he’s ready.

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:40pm
                Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:40pm | ! Report

                So an average of 26 is OK if you make a hundred. Right got it now.
                It also seems that Head will have to make a lot more runs than Cartwright, Handscomb and Renshaw did (and you can add Maxwell to that list as well).
                We will have to agree to disagree!

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:44pm
                BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:44pm | ! Report

                Cartwright, Handscomb and Renshaw all averaged 40+ in their Shield careers when they were picked. Cartwright averaged 52 batting at 3. The simple truth is they made more runs at better averages than Head and that’s why they were picked and he wasn’t.

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:48pm
                matth said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:48pm | ! Report

                Ok Pedro, let’s leave Maxwell out of it. Why should Head be ahead of Cartwright as the next guy in. Cartwright averages over 50 in first class cricket, is young as well and bowls ok part time pace. So why not Cartwright?

                Why not Patterson from NSW, who has a higher first class average and is also young.

                Head is not hard done by, he is just one of a number of young players who has potential, but is not ready yet.

              • Roar Rookie

                September 19th 2017 @ 2:52pm
                Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:52pm | ! Report

                Does the word ‘recall’ register? Maxwell’s first stint – av. 13, rubbish shots and immature player. Four years later – brought back, averaged 37, scored a century, fourth highest run scorer among team so far in this stint. That makes him the incumbent.

                Yes, Head will have to make more runs, as he currently averages 34 and averaged 36 in the last season, below Maxwell’s own average of 56 in the same season. Yes, there’s a few spots in the test team which are less than secure. Right now, Maxwell’s is not one of them.

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:53pm
                Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:53pm | ! Report

                I tend to agree that those 3 are worth persevering with (although you are not correct about Renshaw who has a first class average of 38). My comment was in response to Mathew Pearce’s suggestion that Head needed to “score lots of runs for a few more seasons, that’ll show that he’s ready” and highlighting that the same had not applied to Renshaw, Handscomb, Cartwright NOR Maxwell!

              • Roar Rookie

                September 19th 2017 @ 2:56pm
                Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:56pm | ! Report

                You’re assuming that I said the same about those 3. I never did.

                And for the record, I personally thought those selections were too hasty. Given that Handscomb’s the only player to have properly vindicated that policy…

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:57pm
                BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:57pm | ! Report

                Renshaw averaged well over 40 when he was picked. It’s gone down since his stint in the side.

              • Roar Rookie

                September 19th 2017 @ 2:58pm
                Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:58pm | ! Report

                Besides, you’re wrong about Handscomb, he made his FC debut in 2011, is 26, and has a current FC average of 41.

              • September 20th 2017 @ 9:17am
                Pedro The Fisherman said | September 20th 2017 @ 9:17am | ! Report

                Maxwell’s average in the 2016/2017 SS Season was 25.8, slightly worse than his Test average where he has 1 century and no half-centuries but hey, some people think he earned his spot.

            • September 19th 2017 @ 2:38pm
              BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:38pm | ! Report

              Head being named Shield Player of the Year in 2016 was pretty weird considering he averaged 36 while seven other guys made more runs at better averages than him that season. He showed flashes of brilliance but definitely lacked the consistency of the others.

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:45pm
                Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:45pm | ! Report

                Votes are issued math to match suggesting that Head put in several match winning performances.

      • September 19th 2017 @ 2:05pm
        BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:05pm | ! Report

        Travis Head is the last guy who you could say has been treated poorly. Was handed the SA captaincy at the age of 21 with a Shield average in the 20s, then fast-tracked into the ODI side ahead of plenty of experienced, proven runmakers.

        He’s vindicated that decision in his ODI career so far, and I’ve come to really rate him, but his rise into the side has been based on potential not performance. There are quite a few batsman who are ahead of him for Test batting slots based on runs at Shield level.

        • Roar Rookie

          September 19th 2017 @ 2:11pm
          Matthew Pearce said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:11pm | ! Report

          That seems to be the new strategy – pick on potential instead of performance. It’s going to kick us in the bum one of these days.

        • September 19th 2017 @ 2:24pm
          Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:24pm | ! Report

          How is Maxwell one of those players ranked ahead of Head?

          • September 19th 2017 @ 2:34pm
            BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:34pm | ! Report

            Because he averages 40 in the Shield and made a Test hundred a few games ago.

            • September 19th 2017 @ 2:42pm
              Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:42pm | ! Report

              Hard for Head to make a Test Hundred when the selectors won’t select him. Head does have a better average than Maxwell in ODI’s as well.

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:48pm
                BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:48pm | ! Report

                You’re arguing for Maxwell to be dropped. You don’t drop a player unless they’re struggling, or there’s an obviously better option. Maxwell is not struggling and Head is not obviously better because he hasn’t got a particularly great Shield record.

              • September 19th 2017 @ 2:55pm
                Pedro The Fisherman said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:55pm | ! Report

                Test average of 26. Lets persevere shall we!

              • September 19th 2017 @ 3:01pm
                BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 3:01pm | ! Report

                It’s much more relevant to look at his average of 37 (which, admittedly, is not excellent, but is solid enough in the context of very difficult batting conditions, and especially when you consider that during that time only he, the captain and the vice-captain have scored centuries) in his current stint in the side, rather than a handful of matches years ago in which he was parachuted into a losing side in the toughest conditions and asked to bat at first drop or even open.

              • Roar Guru

                September 19th 2017 @ 3:23pm
                Edward L'Orange said | September 19th 2017 @ 3:23pm | ! Report

                Fun fact, in Maxwell’s first stint in the team he is one of the few players ever to open both the batting and the bowling.

              • September 21st 2017 @ 10:26am
                Pedro The Fisherman said | September 21st 2017 @ 10:26am | ! Report

                Maxwell is batting in the Number 6 spot. A Test Average of 37 (in his past 4 matches only) just does not cut it! I don’t care if he is a Victorian – get him out of the side.

          • September 22nd 2017 @ 5:16pm
            John Erichsen said | September 22nd 2017 @ 5:16pm | ! Report

            How many runs does Maxwell save in the field? It’s similar to those arguing that Warner was given far more opportunities in the subcontinent when compared with Khawaja. Is Maxwell the best choice for a test number six? Maybe, maybe not. He is certainly a better option than Mitch Marsh was. He is also one of the best fielders in world cricket so maybe he is seen as a better whole package, for now. One should also look at the series Maxwell was selected for. Away tours in the subcontinent. Hardly the best place to blood a test newbie. In India against Ashwin and Jadeja. If Head struggles, he gets dropped and falls further down the queue. Maxwell got the nod and scored a great test hundred. Not sure why you can’t accept that. Travis Head will play test cricket, but he needs to do a little more in Shield cricket and wait a little longer. He probably isn’t used to waiting, as he has been fast tracked into state and national sides. Head will earn his spot with consistent shield runs, not with an occasional flashy hard hitting innings in a one day game or T20 hit and giggle match. PS Maxwell at 29 has plenty of years left to prove his worth at test level, if he is good enough. I don’t see how being 23 with a lesser FC average makes anybody a better selection choice.

            • September 22nd 2017 @ 6:57pm
              Pedro The Fisherman said | September 22nd 2017 @ 6:57pm | ! Report

              Maxwell has plenty of years left but no temperament and limited ability. That is the issue.

    • September 19th 2017 @ 2:23pm
      BurgyGreen said | September 19th 2017 @ 2:23pm | ! Report

      Maxwell is a supreme talent and the kind of guy who could be an absolute legend at 6 if given a good run. Let’s not forget that other than him, only Smith and Clarke have made hundreds on either of the last two Indian tours. He deserves the chance to play at least two Tests at home.

      • September 22nd 2017 @ 6:58pm
        Pedro The Fisherman said | September 22nd 2017 @ 6:58pm | ! Report

        Are we picking the Test side based on a single performance in India?

    • September 19th 2017 @ 3:07pm
      Lachie Abbott said | September 19th 2017 @ 3:07pm | ! Report

      All I care about is Khawaja playing. He is beautiful to watch.

    , ,