If Glenn Maxwell was intent on making a point then his unbeaten century in Australia’s five-wicket T20 defeat of England the other day probably wasn’t the worst way of going about it.
He was omitted from the recent ODI series for a lack of consistency according to national selector Trevor Hohns: “No one is in any doubt about Glenn’s ability or his potential to produce match-winning contributions with the bat.
“What we have wanted from him is more consistency but in his past 20 matches in this format he has averaged 22 and we need more than that from a player in the side’s batting engine room.”
And for leaning too far in favour of the unorthodox in Steve Smith’s view: “We’ve all seen the way he can come out and play and do all his funky stuff and be pretty cool with that, but when he puts his head down he’s actually a really good batsman, as we’ve seen in Shield cricket – he’s got some big runs there.
“If he keeps his head switched on and trains really well and focuses on basic things probably more than the expansive things then I think that will help him have his consistency.
“If he’s having those consistent performances he’s certainly a person you want in your team.”
Pretty damning assessments from those doing the choosing and both views would be hard to disagree with if you look at numbers on a piece paper and watched some of Maxwell’s more, shall we say, eccentric efforts with the bat.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
But while the 20 and 50-over formats aren’t quite one and the same as some would have you believe, a place needs to be found for the Victorian if another of Smith’s quotes is anything to go by.
After defeat in the ODI opener at the MCG, he said: “It just looks like the way they play is for everyone to go hard and Joe Root is sort of the rock in the middle.
“That works for them and it’s something that we might have to think about as well.”
Of course, this could be taken with a pinch of salt and treated as a bit of a throwaway line but Australia’s batting was second best to England’s over the course of the series with Eoin Morgan’s side utilising a style others may be tempted to emulate.
There was a slight caveat to Smith’s remarks.
“When you do that, you’re going to have days where you get bowled out for not many. But you back your players to come off maybe more often than not and get those big totals. That’s what the English players are doing at the moment. They’re playing with such freedom.”
This was perfectly understandable but there is little doubt that foot to the floor attack is streaking ahead of pragmatism in the limited overs batting scheme of things.
And that is where Maxwell’s virtuoso performance at the Blundstone Arena should have opened the eyes of those in charge.
If England’s method is deemed to be the way to go, and it has certainly revolutionised their ODI fortunes after the ignominy of an early exit from the 2015 World Cup, then Maxwell is the type of player who could well flourish.
(Photo by Mark Nolan/Getty Images)
And the ‘you back your players to come off maybe more often than not’ part of Smith’s utterances is worth paying attention to.
Maxwell is no Virat Kohli where consistency is almost a given but he can shift, or maintain, momentum in a contest and if the desired style is to ensure the accelerator remains depressed, his modus operandi is a nice fit.
Yes he does the odd thing that is difficult to explain and occasionally his peers may be tempted to bang their heads against a brick wall but if you have a batsman capable of producing what was served up the other evening, it would seem strange if he remains on the outside.
If Smith intends to upgrade Australia’s ODI game, it would make sense to find those who can fit the mould and as Twenty20 seeps more and more into its longer cousin’s consciousness, certain elements demand to be incorporated.
In Hobart, Maxwell provided an ideal demonstration and in the process, really did prove a point.
marfu
Guest
Don Freo - Read the summary and match reports for that series as they will explain it all for you.
Don Freo
Guest
How do you explain England's success against South Africa? The Poms were not weak. Oz just wouldn't allow them to express themselves.
Don Freo
Guest
YOU thought that...not the 'majority' of Australians. Just as many passionately argued that Maxi shouldn't be picked. They are both Test standard. The point is that when players succeed, only the bitter or the dim would mock that success with the 'easy opposition' silliness. How do you explain their success against your world beaters, South Africa, just before they came here? Ignore that it happened? England is stronger than SA on that basis. The Poms looked weak only because the Aussies wouldn't allow them to star. Anderson and Broad couldn't dismiss Marsh, not because they are useless but because Marsh played well. You would benefit from changing the way you watch sport. Celebrate the achievements of the team you support.
Ben
Roar Rookie
I didn’t mock him. As a majority of Australians I didn’t think he deserved to be picked ahead of Maxwell who did well in India and played very well in the shield. Marsh took the opportunity and did well in Australian conditions but the true test will be if he can perform in SA.
marfu
Guest
If you think Eng were anything but weak you are delusional as they only competed with us for a few sessions in the whole series due to a impotent attack and hence the scoreline of 4-0. Last time Mitch went up against SA he handled it like an Arnott's Sao biscuit and got dropped and that was at his home ground so it does not bode well ! I hope for his sake and yours that he does well in SA. Contrary to your assertion, I have been commenting on what has happened but as the Aus cricket summer ends, it is now time to be brave and embrace the future.
Don Freo
Guest
Marsh, having succeeded against an English side that just beat South Africa, now you've decided England was weak. When he does it against SA, you'll say SA is rebuilding. Let's see how he goes against the might of (insert your next side). Why not comment on the cricket that has happened rather than guess about what might happen next? Marfu, did you see all of Ben's childlike taunts about Marsh before this last series? The young boy is unable to acknowledge the success that mocks him. You could align yourself with his mockery or you could keep discussing the cricket.
Don Freo
Guest
t
marfu
Guest
Ben - Yes I meant to add something to that effect in my reply to Don above. Mitch looks the real deal but has had a pretty easy run against an underwhelming England on friendly pitches at home so SA may be the making or breaking of him as a Test cricketer
Ben
Roar Rookie
Let’s see how Mitch will play in SA. That will be his real test.
marfu
Guest
Don Freo - Good call.
Don Freo
Guest
It won't be Mitch Marsh's spot. It will be Ussie's he'll replace. Mitch has been too good.
Steve Baggaley
Roar Rookie
Maxwell is obviously a match winner with a very good technique.He seems to have this great energy out on the field. However, he loses his shape when trying to hit the ball too hard at times and hasn't helped the Aust cause by being too aggressive when only a run a ball is needed. Think of the Stoinis and Maxwell dismissals in the final one dayer. I think Smith wants Maxie to read the game situation more intelligently. Having said all that, he's a much better package than Head. I even think he'd do well in the test team to replace M. Marsh if the wicket is susceptible to turn.
Garry
Guest
Our selectors have been openly celebrated for their selections in the test series, they should have to wear the blame for the selections in the ODI series. Too many test players, not enough T20 players. Smith was amazing during the tests, but did he make the transition to ODI’s? Is there selection bias against players in the big bash/T20 format?
marfu
Guest
Rob - Good points and well made. Under the current selectors, coach and captain it has all got a bit too political as they have not been putting the best teams on the field..
Bakkies
Guest
Get Dizzy in as coach and Ponting working on the batting and fielding.
Granter
Guest
An
EGC
Guest
Maxwell can tell Smith all he likes. Smith is not a selector. I didn't see anything wrong with the snippets from Smith on Maxwell. And given that Maxwell agreed with the comments in that he admitted that he needed to learn to be more consistent (see the brief story on CA site), I think he felt there was more he could do. If he shows more on the training track, I actually see no reason for him to not be included in the ODI team. But when it comes to game day, you pick horses for courses - not your man-crushes.
Mark b
Guest
the GLENN MAXWELL selection situation smells of what happened to STUART CLARKE. a player that should be a regular in the first eleven for his country that probably has rubbed up the selectors or captain (or a few of the captains best mates) in the wrong way (a different personality?).... cheer up and get over it....! glenn maxwell is a ace and a inspiration to watch.... and more importantly a inspiration for our young aussie kids. get him in our 11 now...!
Eddie Otto
Roar Guru
Maxwell would bat either 3 or 4 for me in the One Day team. Give him added responsibility and I think he would shine. Teams would be worried about him. He might not make runs every game, however gives Australia control of the team even if he only scores 30 or 40 because of his strike rate. He has shown a lot more maturity in some of his innings over the past 12 months.
JohnB
Guest
Although to be fair that has been while he's WA coach and he obviously sees part of his role as being promoting his players. He might change if he was Australian coach. If nothing else, every coach has a strong interest in having the best possible side on the park, assuming he wants to keep his job.