Has Joe Burns become invisible to Australia's selectors?

Tell us David, how many different positions did Steve Smith bat in, in those digs you are comparing? How many tests had Smith had in the side, consecutively prior to those digs? How many tests in Australia did Smith get to cement his spot in the team when he returned? That’s right, 1 is more than Maxwell has had. He gets flown in to horrendous pitches, gets one or two tests, likely in different parts of the order and he’s out again. Not a single test in Australia but yet has a test 100 in India. Yet the Marsh brothers are in double figures for tests in Australia. Again for Head, (and I’m not knocking Head), but Head has just had 4 straight tests in Australia, two of which were absolute roads. I’d hope ANY batsman that has had that many tests in a row in Australian conditions has a better average than a player that gets one or two tests in Asia, against the worlds best spinners, on Bunsen burners then gets punted when the home tests start because his name isn’t Marsh. It’s about time CA tells Hohns and Chapple it’s their last chance.

When you criticise Maxwell you are about as credible as Don Freo when he talks up the Marshes.

Dan's a bit cut that that Klingner never got a shot so has been pushing Callum's barrow ever since. Cut him some slack.

Oh my goodness. This is spot on. Any the only thing I would change now is possibly dropping SOS now after his series against India (possibly for Patterson), and keep Harris for now over Renshaw. Harris has had two good domestic summers since moving to WA, and looked the pick of the Australian batsmen this season.

Ferguson? He's been poor since being (unfairly) dropped.

Both are better options than Marsh, Finch, Head and possibly Handscomb

Show any body else apart from Smith's stats in the tests Maxwell played vs Maxwell's - and consider Maxwell has been moved up and down the order, and suddenly he doesn't look nearly as bad. Compare other players first 7 tests in Asia - much less those also being their first 7 tests, and again Maxwell's record isn't so bad. You also referred to his domestic record this season, from the massive sample space of 4 innings this season, but neglect to mention that in one of those he was run out ridiculously unluckily when looking set on 50+. Also neglect to look at the much larger sample space of his overall Shield record where he averages higher than Michael Hussey - let alone Travis Head and Aaron Finch. But hey, the "Maxwell throws his chances away", "he's his own worst enemy" etc. The fact is his red ball record is superior to those he's up against for selection, he's a handy bowling option and the best fielder in the country...But never played a home test.

David, whilst I acknowledge that I haven't seen all Maxwell's games in shield to support the 'knuckles down' statement - my comment was made with a combination a multitude of other Roarers comments over the past week or two along those lines, the games that I've seen him play recently have not been ended with brain snaps and the fact that there has been an absence of criticism for brain snaps or poor shot dismissals. Given all that + a 42 batting average seems fairly conclusive that he is playing with more maturity and responsibility.

Very clever David, sucking us in with that title into thinking this was an article about Joe Burns before, snap, right back onto the Maxwell bashing! It's getting a little boring though, perhaps just stop next time when you realise you're trotting out the same old rubbish again.

I don't accept your comments on Maxwell. 1. You compare him unfavourably to Steve Smith over the same tests. So he is not the single best test batsman in the world. On that basis nobody gets picked. how did others go during that series of tests? 2. You ignore Maxwell's first class record, which is very consistent and better than most players currently being picked. 3. You ignore his bowling and fielding. 4. You have to discount Maxwell's first three tests. They were way back in 2013/14 and he wasn;t picked for three years after that. In those six innings he batted at 8 (twice), 7, opener, 3 and 4. How anyone could perform under those circumstances I don't know. And given the batting positions he was picked as a bowler or a bowling all rounder in two of the tests. 5. So you need to look at his last four tests - two in India and two in Bangladesh. Pretty tough places to bat for an Aussie. He averaged 37. His last test was 38 and 25 not out - so 63 runs for one out. And he got dropped for that. And it was after his dropping that the mind games started. "Score more runs and centuries". So he hits a double century and a 90 and still gets overlooked. Then the well documented stuffing him around in the winter of 2018 happened resulting in him playing no cricket before being overlooked for the Pakistan tour in favour of Labuschange's one 50 and two ducks for Australia A.

Poor. Joe. Burns. https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/11/30/poor-joe-burns/

"deed poll"

I mean, you are ignoring Maxwell’s FC record there. 3,864 runs at 41.10 with seven centuries and 21 fifties. You’ve had selectors say there aren’t enough batsmen averaging high enough yet they’ve picked players in Labuschagne, Finch, Handscomb and M.Marsh who all have FC averages below 40. Maxwell was shafted last year when he was told by CA that he’d be selected for the Australia A tour of India and possibly the Pakistan series, so he turned down County offers and was then left out of the squad. How can a player make a case when the powers that be shaft him like that? Since 2015/16 Maxwell has averaged 40 or more in a Shield season in 3/4 seasons, with the season falling below 40 seeing him average 38.6. Are you forgetting he scored 707 runs at 50.50 in the 2017/18 summer? There’s your evidence for knuckling down, scoring runs and not being picked. In fact, as I point out above, they shafted him in the Australian winter.

I fear he was becoming invisible after Hobart 2016, and then completely invisible after the fourth test in SA, where he was rushed in with Renshaw, top-scored in one innings, and then hung out to dry. Not for the first time in his test career, either.

Maxwell averages 26 away from home. Shaun Marsh averages 29 away from home.

By the way, you shouldnt say Maxwell or anyone else let their country down, unless they do something stupid or irresponsible. That’s verging on childish - throwing our toys out of the cot just because they don’t succeed as much as they we’d like. They want to do well even more than we want them to. These guys aren’t doing well because there’s nobody better to replace them. Twenty years ago most of them wouldn’t have had a sniff at a Test cap. Some, e.g. Labuschagne, might be struggling to keep a place in their State side.

The Burns case is interesting. The 42 was against the best attack in the world - Rabada, Philander and Morkel easily superior to Bumrah, Shami and Sharma - so that should have meant something. But David fails to mention that he got 40 in the first innings. Still one Test is too small a sample to work on either way unless the guy looks in terrible form. Most of Australia’s selection problems stemmed from the series against Pakistan. Burns was presumably left out because they thought he was suspect against spin, whereas the problems were just as much about playing pace. Finch was then retained as opener because he did Ok in UAE, and Head because he scratched his way to a couple of halfway decent scores. Handscomb was presumably resuscitated because once again they miscalculated and thought the danger would be spin not pace. Shaun Marsh was retained for what I believe were the right reasons- a match winning 163* chasing 300-plus in the Shield against a reasonable attack. Unfortunately one suspects the selectors may stick with Handscomb and Head and leave out Burns and Maxwell. Also, while Harris may be a good bet temperament wise, he shown himself to be very weak against short pitched stuff and very flawed against spin. I’d rather have Burns or Renshaw opening for the Ashes but it probably ain’t going to happen.

I doubt Burns will play test cricket again while Langer is coach. He will need several double centuries to force his way in. When Burns was first chosen to open there was an outcry in the west because they felt Bancroft was a better performer and had a big future. Langer made a statement by excluding Burns from the Australian A side as soon as he took over. That was the side where all of the fringe candidates were competing for a spot in the Australian side. The schmozzle of the India series is what you get when you have agendas (the exclusion of people and social engineering) over clear hard headed thinking. If the selectors had done their research they would have known the Indians had a great pace attack. So what was needed was to respect that and pick genuine openers who could bat time, not a converted middle order stroke maker who was going to go after the swinging ball. Personally I would have picked 3 openers - Renshaw and Harris to open and Burns at 3. Khawaja is stroke maker. He is much closer to Mark Waugh than Ian Redpath and should be in the middle order. S Marsh's best performances have been at 5. Maxwell should have ben picked at 6. Three players to blunt the attack and tire the bowlers and 3 stroke players to go after the soft ball. Given the enormous salaries the Australian brains trust is paid it beggars belief they chose not to respect the Indian attack with the right strategy. Even more concerning when they knew they were building for England, that they thought Finch was the right man to go after a swinging Duke ball! I have long thought Hohns was great selector. He dropped Ponting, the Waugh brothers, and Langer and they all came back better players. But since Langer has taken over as coach, all the strategies have been lacking.

Describing Maxwell as "abusing" his talent takes things beyond simply evaluating him as a cricketer, into the realm of judgment. I don't think it exactly strengthens your argument, against him as a cricketer. Doubtlessly, he could have done more in only seven Tests to date. But then again, so could have every batsman over that period other than Smith, on tours of the subcontinent. The fact that he's never played a domestic Test summer and been able to bolt down a spot means that we can't really make any sort of judgment, without slipping into pre-judgment. Which is what I think you're doing. Of all current players, he's the one I'll die wondering about the most, if he never plays say 20 plus Tests. And I reckon he's one player other teams would fear, especially if our top order got runs and he came in at 5. He's one player I can actually seeing helping us win Test matches. I'm not an optimist though, given the popularly held "knock" on him for abusing his talent.

I think Wade has proved on several occasions that he is no longer up to international standard. If an uncapped player was batting that well I'd call it a guaranteed selection, but he's had his shot(s). Both Wade and S.Marsh should never play for Australia again. Starc and Hazelwood should be dropped for underperforming. Burns, Maxwell and Ferguson/Patterson should be in the next test team.