VOTE: Pick your Australian XI for the Ashes

a test century in India and Simon O'Donnell in the same breath. well, blow me down...

Peter Warrington, I think the take away is that Paul has the talking cushion, and the last word. He doesn’t rate Maxwell. As is his choice. It’s a pointless conversation.

Jero, I'm more than happy to listen to other people's points but Mr Warrington assumed I don't listen to what people say because I don't agree with it. The views of people about Maxwell being Test quality boil down to a few simple points; * he's only played a few Tests - so what, lots of guys have only played a few Tests and have clearly not been Test quality? * he's never played in Australia - again, so what, that's called the luck of the draw. He's had 14 chances to bat for his country and only succeeded once. * he's batted up and down the order - I'm really not sure what difference that makes in terms of scoring runs. Sure it would be ideal for him to bat in one position but it's about taking chances as they're presented * others have not done any better - and others were also dropped for failing in the sub-continent as well. I think this comment is supposed to excuse a Test batting average of 25 which I've seen people say is acceptable?? * "he's test quality for sure" - I've seen this comment a number of times without ANY justification at all, as though by simply making the statement, it has to be true. I truly hope Maxwell a) gets more opportunities to show what he can do at Test level and b) takes advantage of them because that can only be good for Australian cricket.

hi Jero There are probably quite a few things we can agree on about Glenn Maxwell but first and foremost is how he's handled his "treatment" by selectors. I've got nothing but admiration for the way he's accepted his fate, so to speak and 100% agree, he has not made ANY excuses. The excuses have come from others, be they fans, the media, etc. Maxwell and simply accepted the cards dealt to him and for that I think he's shown real class. I equate Maxwell to others like Simon O'Donnell, Cam White, James Faulkner, Moises Henriques, etc who are very good Shield players and often very good short form cricketers as well, but not quite good enough to cement a place as a Test cricketer. Maxwell's the sort of fitness freak that could easily play another 8 - 10 years of top class cricket but he probably has a window of 3 or 4 to make the Test side, if he's good enough. I obviously don't believe so but will be more than happy to publicly admit I was wrong if he breaks into the side again and significantly improves his batting and/or bowling performances. As it is, he stands with these other guys I named, way better cricketers than I could ever hope to be, but not quite there at Test level.

Were you pounding the table with your shoe when you typed that, Paul? I think everyone hears your point. I'm just not sure that you're interested in theirs.

Paul, as Nudge points out above, not one of them was on a domestic flat track. However average, his record on the subcontinent is basically as favourable as that of anyone bar Smith during the same period. So there’s that. When you use the word “excuse”, it reads like judgment beyond merely cricket performance. I only saw Maxwell respond to the disappointment of not going to Pakistan with good grace, and not make any kind of excuse. All I really heard from anyone was dismay about the circumstances surrounding his non- selection for Australia A, and Pakistan, after the advice he apparently received from the selectors (which Langer made such an ass of himself responding to in that press conference). Not excuses. Sure, you make your own luck, but it’s fair to say that a few middle order players have had the inside running while he didn’t. Not going to Pakistan, when his selection seemed like a no-brainer to the objective observer given the big outs, and his ability against spin compared to others, was a major setback. The international short form schedule pretty much dictated that he wouldn’t play Tests this summer, with only one Shield game to stake a claim. It’s quite possible, even probable, that he never will play more Tests. He’s just too valued a short form international cricketer to get the red ball games during our domestic season to give himself the best possible chance. He will always struggle to build up the body of long form runs which have enabled guys like Harris, Burns, Patterson and Handscomb get a shot this summer. He’ll have to go looking for them overseas. Sure, he could come in via the Rogers & Voges route later in his career, on the back of mountains of runs in his 30s. But neither of them was the great short form cricket Maxwell is. His papers are just as likely to have been stamped by then anyway. Look at Wade. And he’s only 31. A lot of us will probably end up dying wondering. You probably won’t.

I'm really surprised with how many people are suggesting Richardson should retain his place in the team ahead of Hazlewood once he comes back from injury. I think Richardson is a good bowler, but Hazlewood has been one of the best bowlers in the world for a long period, with a career average of 27 (26 at home and 28 away). Despite this excellent record, a large number of people seem to think Richardson's good shield form this year and one good test against a below-par Sri Lankan team at the Gabba is enough to keep Hazlewood out of the team? I think England would be very happy if is occurred.

Blimey, all the people picking Stoinis.! The single most dumbass idea on cricket put forward in the last few years. Here are a couple of articles to educate the ignorant: https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/01/30/australia-dont-need-an-ashes-all-rounder/ https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/01/31/defying-the-odds-with-marnus-and-marcus/

Nailed it. It does my head in. If his form in 13-14 was so important, why was he ever recalled? He did what they asked of him in Asia in 17. When dropped for no re reason, he was told to go and make big runs, and did. Then Smith Shamed him for a poor run of scores in ODI 18 months earlier. A few weeks later Maxwell dominated a T20 series happily under Warner and Smith was too tired to concentrate. It's like AFLX, with movable goalposts. You could draw a line through a lot of similar players and extrapolate that Maxy's maturity and form in 17-18 would have seen him average at least 50 against the hapless English, which would have his career average up above 40. at which point your metric would welcome him with open arms. Hohnism, writ large.

yes, he should never have gone, but he looked better over there than over here.

I think Heads skiddy darts would be handy over in England.

The problem is, Paul, that the 26 average you keep quoting is misleading. The small handful of test innings Maxwell played in 2013-14 in Asia have little to no bearing on his current ability as a test batsman. They were played 4-5 years ago at a time when he was not ready for test cricket and had no defined role in the side. You could use your same argument to say that Steve Smith should never have been picked again, after averaging just 28.77 over five tests. Here's a list of things that are more relevant than Maxwell's overall test average of 26 or his first chaotic stint(s) in the side: - Maxwell played 4 tests in Asia in 2017 and averaged 37. - Maxwell has a test ton in India. - Maxwell has a test ton in India (worth repeating, since so few Australian batsmen ever achieve the feat). - Maxwell averages 41 in first class cricket. - In two of his last three completed Shield seasons Maxwell has averaged over 50. That list suggests 'test quality' to me. Focusing on the average of 26 to exclude him from the test side despite the above doesn't make any sense. If you want a decent argument against Maxwell being in the Ashes XI, how about the fact that he has played one first class match in almost 11 months? That's a lot more pertinent than a handful of innings half a decade ago. As an aside, an average of 42 and a sub-60 strike rate is very handy for a fifth bowling option.

If Patterson beats out Labuschagne then I'd be tempted to bat him at 4 and bring Smith in at 5. A bit of protection for Smith wouldn't go amiss in his first test series back.

With all the uproar during and after the SA series it's easy to forget that Bancroft was our best and most (read: only) consistent batsman. He scored 5, 53, 38, 24, 77 and 26 at an average of 37. In the context of an incredibly tough series where Smith, Warner, S Marsh and Khawaja all struggled that's a decent set of numbers.

I had pretty much thought that Bancroft, having really only vaulted into the team on the back of scoring a double hundred at just the right time, and then not having really done enough to cement himself in before the suspensions, was unlikely to get back any time soon, but his form in the BBL has looked pretty good, and I wouldn’t put it past him piling up lots of runs in the remaining Shield matches and being in the running for a plane ticket. I still think it’s likely to be more as a backup if he does, as I reckon it will be Burns to open with Warner in the first test, but he’s certainly got the opportunity to get there.

Agree, Donny - he will probably need to tighten up a bit in England but should be able to adjust (play the V a bit more !) Things must be slow in the optometry game with Lawson selling such moronic tripe to make a quid ! Perhaps he was picking a 20/20 team !

He was sacked from that because he didn’t know any of his players. They didn’t have blue caps. Players from states other than NSW are just as foreign to him.

Ronan, I look at it a different way and I'll bet Maxwell would as well. He has had 14 opportunities to bat for Australia. Forget about whether he's been hard done by, whether he should have had more opportunities, whether he should have been allowed to strut his stuff in Australia - he's had 14 chances to show what he can do. Then look at what he's done with those 14 chances - passed 30 on 3 occasions and past 50 once. You and others can put up all the excuses you like but the fact remains this is a poor return for the number of innings this guys had.

To be fair, in the story i saw Henry named an XI and everyone else a squad. Nearly everyone in Henry's XI was in everyone's squad. His argument for squadding but not teaming Khawaja are very valid. Wade - well I guess he is making a point re form. That he had made all summer. TBF, the most bizarre selection is Skull alone having Mitch Marsh oin his squad. And if I was M Harris I would be rueing the lost opportunity - not in a single squad. Let's see if he bats his way back, or JL gets a "like a son" pick?

Especially when he coached Pakistan.