There’s no argument Glenn Maxwell and Marcus Stoinis are two of the most explosive batsmen in world cricket.
If they fire in England, the Australians will win a fifth World Cup in the last six tournaments, and a sixth overall.
But there is downside.
They are also among the most irresponsible, unreliable and inconsistent players in the team.
Take their last Big Bash outing for the Stars against the Scorchers in Perth as the perfect example.
Chasing 182 to cement a top four berth, the Stars got off to a rough start with Ben Dunk and Peter Handscomb back in the shed with only 11 runs on the board.
No matter, Maxwell joined opener Stoinis to begin an entertaining, and responsible, partnership.
Glenn Maxwell knocks it out of the park. (AAP Image/Rob Blakers)
They took the Stars from 2-11 to 117 in 70 deliveries with Maxwell 61 off 40 with four fours, and three sixes, and Stoinis more reserved on 49 off 40, with seven fours, to be in total control.
Then bang, both were out within two deliveries of each other.
Maxwell flicked uppishly to be caught at deep backward square leg, Stoinis found extra cover like a dart.
From being in control, the Stars lost 5-37 to lose by 27 runs to the bottom of the table Scorchers.
That was one that got away.
Let’s turn to Michael Bevan (53.58), and Mike Hussey (48.15), owners of Australia’s highest ODI career averages. Both were not nearly as explosive as Maxwell (32.31), and Stoinis (42.47), but more reliable.
All four have spent the vast majority of their ODI careers batting four, five, six, and seven – Bevan 191 of 196, Hussey 153 of 157, Maxwell 77 of 81, and Stoinis 21 of 24.
So it’s totally fair to compare the quartet on a batting position by position.
Batting four – innings, (no), runs, top score, average
Bevan – 53(15) – 2265 – 108* – 59.60
Hussey – 27(5) – 1077 – 105 – 48.95
Maxwell – 6(0) – 133 – 88 – 22.16.
Stoinis – 4(0) – 76 – 44 – 19.00
Batting five
Stoinis – 1(0) – 63 – 63 – 63.
Hussey – 42(7) – 1544 – 108 – 44.11
Bevan – 33(5) – 1165 – 103 – 41.60
Maxwell – 32(1) – 1050 – 102 – 33.87
Batting six
Bevan – 87(34) – 3006 – 102* – 56.71.
Stoinis – 13(4) – 415 – 62* – 46.11
Hussey – 63(15) – 1942 – 109* – 40.45
Maxwell – 29(3) – 760 – 92 – 29.23
Batting seven
Hussey – 21(15) – 725 – 88* – 120.83
Stoinis – 3(1) – 162 – 146* – 81.00
Bevan – 18(11) – 339 – 42* – 48.42
Maxwell – 10(4) – 272 – 56* – 45.33
The stand-out innings was Stoinis, in only his second appearance on 30 January 2017.
Marcus Stoinis of the Stars hits the winning runs (Photo by Scott Barbour – CA/Cricket Australia/Getty Images)
Chasing New Zealand’s 286 at Eden Park, Stoinis cracked 146* off 117 with nine fours and 11 sixes to fall short by just six when last man Josh Hazlewood ran himself out out the bowler’s end in one of the dumbest dismissals in cricketing history.
Pat Cummins’ 36 was the next best to the dominant Stoinis.
So how does the quartet compare in the breakdown of individual scores?
Centuries – Innings – Percentage of career innings
Bevan – 6 – 3.06
Hussey – 3 – 1.9
Maxwell – 1 – 1.23
Stoinis – 1 – 0.42
Between 50 and 99
Hussey 39 – 24.84
Bevan – 46 – 23.47
Stoinis – 5 – 20.83
Maxwell – 16 – 19.75
Between 11 and 49
Bevan – 106 – 54.08
Hussey – 78 – 49.68
Maxwell – 36 – 44.44
Stoinis – 10 – 41.67
Between 0 and 10
Maxwell – 28 – 34.57
Stoinis – 8 – 33.33
Hussey – 37 – 23.57
Bevan – 38 – 19.39
All four have had their biggest percentage of career runs in the 11-49 bracket, while Maxwell and Stoinis have far higher percentages in the 0-10 bracket.
The latter is the danger zone.
There’s one more set of stats to show why Bevan and Hussey were more beneficial to the Australian ODI side in their eras, than Maxwell and Stoinis are at the moment.
Career runs, fours/sixes, percentage of boundaries to career runs
Maxwell – 2327 – 233/74 – 61.71
Stoinis – 807 – 59/34 – 54.52
Hussey – 5442 – 383/80 – 36.97
Bevan – 6912 – 450/21 – 27.86
Those stats show Bevan and Hussey kept the scoreboard ticking over with a predominance of ones, twos, and threes, while Maxwell and Stoinis have relied on boundaries that have also brought about their downfall seeking more.
Hasten slower, and the Glenn Maxwell-Marcus Stoinis combination will realise their undoubted ability at the World Cup so the trophy will remain in Australia’s possession.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Exactly my point Chris. I think David has a lot of trouble Moving forward with the eras. He’s still stuck in WSC mindset.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Maxwell is the sort of player that could play several different roles in the team, subject to his application. I think the real question is where the team needs him most. At the moment, that's as the guy who ups the ante from about the 35 over mark. We have other players who can build an innings (including S Marsh, who is our form player).
JamesH
Roar Guru
I don't think it quite works like that, Dave. I agree about Bevan's strike rate being a product of the times - nothing wrong with the speed at which he batted in that era. However, when a batsman lowers their strike rate they will generally boost their average because it means they are taking less risks and less likely to be dismissed. Conversely, if they raise it then the risk increases and their average drops. If Bevan had been aiming to go at a strike rate closer to 100 there's no way he would have averaged 53.58. Not even close. Similarly, if Maxwell dropped his strike rate he'd probably boost his average. It might hamstring the team, though, if he took it too far, since his 360 striking is his biggest asset. Which brings me to the point I really want to make - that the whole analysis in this article is flawed because it wrongly assumes that Hussey and Bevan played similar roles to those which Stoinis and Maxwell have predominantly played. Hussey and Bevan were accumulators who shepherded the innings and allowed (in Hussey's case, since Bevan's era was very different) more powerful strikers to hit around them, only swinging the bat at the end. Maxwell is currently used as a fast finisher. He comes in and ups the run rate in an effort to turn 270s into 300+ scores. It doesn't always work but that's the nature of a high-risk role. Stoinis is a power hitter who will look to settle in and then start clearing the pickets. Could either of them be cast in the Hussey/Bevan role? Maybe. Maxwell has the ability but would need to come in earlier and reign in his natural white-ball instincts. But coming in earlier increases the likelihood that he wouldn't be there at the death, which would hurt Australia because we don't have many other players who can come in at the death and hit from ball one. Stoinis already comes in a bit earlier but he is not naturally skilled at strike rotation. He's more the guy that the accumulator gets on strike so he can play big shots. Hussey and Bevan are far more akin to Smith, Clarke or Handscomb in terms of the way they played. A better comparison to Stoinis would be Symonds. Not sure about a good Maxwell comparison, though. He's a bit unique in Australian cricket, for better or worse.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
We are talking a different era though. The strike rates of those two were totally acceptable in the eras in which they played. It's really just not a good comparison overall. One was an era where a run a ball in the final 10 overs was good, the others where you want to be aiming for 100+ off the last 10 overs.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Comparing apples and oranges - Bevan’s scoring rate was a product of the times, when ODI totals were typically 50+ runs lower. Bigger bats and smaller grounds (boundaries roped 10 metres in) as well as more focus on big hitting, have made a big difference. So Bevan and Hussey were getting better averages in smaller totals - so even bigger distance between them and the current pair. Though I have no idea what was the point of comparing Stoinis and Maxwell with these two in the first place. Does anyone seriously think they are in the same league?
Peter Warrington
Guest
pretty obvious, all of the above, rotating down the order
David Lord
Expert
TB, you’ve got me very wrong. I’m a fan of treating every ball with what it deserves, and these days in both ODIs, and T20s, so much half-track rubbish is bowled, there should be more fours, and sixes, the bowlers are just asking to be trashed. I would expect in a World Cup more movement and a fuller length that demands ticking the scoreboard over with ones, twos, and threes, and there’s bound to be the odd trash delivery to the boundary, or over it. On that basis, 12 runs an over are very gettable often off the quicks, but I expect the spinners to play a bigger role in the World Cup, and as a general rule they bowl less trash. Having said that, six an over is still very gettable in ones, twos, and the odd four. After all, six an over gets you 300.
The Bush
Roar Guru
To some degree David. Certainly teams still need a few, if not a majority, of their batsmen to play the game you're talking about. And if the choice is between that and "nothing" (going out early) then sure, that's better. But those hero batsmen also score big sometimes and that is what leads to giant totals. The modern team has to have a few guys that are chasing the grail by trying to hit everything - England have them and we've had them before (see Andrew Symonds). It's clear you're not a fan of that type of player, but unfortunately that is how the game is played - you don't score 350+ by simply working ones and twos with the odd boundary - it gets done by players like Maxwell and Stoinis playing big shots, a lot.
David Lord
Expert
TB, how a team scores runs never changes, keeping the scoreboard ticking over with one, twos, and threes, with the bonuses of fours, and sixes, beats the daylights out of the hero batsmen who invariably depart early trying to make fours, and sixes, their bread and butter.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
You won’t hear me say a bad word about Hussey or Bevan. Both were absolute legends of the game and greats for Australia. But that said, if you got 53 and 49 out of any of those two players every match of the WC @ 74 and 86 Strike rate in 2019 it’s fairly certain you won’t win the World Cup. England, India and South Africa, along with even Pakistan and NZ are capable of very big scores that could require strike rates well north of 100 and even as high as 150SR for a 5/6/7. Sure you will need a number of stalwarts that can keep the runs ticking over along with the strike and a Mike Hussey and Bevan would fill that role admirably. As will hopefully Steve Smith and Shaun Marsh in that role. Maxwell and Stoinis are not in the side to score a solid 48@78 SR. They are in the side to launch at a huge total or finish off an innings with 10+RPO in the final 10. If we went with 7 Mike Hussey’s or Michael Bevans in the World Cup in 2019 or for that matter 7 Maxwell/Stoinis’ you would certainly lose the Cup.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Turner just got picked for our India series, so I would say he is a chance
Matt H
Roar Guru
So strike rate obviously not a consideration in limited over cricket there David? Maxwell 121.64 Stoinis 96.87 Hussey 87.16 Bevan 74.16 It surely has to be a consideration. Any batsman scoring at 74.16 strike rate in modern cricket would be dropped. Especially if they dawdled along so that they remained not out in 34% of their innings. Let's try a fairly common metric: average x strike rate / 100 - designed to see who is the best with a balance between scoring lots between dismissals and scoring fast - i.e. provides balanced value to the team Hussey 41.97 Stoinis 41.14 Bevan 39.73 Maxwell 39.30 On that basis Hussey is the best, but there is actually only around 6% variance between them.
The Bush
Roar Guru
David, I agree that we're not going to win the Cup unless Stoinis and Maxwell are given ample opportunity and then score the runs. England and India are going to regularly post 300+ and we're not going to do that unless those two get going with about 15 overs to go. But I think our immediate problems are at the top of the order - we're getting off to some dismal starts and we need to fix that ASAP.
The Bush
Roar Guru
It depends on what I want to achieve David. If I want to chase down 240, I'd select Bevan or Hussey. If I want to set a total of 360, I'll choose Maxwell. They're really not the same batsmen at all (the game has changed).
Smiggle Jiggle
Roar Guru
Is Bancroft a look in? Even Tuner?
Simon G
Guest
Based on those averages and strike rates: A Bevan XI would score 4/222 in their 50 overs A Hussey XI would score 5/261 off 50 A Maxwell XI would be all out for 323 in the 45th over A Stoinis XI would score 6/290 off 50 So going off that David I'd probably rather Maxwell.
David Lord
Expert
jamesb, I haven’t said Maxwell and Stoinis are the keys, they are the big bonus when they fire, and if they do that in England, Australia will win a sixth World Cup. My keys are the two obvious batsmen on return – Steve Smith, and David Warner.
jamesb
Roar Guru
I actually think the key player is Peter Handscomb. IMO he should be the wicketkeeper in the side. He would provide the side with the perfect balance if he has the gloves. Handscomb performed well against India in the recent one day series where he averaged 50. Has a decent list A domestic record. Handscomb is an accumulator, just like Bevan and Hussey. He could bat at five, and set the platform for the likes of Maxwell (6), Stoinis (7) and Faulkner ? (8) to tee off. The author thinks Maxwell and Stoinis are the keys. I beg to differ.
David Lord
Expert
In case you missed the point G Knight, the two are totally different columns, this one pitting Australia’s two top ODI averages against how the current two blasters are firing. Glenn Maxwell, and Marcus Stoinis, need to take a leaf out of the Michael Bevan-Michael Hussey book to realise their undoubted potential.
David Lord
Expert
Peter, you want to talk strike rates, who would you rather have in your side? Michael Bevan with 6912 career runs, a career average of 53.58, and SR of 74.16. Mike Hussey’s career 5442, career average 48.15, and SR of 87.16. Or Glenn Maxwell’s career 2327, career average 32.32, and SR of 121.64. Marcus Stoinis’ career 807, career average 42.47, and SR of 96.87.