Glenn Maxwell’s stocks have risen sharply during this white-ball tour of South Africa, with his absence keenly felt again last night as Australia were rolled for 217, botching a fairly straightforward ODI chase.
At 2-133 in the 27th over, with Steve Smith (76 from 94 balls) and Marnus Labuschagne (41 from 51 balls) well set, Australia were well-positioned to chase 292 against a Proteas attack missing superstar quick Kagiso Rabada.
SA had earlier showed it was possible to score at a swift rate on this Paarl pitch as they recovered from a vulnerable position to hammer 146 runs from their final 20 overs.
Australia needed to match this dynamism in the second half of their innings but instead, their chase fizzled out in dreary fashion.
So grim were their efforts to accelerate that Australia went nearly six overs without hitting a single boundary, starting from the 37th over.
Despite needing to attack the South African bowlers as the required run rate ballooned, Australia’s six and seven combination of Alex Carey and D’Arcy Short struck just one boundary between them from 40 balls.
Carey had a shocker, making five from 16 balls to badly stall Australia’s momentum. But the wicketkeeper-batsman does have some serious credits in the bank, having made 611 runs at 47 in his previous 20 ODI innings, including a sensational performance across the 2019 World Cup.
The same can’t be said for Short (18 from 24 balls), who is yet to fully flourish for Australia in any format and seemed out of his element at seven last night.
Short is not a middle-order batsman, let alone a finisher. In his 38 List A matches, he’s batted at five or lower in the order just seven times, and in T20 cricket he has batted outside of the top three just once in 83 games.
Short likes pace on the ball and is used to starting his innings against a hard new ball with the field up.
Not surprisingly, the West Australian struggled to get going as he faced a torrent of slower balls, cutters and spin from an SA attack that did a fine job last night.
That’s not to suggest Short was the major culprit in this loss. Carey, Aaron Finch (ten from 12 balls), David Warner (25 from 27 balls) and Mitch Marsh (16 from 19 balls) also failed to have a significant impact on the match.
(AP Photo/Themba Hadebe)
With 15 overs to go, Australia required just 7.66 runs per over, a very manageable rate against a solid but unspectacular Proteas attack. What was required at that stage was a short burst from one of their middle-order men to bring that rate down and turn the pressure on to the hosts.
A cameo of even 35 from 25 balls at that point would have been very valuable.
This was where Maxwell’s absence patently hampered Australia. So often in ODIs when other batsmen are struggling to find the boundary he arrives at the crease and makes scoring in clumps of four and six look easy. Very, very few other batsmen in the world can do that in the latter third of an ODI against old, soft balls with the field set deep.
Certainly there is no one else in Australia who can come close to achieving that. This much has been clear for years now. Maxwell was also sorely missed in the T20I series, which Australia would have won 3-0 if not for the complete absence of power in their middle order as they stuffed up an easy chase in the second match.
Maxwell’s rare gifts have long been underappreciated by many Australian fans and, at times, by the national selectors, too. The Victorian’s ODI career looked to be on the skids after his poor World Cup, with chairman of selectors Trevor Hohns publicly expressing disappointment in his efforts.
But as Janet Jackson warned us back in 1997, sometimes you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone. And just like the J Dilla re-mix invigorated that pop track, maybe Maxwell’s layoff could yet bring the best out of him.
Surely it must have made the selectors realise just how indispensable he is.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
I’m sure that was meant to read patently
JamesH
Roar Guru
That's why he's perfect for the late-innings role. The same lack of inhibition that can cause him to do hair-pulling things is what makes him so hard to contain. The more people start telling him not to do X, the more he'll second-guess himself. I think we're far better off just letting him work out what he thinks he can and can't hit, and acknowledging that there will be chaff with the wheat. As an aside, while a lot of players do premeditate the reverse sweep, I don't think it necessarily *needs* premeditation. The best players can pick the line of a spinner early and drop into a reverse sweep as comfortably as a regular sweep. As far as I'm concerned, if a player is an expert at the shot then I don't see why they can't play it early on to the right ball, if quick runs are needed.
MaxP
Roar Rookie
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a Maxwell fan. But he is boom or bust. Sometimes it works spectacularly and other times it doesn’t. There seems to be no in between with him. He may have helped the other night, but equally he may have gone cheaply. And yes, the reverse sweep is fine, but it requires premeditation. Maxwell, in my view, can be guilty of going for it too early in his innings irrespective of conditions. He has an array of safer, but still scoring shots, that he can use
JamesH
Roar Guru
Until this match he hadn't played an ODI for over two years (and only 7 ODIs since Dec 2016), so that might have something to do with it. I also can't recall the last time Klaasen turned a match around, either. This was only the second time he's reached 50 in his 15 games - the other time being a 59 vs Zimbabwe - and he's a specialist batsman who doesn't bowl.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Maxwell was bizarrely only used in that finishing role four times in the World Cup. In those games he scored 28 off 14 (India), 46* off 25 (SL), 32 off 10 (Bangladesh - run out by Khawaja) and 12 off 8 (England). That's one failure for three wins and a loss, averaging 39 at a SR of 207. Maxwell often batted too early in the World Cup and failed badly at it. He's got to cop some blame for his poor dismissals - he isn't some raw kid who was out of his depth - but when he was actually used in his best role, he definitely added some dynamism to the side.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Maxwell isn't there to solidify anything. He's there to be that risk vs reward player - sometimes he will come off, sometimes he won't. There's a role for that kind of player in limited overs cricket, provided that they can make it happen on a semi-regular basis. We've got a handful of 'solid' guys who can score at that 80-90 strike rate. We have no one else - outside of our openers - who can frequently score freely from ball one. The second T20I and the first ODI demonstrated just how important and unique Maxwell is to our setup. Also, it's 2020. At this level the reverse sweep is now a perfectly acceptable shot, not some crazy, low-percentage trick.
Republican
Guest
Interesting how Australia have been mostly a far better exponent of the Test version of the game as opposed to any of the truncated versions. Now they perform well at both extremes, so T20 & Test Cricket, while ODI continues to be our Achilles heel.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
It isn't just Marsh though. The selectors continue to select players for tests based on their ODI or T20 efforts, which has no relation at all to how they will go in tests.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
The team still needs less Marsh's
Shellbell
Roar Rookie
Blewett played 46 tests and averaged sub 35. Hopeless against spin. Symonds played 26 tests and averaged sub 41. Pretty good but he was not among Oz's best six batsmen when selected. Hodge played six tests and averaged plus 55. Blewett was, far too late really, dumped for the return of Hayden in 2000 (NZ) and Damien Martyn came back as well which soon after saw Slater gone for Langer at the top of the order. That process which yielded Hayden, Langer, Ponting, the Waughs and Martyn then Gilchrist was when Aussie selectors had best six batsmen as the focus. And we were virtually unbeatable. The arrival of Symonds in 2004 ahead of Hodge marks the beginning of the era of the allrounder which has produced periods of hopelsessness.
George
Guest
So do the selectors. He'll be selected for test cricket based on contributions to and being a 'good bloke' in ODIs.
joker_in_the_pack
Roar Rookie
It would be good to examine the list of players who get just a game or two to establish themselves in any of the Australian teams, and contrast them with others who appear to get an endless number of games to do so. In the past, players like Brad Hodge and Greg Blewett have been jettisoned for little or no reason. One has to ask: what did Travis Head do wrong to be left out of this game?
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
Patiently wrong. Stats say something completely different
mrrexdog
Roar Guru
I’m not quite sure where you get that 1/20 innings stat Garth. Maxwell has played 100 ODI innings and has passed 50 in 20 of them. Or 1/5 That’s not accounting for not outs and the odd quick fire 20/30/40 Which was what the team needed in a particular situation.
Lawrence
Roar Rookie
Maxwell failed to live up to his ability simple as - we the believers were wrong the doubters correct. What has Travis Head done wrong in ODIs.
AREH
Roar Guru
Absolutely, and to lesser extent, the same could be said of his brother, who has long been a superior player against the white ball when comparing formats. Shaun's T20 prowess over a decade seems often understated, even if mostly domestic.
Shellbell
Roar Rookie
I cannot remember when Marsh last walked to the crease in an ODI innings and turned a struggle into triumph like Klassen did last night.
mrrexdog
Roar Guru
People need to seperate Marsh in test cricket cricket and Marsh in limited overs. In test cricket he’s a spud, I’d consider him the worst player to play test cricket for Australia in my lifetime. He’s a far better white ball player, in ODIs he averages 35 with the bat and 36 with the ball.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
I'd say the only reason Short bowled was because Marsh was so expensive. As it turned out they had identical figures so they may as well stuck with Marsh for the full 10. As bad as he was I reckon he was still more likely to pick up wickets than Short.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Not what I said. Not what I meant anyway. Short isn’t really a bowler but Marsh is supposed to be so yes, I blame Marsh but can excuse D’Arcy. The others did do alright but they didn’t get Klaasen out so they didn’t quite do enough in the end. Hope that’s clearer. .. Also, if the batsmen are to be blamed I don’t think we should be looking at the blokes who came in late but squarely at Smith and Lab who both made starts but didn’t go on with it like Klaasen and Miller did.