A bit presumptive of you assuming someone’s level of intelligence based on a single comment. Without delving much into what I do, I can tell you that I have done 7 years of university studies.

While I respect differing opinions, your dismissive tone doesn’t contribute to a constructive conversation. People have the right to question aspects of the game. I can certainly remember one or two instances (probably even more) where I’ve seen the cameras zoom into coins here in Australia. Obviously I don’t recall exactly when for me to be able to provide you with an example. That is just a ridiculous expectation.

Given the role of BCCI in meddling in cricket affairs and their influence over ICC, it is actually reasonable to have some level of skepticism.

It’s not about intelligence; it’s about having an open dialogue. Dismissing legitimate queries doesn’t foster a healthy cricketing community. Let’s aim for more insightful discussions rather than resorting to personal jabs. It is rather interesting based on your other comments that your go-to is to frequently question everybody’s intelligence. Perhaps that says more about you than anyone else.

Don’t want to be a conspiracy theorist but it is curious that India have only lost their toss 3 times – once in their opening match v Aus, and then against the two weaker teams – SL and Afg. Not once have we seen the camera zoom in on the coin.

Tana Mir might’ve forgotten to mention, but Maxwell has been instrumental in Australia’s change of ODI fortunes. His last series just before the WC against Pakistan was outstanding… short memories.

@Insult_2_Injury, funny how you cherry picked just the T20 part from the comment above…

…but struggles to dominate longer formats


Have you seen his FC average?

A win despite poor batting performances from Finch, Warner, Smith and Maxi. Australia looking very threatening. Cannot imagine a final other than India v Australia tbh.

My concern with regards to their form and also potentially disrupting the style of play and ‘togetherness’ of the current squad remains.

I think the difference between the last time Australia toured England and now is the players have had so many more ODI games to play together in the absence of Smith and Warner and they’ve found a way to win.

Realistically speaking, if Finch scores a 50 or two against Pakistan, he won’t be dropped from the side.

The reasons provided in the article includes doubt over their form.

They can say they’re ready all they like. Warner didn’t anticipate that encounter with De Kock. It happened anyway.

This is a hypothetical proposition that I will not entertain any further. Different batsman play different bowlers differently.

No one can predict with certainty that any team is going to win the World Cup. Again, the last point is irrelevant because it applies to every team.

They can win it without Smith and Warner, meaning, if they are to win it, adding Smith and Warner will not strengthen the side any further based on reasons provided in the article. Again, I want to reiterate that ‘can’ does not mean they will.
Re. psychological affect, “I don’t expect this from professionals” – did you see what happened between De Kock and Warner in Durban during Australia tour to SA last year?
“Same scene, 272 runs on same pitch. Now defend it against English batsman. Can they do it?” I do not know if they would be able to, but then again, English bowlers are different and perhaps Australia would’ve scored more against them on the same pitch.
Your point about so called bad day applies to literally every team, so it’s rather redundant to mention it in this case here.

See, I don’t like the inconsistency of this approach. If Warner gets back in, so should Smith because they were both 2 guaranteed players in the side 12 months ago.

Assuming Warner can actually show he can play just as well as he did a year ago, the concern then becomes, who’ll captain Australia? Realistically, I don’t think JL and the selectors will depose Finch any time soon.

‘Can’ does not mean they will.
40% seems like such a random chance…
Any team’s bowlers can have a ‘bad’ day. It’s also possible that the batters also have a so called bad day.
“…they should have got there.” Well no, not really, because their total was enough to win the match.
A rather generic comment without actually addressing my points of concern above.

Unfortunately Trevor Hohns all but ruled out the possibility of having Handscomb keep in the WC during a short press conference a few days ago. I think it is quite unlikely that they’ll drop skipper Finch so close to the World Cup.

Ronan, I am a huge fan of yours and largely find myself agreeing with your analysis but disagree that Maxwell should bat at 7 in ODIs. If we want Maxwell to get a quick-fire 50-60, instead of having him in a fixed position, I think a better option would be to have him as a floater. He’d come in to bat given the team situation e.g. with about 20 overs left like last night. This way, Maxwell knows exactly what his role is in the team as well. Stoinis has shown that he can also bat at 6 or 7.

Playing XI has been announced. Wow. My predicted XI was spot on except the order between Patterson and Head.

It was a 3-match series. Why do you keep talking about the second ODI?

No one is arguing 5-260 is a good total (although arguably total of a team depends on many things and not just the players). That is such an arbitrary number and it goes ahead your argument because Australia were bowled out for 230 in the third ODI… Had Maxwell, as the last recognised batsman, stayed at the crease, we’d have pushed on to a much bigger total. Again, this is the third time I am bringing it up and you are yet to acknowledge, but did you watch how he piled those 26 runs in the third game? That’s how he needed to play.

Refer to my original comment. Maxwell had a disappointing series all things considered and he’s a better player than that. I don’t have more to add to this discussion as I’ve made my points clear and it’s starting to get repetitive.

Why is Dhoni in the equation here at all? You’re not arguing against my points which is about Glenn Maxwell but anyway… the job of closing out an innings is responsibility of the last two recognised batsmen if many wickets have fallen at that point – this is a general fact because the job of the bowlers is to bowl. If not many have fallen, it is still the responsibility of players at the crease at that point in time (as they are set in and what not) but if they cannot get the job done, the thing is there’s a safety net with yet more batsmen to come and pick it up. Hence, Dhoni’s job – whilst he does it so often doesn’t have to be to close out the innings because if he happens to get out, there are other capable batsmen in the Indian line-up to get the job done, whereas there are none after Maxwell in our line-up.
In the 2nd and especially the 3rd ODI, knowing the tail would be following him, he needed to stay there, play less risky shots but yet rewarding shots. Again, watch how he scored those 26 runs. See, this is the thing, you are mentioning that 48 off 39 but completely forgetting about the 3rd ODI where we needed him even more.
The fact is, had he stayed there for the remainder of the overs in both 2nd and particularly the 3rd ODI, even if he had striked at a lower rate, we would’ve still had higher overall team total (so no, he isn’t being selfish, he’s taking the game deeper). Not just that, finishing not out would’ve given him better chance to be promoted up the order in future games which is what I’d like to see. However, the fact that he got out before the end of those 2 innings tells selectors that Maxwell is getting enough overs to do what he can to his absolute potential – this is a fallacy that I do not agree with because I believe Maxwell would play with a different mentality if he was batting up the order in the middle of an innings. He is much more capable than what he is put out to be, but getting out in 2nd and 3rd ODIs was his own doing and that didn’t help his cause to get promoted up the order or be in contention for Test cricket.

It’s not an ‘obsession’, as a number 7 batsman with no one else to come after him, it’s important for him to be circumspect. Unfortunately, that’s his role in the team at the moment, to close out an innings (which I firmly disagree with and have because he’s much more than just a hitter), that is expected of the very last batter in the team. It’s exactly how it works. Exposing the tail towards the end of an innings does not allow the team to go hard.
…If Australia finish an innings with 5 wickets in hand batting first, it’s very likely that they’ve left runs on the table because they haven’t taken enough risks.
– That’s a very blanket statement to make. You are discounting the very possibility that the players played well with high strike rate (yes this happens) for one.
You are arguing against comments that I did not make. The scoring rate depends on many things such as the condition of the pitch and the bowling attack and not simply the batsman.

I honestly think Maxwell is our best option for captaincy. It seems to bring the best out of him as a player as the added responsibility means he’s in charge of ensuring the team does well. Mitch Johnson recently also suggested Maxwell as our ODI captain.

Whoops, Richardson in place for Hazlewood.

Because selectors hate to be proven wrong, they will no doubt pursue with Marnus Labuschagne at least for the next 2 games with SL. I think what this means, unfortunately, is that young Pucovski is going to miss out on a debut against SL. I personally would like to see Labuschagne dropped (he doesn’t deserve to be there given his Shield form and average), but I suspect this won’t happen, so I’m predicting this is the XI selectors will go with:

Harris
Burns
Khawaja
Labuschagne
Patterson
Head
Paine
Cummins
Starc
Lyon
Hazlewood

I never made any comments about the first ODI and I also mentioned that I disagree with him batting at number 7.

In the second ODI, he could’ve finished the innings without getting out. Did you see how he scored those 26 runs in the third ODI? Didn’t take a single risky shot to get there. Could’ve played exactly like that in the second ODI to stay there until the end. Stop comparing Maxwell with other players, because I never claimed he failed in this series. If anything, I am compelled to say that the selectors want him to fail which is why a batsman of his calibre is batting at number 7. Compared to other players, he did brilliant in the series. His potential, however, extends well beyond his performance and that’s where he failed.

As a huge Maxwell fan (see: my only two articles on The Roar are both about Maxi), I have to say I am very disappointed with the way he played this series. He had the perfect window of opportunity in the 2nd and 3rd ODIs to make a stamp and had he played well, he probably would’ve got a chance to play up the order in future games. Not to mention, it would only have helped his case for Test call up. Yes, I agree that he shouldn’t be batting at number 7 but the reality is he is, so he needs to make most of his opportunity batting at 7.