The Roar
The Roar

Narayan K.

Roar Rookie

Joined January 2018

4.4k

Views

3

Published

37

Comments

Med Sci student at UOW. Cricket enthusiast.

Published

Comments

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

Australia can win the World Cup without Smith and Warner

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.

Australia can win the World Cup without Smith and Warner

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

Australia can win the World Cup without Smith and Warner

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.

Australia can win the World Cup without Smith and Warner

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.

Australia can win the World Cup without Smith and Warner

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.

Australia can win the World Cup without Smith and Warner

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.

Australia can win the World Cup without Smith and Warner

‘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.

Australia can win the World Cup without Smith and Warner

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.

Australia stun India with 3-2 series win

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.

Finch stars as Australia beat India

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

Kurtis Patterson added to Australian Test squad to play Sri Lanka

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.

Is Glenn Maxwell the Big Show or a no-show?

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.

Is Glenn Maxwell the Big Show or a no-show?

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.

Is Glenn Maxwell the Big Show or a no-show?

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.

Aaron Finch is Australia's biggest World Cup worry

Whoops, Richardson in place for Hazlewood.

Kurtis Patterson added to Australian Test squad to play Sri Lanka

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

Kurtis Patterson added to Australian Test squad to play Sri Lanka

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.

Is Glenn Maxwell the Big Show or a no-show?

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.

Is Glenn Maxwell the Big Show or a no-show?

Really? Maxwell, discounting his 3 tests back in 2013 and 2014, played 4 in 2017. His average in India was 40 and 34 in Bangladesh. He hasn’t played a single test match in Australia. Maxwell and Burns were called up to SA right after the fateful day in Cape Town and after that series, they were dropped all of a sudden, which, might I add, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He should’ve been in that squad to UAE especially after his performance in India and Bangladesh.
Where did you get inconsistency from when he averages better in first-class cricket than every player in the current team besides Khawaja?

Labuschagne's Test selection is a farce

Maxwell was given 7 opportunities, all overseas. The four tests that I included above were from 2017. The 3 he played before that were back in 2014. All of those Tests were overseas. Don’t forget, Mitch Marsh also has an average of 26 and he has played 35 Test matches.

The selectors’ fallacy: Glenn Maxwell is not a Test Cricketer

It doesn’t matter whether it’s long way off Test cricket or not. It is the only closest thing to Test cricket and players are selected to Test cricket based off their first-class cricket record. How else do they get picked, Adam? He hasn’t had a single opportunity in Australia. Players who have good first-class cricket record need to be picked and Maxwell is one of them and he is far better than most of our cricketers in Test XI. That’s my standards.

The selectors’ fallacy: Glenn Maxwell is not a Test Cricketer

Really, Pedro? His batting average in India series was 39.75, and 33.33 in the series against Bangladesh both in 2017 (total of 4 Test matches). That is a better batting average than Travis Head (4 Test matches) 35.62 and Aaron Finch (4 Test matches) 33.37. Not to mention, much much better than Mitch Marsh’s career batting average of 26.08 despite playing 35 Test matches and also better than his brother Shaun whose career average is just 34.82. As outlined in my article, he hasn’t played a single Test match in Australia. He more than deserves a spot in the Test XI.

The selectors’ fallacy: Glenn Maxwell is not a Test Cricketer

Therein lies the irony, Adam. People seem to believe Maxwell is only good for T20s and ODIs because of the way he plays in those formats. It’s not that people think Maxwell is good for Test cricket because of the way he plays in T20 and ODIs. His first-class (which is a format reflective of Test cricket) batting average is 41.10. That in itself justifies his selection in the current Test XI where the only player with higher first-class batting average is Khawaja.

The selectors’ fallacy: Glenn Maxwell is not a Test Cricketer

As I outlined in the article above, Maxwell’s batting average of 41.10 itself should warrant his selection just as a batsman. Consider his bowling ability an extra ‘commodity’. Not to mention he’s arguably the best fielder in the world.

The selectors’ fallacy: Glenn Maxwell is not a Test Cricketer