Australia vs England - ODI Series

[Broncs_Fan]

I don't understand why Maxwell is not in the team.

 

[1910]

Seems to be some myth that Maxwell has 13,000 ODI runs at 50 and 30 100's.

He has one 100 from 80 games, and averages 32. That's not even a good or solid ODI career. Ponting had seven 100's by that time and another 23 to come just to put Maxwell in perspective.

 

[1910]

Every single one of these stats is irrelevant when it comes to Maxwell.

The whole "Shield runs mean nothing when selecting One Day teams" thing you're on at the moment is completely ridiculous, it's Maxwell. Are you concerned that because he scored runs in 4 day games that he'll be unable to score runs quickly in the shorter form..? I could understand if it was someone like Kurtis Patterson scoring a bunch of shield runs at a strike rate of 35 or something, but that's the only scenario in which those runs wouldn't count for anything, if it was someone who's form may not translate to other forms of cricket.

We know Maxwell can score runs fast, he's in form, should've been picked in the squad at the very least.

I disagree, if you're going to use Shield form to pick the OD team then Bird has to be there and Paine can't be the keeper and Burns should be opening.

Plenty of flaws in your logic.

It's hardly revolutionary to use short forms of the game to pick your short form national team and use the Shield to pick the Test team. Lynn hasn't played for Queensland since October 2013- great final win and 58 off 40 but it's still five years ago. His physical inability to throw, dive or field aside I get his BBL form makes him attractive.

I'd use the BBL but i'd still be careful about choosing 20/20 players in the ODI side, it's a very different skill and if you start having too many Lynn's you don't have the Bevan and Hussey's in those middle overs to steer it around which is what you need.

 

[Browny]

How many times has Maxwell needed a mature innings and has gotten out to a retarded shot.

The game against England when Faulkner pulled it out was a perfect example of him needing to step up and steer the side hole but didnt

 

[Unbreakable]

I disagree, if you're going to use Shield form to pick the OD team then Bird has to be there and Paine can't be the keeper and Burns should be opening.

Plenty of flaws in your logic.

It's hardly revolutionary to use short forms of the game to pick your short form national team and use the Shield to pick the Test team. Lynn hasn't played for Queensland since October 2013- great final win and 58 off 40 but it's still five years ago. His physical inability to throw, dive or field aside I get his BBL form makes him attractive.

I'd use the BBL but i'd still be careful about choosing 20/20 players in the ODI side, it's a very different skill and if you start having too many Lynn's you don't have the Bevan and Hussey's in those middle overs to steer it around which is what you need.

You're so dense man..

I'm not saying you have to exclusively pick the One Day side based on Shield form, I'm saying Shield form shouldn't be discounted for players who are notably extremely aggressive & fast scorers. Maxwell literally has the 2nd highest Strike Rate in ODI history.

A comparison would be if Sehwag had failed in his last few ODI series and then came out and scored 600 runs in 8 innings at an average of 75.00 in FC matches, do you think the selectors would be like "We're just not sure about you Virender, you haven't really shown any recent form in ODI's, we might have to overlook you until you can prove that you're capable of scoring fast runs."

 

[1910]

You're so dense man..

I'm not saying you have to exclusively pick the One Day side based on Shield form, I'm saying Shield form shouldn't be discounted for players who are notably extremely aggressive & fast scorers. Maxwell literally has the 2nd highest Strike Rate in ODI history.

A comparison would be if Sehwag had failed in his last few ODI series and then came out and scored 600 runs in 8 innings at an average of 75.00 in FC matches, do you think the selectors would be like "We're just not sure about you Virender, you haven't really shown any recent form in ODI's, we might have to overlook you until you can prove that you're capable of scoring fast runs."

Is that the same Sehwag that had ODI 200's and 8000 ODI runs or a different one? He probably would come back in the team at his best. I'd say what was earned more than one 100 in 80 games.

By the way Sehwag did get dropped in 2013 when his form dipped.

Guess what he averaged when he was dropped 21.7 for 2012.

 

[1910]

How many times has Maxwell needed a mature innings and has gotten out to a retarded shot.

The game against England when Faulkner pulled it out was a perfect example of him needing to step up and steer the side hole but didnt

Millennials arguing for his fully sick inclusion so he can do ramp shots are ignoring all that.

One score above 20 in his past seven innings and only two fifties in his past 18 for Australia.

Blistering One Day form.

 

[Unbreakable]

Is that the same Sehwag that had ODI 200's and 8000 ODI runs or a different one? He probably would come back in the team at his best. I'd say what was earned more than one 100 in 80 games.

By the way Sehwag did get dropped in 2013 when his form dipped.

Guess what he averaged when he was dropped 21.7 for 2012.

Sehwag was dropped in 2013 at the age of 34 and was never picked again, not exactly the best comparison to a guy who was dropped in the prime of his career and has made plenty of runs since.

Regardless, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing now, I know it's the way you get your rocks off. "Oh my god someone said something I don't agree with in the cricket sub-forum, let me open my 15 cricket statistical archive bookmarks and show them how wrong they are with arbitrary cherry-picked stats!"

 

[Sproj]

Alright guys, give it a rest.

 

[mitch222]

Seems to be some myth that Maxwell has 13,000 ODI runs at 50 and 30 100's.

He has one 100 from 80 games, and averages 32. That's not even a good or solid ODI career. Ponting had seven 100's by that time and another 23 to come just to put Maxwell in perspective.

Pointing batted at first drop. Always had a chance to bat and face excess of 100 balls an innings if needed thus the higher rate of scoring. Maxwell normally bats at 6 which is more known as the finisher role/end of innings anchor. The fact that he only has one 100 in that time doesnt neccessary suprise me. 15 50s is more relevant to him because thats what your 6 should be getting normally within their time frame to bat. Michael Bevan who is perhaps our greatest ever ODI finisher only had 6 centuries to his name in 196 innings. Counting 100s in ODIs to a 6 batsmen isnt a really fair comparison.

 

[Browny]

Ok then let’s compare apples with apples.

Symonds career vs The Big Show?

 

[Unbreakable]

Ok then let’s compare apples with apples.

Symonds career vs The Big Show?

Symonds - 196 matches, 39.7 average, 92.4 strike rate, 6x 100's, 30x 50's
Maxwell - 80 matches, 32.3 average, 123.9 strike rate, 1x 100, 15x 50's

Very similar actually, Simmo slightly better average across over 100 more games, big show far superior strike rate (Giving credence to what @mitch222 was saying about Maxwell often coming in with <5 overs left and just swinging the willow)

 

[1910]

Pointing batted at first drop. Always had a chance to bat and face excess of 100 balls an innings if needed thus the higher rate of scoring. Maxwell normally bats at 6 which is more known as the finisher role/end of innings anchor. The fact that he only has one 100 in that time doesnt neccessary suprise me. 15 50s is more relevant to him because thats what your 6 should be getting normally within their time frame to bat. Michael Bevan who is perhaps our greatest ever ODI finisher only had 6 centuries to his name in 196 innings. Counting 100s in ODIs to a 6 batsmen isnt a really fair comparison.

Ponting spent time down the order in his first years in the ODI side, just like Maxwell has- can you see Maxwell being a number three that scores 100's?

Point was a great one day player v someone plodding along getting 22 for Australia. Maxwell's 100 came at five by the way.

 

[1910]

He was dropped in India- not a word spoken not a soul cared. Now all of sudden he is everyone's favourite ever one day player and the world is ending.

 

[1910]

Edit: Ignored Staff Request

 

[Battler]

Am I the only one who thinks Head is shit house? His FC batting average is bad, his bowling average is pathetic (he only bowls because he's the captain imo), his ability to strike the ball is overrated. His list A batting is OK, but it seems like the selectors have put him down as the bloke to play for Aus long term. There's no way he's better in any form of cricket than Maxwell.

EDIT: Averages are deceptive for short form stuff. Maxwell averages 32 with a SR of 123, for comparison McCullum averaged 30 at a SR of 96 in ODI cricket and I doubt he'd be considered bad. Head's SR is 88, Marsh's 94, Warner's 96, Chris Gayle's 85. Maxwell is a priceless commodity lower down the order.

Paine can't be the keeper

Yeah I agree Paine shouldn't be in the side, Carey should.

 

[1910]

Ok then let’s compare apples with apples.

Symonds career vs The Big Show?

Roy never even got a 100 for Queensland in One Day Cricket! Symonds first half of his career from 98-03 is probably where Maxwell is now. Once Roy got his first 100 against Pakistan he then got another five in the next six years. Maxwell got his first 100 against Sri Lanka at the SCG in 2015. He hasn't kicked on and performed consistently in One Day cricket since then.

The lowest Roy batted for Australia was eight and the highest opening.

Consistently five though. Roy got dropped at times too- There was a 12 month gap between his first and second game.

 

[broncsgoat]

As I've said before, I love all your stat's but they aren't everything, Maxi is way to good to be left out for to much longer

Stats are the purest indicator of performance. It's why everybody keeps banging on about Smith and what he's averaging.

400 runs from 20 innings is puss and I'm surprised they carried that type of performance that long.