***Official*** India and England in Australia ODI Tri-Series 2015

[hendrix]

I don't believe any international cricketer - whether it's Maxwell, Warner, or Kieron Pollard - has got to where they are purely by pinch hitting. There must have been some point in their career where they blocked out some deliveries and rotated the strike.

They might not be as good at it as the more classical batsmen, but I do think they have the ability to practise basic match awareness.

Hard to criticise a guy who scored a match winning 95 though.

 

[cnerd123]

Cmon mate. If we weren't allowed to discuss the merits of anyone who tries their best, we'd only have threads on the West Indies and Ravi Bopara.

If Brendon McCullum continued to live by the 'it's the way I bat' theory, he wouldn't have a triple century and some doubles to go with it. GotSpin is right, a good batsman is match and situationally aware. If you're not, you're not a good batsman - you're just effective on your day.

calling Maxwell a **** batsman is different from calling him an idiot who deserves to be dropped for stupidity.

Unless Maxwell admits that he cant control himself from trying to smash every ball when he bats (like Afridi has), one should assume he is batting in a way that he believes is most effective, and is trying to win the game for his side, rather than not thinking and just trying to satisfy some selfish power hitting urge.

Drop him because he is ****, don't drop him because you think he is being an idiot when he chooses to play a reverse sweep instead of a nudge off the pads.

 

[SteveNZ]

calling Maxwell a **** batsman is different from calling him an idiot who deserves to be dropped for stupidity.

Unless Maxwell admits that he cant control himself from trying to smash every ball when he bats (like Afridi has), one should assume he is batting in a way that he believes is most effective, and is trying to win the game for his side, rather than not thinking and just trying to satisfy some selfish power hitting urge.

Drop him because he is ****, don't drop him because you think he is being an idiot when he chooses to play a reverse sweep instead of a nudge off the pads.

Did someone call him a **** batsman? He's not. And he's not an idiot either, seems like a decent bloke. He's just not a consistent, or near consistent, international player. I don't know why he swiped constantly in the powerplay the other day, but I know I've seen him keep his shape and hit it as well as anyone. I'm pretty sure Lehmann didn't ask him to play that way. So I dunno why his head gets to where it does.

I'd drop him if he continues to underperform. An average which sat at less than 30 before the weekend, for a guy of his talent, is not flash and shows he hasn't found a way to use the ability he has.

I honestly don't think it's too much to ask him to adapt his game, slightly or otherwise. And hey, maybe under another coach Maxwell would be a nice bonus to have at #5 where he comes off once in 5-6-7 innings. But it doesn't seem like Lehmann sees it that way. At the minute, his spot is safe more so because Bailey is woefully out of touch and Clarke is injured...well and because he bowls/fields like a demon. At 5, you'd expect runs to be your major currency.

 

[cnerd123]

Did someone call him a **** batsman? He's not. And he's not an idiot either, seems like a decent bloke.

The way people have been talking about him in this thread and over the intewebs has been harsh. Comparison to Afridi are not on. Afridi is a legit idiot, incapable of batting sensibly.

Agree with the rest of your post though.

 

[Prince EWS]

At 5, you'd expect runs to be your major currency.

You've made this point lots of times and I let it slide because I didn't want to be pedantic, but it's getting progressively annoying -- he rarely ever does bat 5; he's not selected to anyway. In pretty much every game he's played he's be penciled in to come in at 6 or lower. Sometimes he bats a little higher because Australia have got off to a really good start batting first and he's the best bloke to accelerate at the end, but he's usually penciled in to bat 6 in a normal innings. He batted five in the last game because he and Marsh were both in the side, but that hasn't happened much throughout his career.

It doesn't really change your point much but I think it should be noted.

 

[Cabinet96]

You still don't necessarily have your best run accumulators coming in chronological order anyway. In that India series he often came in at 5 ahead of Voges at 6, pinch hitters are still a thing.

 

[Prince EWS]

In that India series he often came in at 5 ahead of Voges at 6, pinch hitters are still a thing.

Yeah, because this:

Sometimes he bats a little higher because Australia have got off to a really good start batting first and he's the best bloke to accelerate at the end

Also applies to "if they're chasing 350 and the RRR is over 8" of course. He's usually selected to bat six if things go 'normally' though.

 

[viriya]

BBC Sport - Ben Stokes: Cricket World Cup omission ridiculous - Collingwood

Considering how Bopara/Woakes is doing, Stokes doesn't seem like a bad idea anymore..

 

[viriya]

If you care to explain the other, misguided situation to me...I'll slap a bookmark on said other rating system right away.Otherwise it'll continue to bug me and I won't be able to fathom looking at any cricket-based information.

The official ratings only considers 4-5 factors. Most likely Mahela is below Maxwell because it doesn't give enough weight for recent performances and Mahela average history in ODIs is weighing him down more than it should. In Maxwell's case, he hasn't played a lot of matches yet so his rating should be discounted slightly imo, but I think that is not happening as much as it should on the ICC ratings.

I take into account way more factors as well, so the match situation, support from others etc also matters.

 

[Cabinet96]

Key is the anymore.

 

[Prince EWS]

Stokes still seems like a bad idea tbh. Woakes had one terrible game but he was good in the others. Bopara has been bad but he's not been bowling anyway so if anything he should've been replaced with a specialist batsman and Stokes's ODI batting performances have been an absolute joke.

 

[SteveNZ]

BBC Sport - Ben Stokes: Cricket World Cup omission ridiculous - Collingwood

Considering how Bopara/Woakes is doing, Stokes doesn't seem like a bad idea anymore..

Woakes I can kind of understand (had better form coming in, right?) but Bopara, **** me. Has he ever done anything half decent in a big situation for England? You know what you're getting, and it ain't gonna win you a World Cup. I can't see how the rest of the country sees him as a vastly over-rated guy whose only up-side is he has two 'skills', but the selectors show undying faith.

 

[Swingpanzee]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153055944759313&set=vb.85633169312&type=2&theater

The Maxwells' are fans of the reverse sweep.

 

[Cabinet96]

Stokes was absolutely miles ahead of Woakes and Bopara in the pecking order this time last year. It's his fault, and a credit to Woakes, that he's not here.

He'll probably replace Bopara first game after the WC though.

 

[Spark]

the wc rules regarding replacement make less and less sense the more you think about it

 

[Prince EWS]

the wc rules regarding replacement make less and less sense the more you think about it

Yeah I tend to think teams should be allowed to pick whoever they like. It does no good to the tournament for a team to be trapped into selecting something other than their best lineup due to the squad rules.

The benefit of squads lies purely in aiding the media narrative and hype.. but be this the case I don't think 15 is the best number. If teams could name 20 or even 18 you'd avoid the problems of a regrettable selection.

 

[cnerd123]

I think it's also for marketing and logistic reasons.

 

[Antihippy]

I don't know why people are talking about discarding woakes. One bad game does not strip out all the good work he did previously.

 

[hendrix]

Disagree. I think 15 member squads even the playing field just a touch. I don't like the idea of teams being able to play 5 spinners against one team than 5 pacers against the next. There has to be some all-round utility to a squad or it becomes like the NFL.

 

[SteveNZ]

Disagree. I think 15 member squads even the playing field just a touch. I don't like the idea of teams being able to play 5 spinners against one team than 5 pacers against the next. There has to be some all-round utility to a squad or it becomes like the NFL.

I don't know if I'd have an issue with this. You have a country of x-million people, you field the best XI for every given day. There'd be nothing said about 4 seamers if you didn't have a decent spinner, so no reason you shouldn't be allowed 4 spinners if that's your strength.

I'd imagine the rule is more to do with players out of form, and the mickey mouse nature that would be swapping them in-tournament.