I’m surprised your not in the Maxwell thread with the other Fanbois.
Gideon Haigh SLAMS Justin Langer. Destroys Cricket Australia with logic and facts.
- Thread starter Richard Pryor
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I’m surprised your not in the Maxwell thread with the other Fanbois.
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,443
- 1,622
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
terrifying it is to say that you think that one person is better than another... I imagine that Smith is better than Finch.. and I imagine
warner is better than the mitchell brothers who ever the brothers are...
and they will sing up and then they will wright the books...
catch my drift...
warner is better than the mitchell brothers who ever the brothers are...
and they will sing up and then they will wright the books...
catch my drift...
They need to pick the 11 best cricketers in the country, regardless of their relative skill. So yes, the shitness of others may put Maxwell in the team.
I don't think he is in the top 11. I think he is about 15-20.
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,443
- 1,622
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
find the best top four and we are all going to be happy...
Do you think Travis Head is in the top 11?
That one is a bit harder to pick because he transitioning between being a keeper who can bat a bit to being a specialist bat. Can't say it worked, can't say it failed. he was the second highest run-scorer for the series for Australia.
Would Maxwell have done any better? I reckon not likely.
Did Head transform into Wade?
Well if you average 40 odd without centuries as opposed to 20, yes it does make a big difference, and it does make you a lot better.
He did make a 277 last season and that still didn’t get him picked.
I'm sure he did at some stage.
- Banned
- #163
You are wrong.
278.
That was early in the season last year during one of the Ashes tests. He didn't get picked because Australian were winning that series quite comfortably so they were not looking at many changes. It has proved to be kind of a one-off, he hasn't got to triple figures since then. Mostly he has reverted to type since then.
Nope.
Various cricket websites list his fielding position as wicketkeeper or describe his as wicketkeeper/batsman.
Cricinfo's profile is wrong. He didn't keep in the u19s, he hasn't kept for South Australia, he isn't a keeper.
Maybe he kept in grade cricket growing up or something, but he is not a keeper making his way now as a specialist batsman.
- Banned
- #168
Did you type Travis Head and it auto-corrected to Peter Handscomb without you realising?
Yeah, I read your post only after I decided to copy and paste the screenshot.
Still, I think he has done just enough to justify his selection. He did better than everyone else bar Harris. Seems unjustified to pick on his selection looking for a place to slot Maxwell into the team.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Agree almost entirely with this post but not with the bolded. At least not the extremity of it. To me it is justified with special talents, but it has been overused over the last decade and not just with international selection. I think everyone rates Pucovski as a huge talent but it's heart in mouth stuff again. At least he has got a couple of centuries (including a double) and a near 50 average from his limited FC appearance. There is also the issue with his concussions.
But you make a weighty argument when you say for every fast tracked success (say Michael Clarke - who was somewhat fast tracked but no near as much as some other cricketers) there are god knows how many kids whose careers have been shattered. Many of whom we don't even know as they become virtually anonymous outside of hardcore cricket fans.
So even when you have success with one young player does it become a Pyrrhic victory in the long term?
The latest one I'm worried about is Arjun Nair. He was the next golden boy about 2 years ago, got promoted to play for NSW on the back of about 30 first grade wickets (from roughly 30 first grade matches) with only 1 four-wicket haul and a batting average of about 15 with just one half century. He struggled, got suspended for a suspect action in the BBL, and is now nearly forgotten playing for Fairfield and struggling - has a batting average 12 this season and only 2 wickets. It is worth noting he did come back and take 8/17 in one match which was reported as one of the best first grade bowling performances ever seen, but aside from that he has achieved very little against adults. Watched enough of him to see there is a lot of talent there and he could definitely be a star at international level but look to be completely mismanaged to me.
As a general rule I stick up for cricket selectors. I think they often get a bum wrap for issues that are out of their control - i.e. the pool to select is just not good enough. When a team is performing poorly the players outside the team are potential match winners inexplicably getting overlooked... Until they do get selected, perform poorly themselves and the realisation kicks in that the cattle just isn't there.
Most selectors will select the "locks" (e.g. Warner and Smith when not suspended, Cummins) as expected, and it's the "non-locks" (e.g. S/M Marsh, Maxwell, Handscomb) where the disagreement lies. Everyone has favourites that come in and out of the team, but these guys are non-locks because their performances (over time) are mediocre and they are only occasionally match winners.
But since the sandpaper scandal it's like our selectors have lost their minds as well in some state of complete panic. Yes the pool of players is not strong and there isn't anything the selectors can do about that, particularly with regards to our batting, but the selections they've made seem very confused, inconsistent and seemingly little regard to the primary output required from a player - runs and wickets.
But you make a weighty argument when you say for every fast tracked success (say Michael Clarke - who was somewhat fast tracked but no near as much as some other cricketers) there are god knows how many kids whose careers have been shattered. Many of whom we don't even know as they become virtually anonymous outside of hardcore cricket fans.
So even when you have success with one young player does it become a Pyrrhic victory in the long term?
The latest one I'm worried about is Arjun Nair. He was the next golden boy about 2 years ago, got promoted to play for NSW on the back of about 30 first grade wickets (from roughly 30 first grade matches) with only 1 four-wicket haul and a batting average of about 15 with just one half century. He struggled, got suspended for a suspect action in the BBL, and is now nearly forgotten playing for Fairfield and struggling - has a batting average 12 this season and only 2 wickets. It is worth noting he did come back and take 8/17 in one match which was reported as one of the best first grade bowling performances ever seen, but aside from that he has achieved very little against adults. Watched enough of him to see there is a lot of talent there and he could definitely be a star at international level but look to be completely mismanaged to me.
As a general rule I stick up for cricket selectors. I think they often get a bum wrap for issues that are out of their control - i.e. the pool to select is just not good enough. When a team is performing poorly the players outside the team are potential match winners inexplicably getting overlooked... Until they do get selected, perform poorly themselves and the realisation kicks in that the cattle just isn't there.
Most selectors will select the "locks" (e.g. Warner and Smith when not suspended, Cummins) as expected, and it's the "non-locks" (e.g. S/M Marsh, Maxwell, Handscomb) where the disagreement lies. Everyone has favourites that come in and out of the team, but these guys are non-locks because their performances (over time) are mediocre and they are only occasionally match winners.
But since the sandpaper scandal it's like our selectors have lost their minds as well in some state of complete panic. Yes the pool of players is not strong and there isn't anything the selectors can do about that, particularly with regards to our batting, but the selections they've made seem very confused, inconsistent and seemingly little regard to the primary output required from a player - runs and wickets.
Carbine Chaos
The Gaff-er
- Apr 1, 2009
- 63,913
- 94,148
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
I was under the impression Head has always sort of been a back up wicketkeeper. The one who would don the gloves if disaster struck during the game.
In the same way that Phil Hughes did, I suppose.
If he is struggling playing for Fairfield then maybe it's not mismanagement but maybe he just isn't that good.
Similar threads
