Steve Smith vs Glenn Maxwell

[threenewpadlocks]

Although neither of them are effectively good enough for test cricket, and the Aussies should play two specialist spinners in India, not Lyon + one of these two, the selectors seem content it's a two horse race between these two for the number 6/7 and second spinner role in India. Who would you rather have? And neither is not an option here, though that's what I and I'm sure many others are thinking. One or the other.

 

[Surkin]

Steve Smith is the more accomplished batsman.

 

[PTizzle]

Smith is the better batsman at FC level and I like the idea of his leggies for variety, if we're choosing to take one.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Steve Smith easily.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

What a sickening choice. Smith.

 

[The_Reaper]

Smith

 

[bradrowe#32]

Maxwell. Smith is a shocking cricketer.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Maxwell by default, because not Steve Smith.

Why isn't the drover's dog an option?

 

[drummond2fevola]

Maxwell looks like less of a homosexual so I guess it has to be him.

 

[Plugger35]

Thread reminds me of this

 

[dajesmac]

Don't mind either of them that much.

Think Glenn has more to offer short term. I have a feeling Smith could be a special player though once he matures.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Can't bear the way Smith drives with his head so far away from his body.

I haven't seen enough of Maxwell's batting to find something that really annoys me. So even though I think he's a talented slogger, it has to be Slapsy Maxy by default.

It could have been worse. It could have been a three way choice with Reeks.

 

[courtjester]

O'Keefe.

Or Henriques at six as third seamer, with two specialist spinners (Lyon plus one of Doherty/Beer)

 

[King Elvis]

I'd agree with O'Keefe, but I do believe Steve Smith is a huge talent, and has a genuine future as a Test Batsman.

They threw him to the wolves when he was younger, granted, he dominated Domestic Cricket to earn it, but they threw him in the team with no clear role, the public had no idea whether he was a bowler or a batsmen - it was just poorly handled and messy.

If he's got half of the strength of character as Phil Hughes, he'll be back, and he'll be a gun.

 

[brisbane13]

smith has had his chances and didn't go anything, he has a shocking batting technique & has stated that he would like to concentrate on batting instead of his bowling, plus he runs around the field like a list puppy dog.

Maxwell hasn't been around for nearly around, his batting technique is far better than smith, but he throws his wicket away to often. he has admitted that his bowling needs work & is to looking to improve it.

after meeting smith once as he was entering the ground for a bbl game, i think the term "w***er" best describes him

 

[gbatman]

Interesting, what about Dave Hussey. Was he dropped on form or age or was he dropped to go back and play first class cricket in preperation for a possible Test inclusion.

On the topic I just don't rate Steve Smith. His batting and bowling is no better than part time at international level. Soft leggies and a poor batting technique. I'm not sure of Glen Maxwell's long format game but he looks a handy cricketer.

O'Keefe is a player with first class performances under his belt but just can not seem to get a look in by the selectors.

 

[Hoffy95]

So George Bailey reckons Henriques is the best all rounder in Aus.

God help us.

Just pick a gun batsmen who can roll the arm over. Maxwell and Smith can't bowl. The only reason a guy like Dave Hussey isn't classified as an allrounder is he is such an accomplished batsman so it completely overshadows his OK bowling. Because Maxwell and Smith aren't great bastmen their respective averages have enough parity with their bowling averages that it makes it appear as if they are proficient at both.

 

[western royboy]

0-0 Scoreless Draw - Do not want either anywhere near the Test team at the minute.

 

[bird_man]

Maxwell's bowling is underated. Smith barely bowls anymore so Maxwell for me.

 

[bird_man]

Maxwell has so much potential as a batsman but yeah, his biggest problem is not going on with his starts and throwing his wicket away. A lot of 50's but just the one hundred. Still with an average of 42 and just the one hundred you could argue that he's pretty consistant.

 

[dan warna]

if O'Keefe gets back into form he's a quality unit.
Smith is a FC quality batsman. His bowling is rubbish.
maxwell is a FC quality all-rounder, his bowling is ok his batting is ok.
O'Keefe is a quality bowler and a quality batsman. How he managed to avoid selection is a mystery, then he got injured and his form tailed off.

 

[DardySingh360]

Why not Khawaja at 6

 

[Bucking Beads]

I don't want either in the test side but if I had to choose it would be Smith. He is a better batsmen although his technique is loose. His bowling is handy if he continues to work on it. An ordinary leggie will get more wickets than an average off spinner. Maxwell is only an average off spinner and his batting is based on sloggin.

 

[bird_man]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/content/current/story/602586.html

Looks like the coach has his mind made up.

 

[dan warna]

FC numbers :
batting:
Maxwell test: -, ODI: 24, T20: 15, FC: 42, OD: 28, 20/20: 22
Smith ave test: 29, ODI 21, t20: 15, FC: 42, OD: 34, 20/20: 20

Bowling
Maxwell test -, ODI -, T20, 25.6, FC 34, OD 61, 20/20 30
Smith ave test: 56, OD: 39, T20: 20

Maxwell has Smith covered in batting and in the longer form of the game comfortably covered in the bowling. Smith has better form in the short form.

maxwell about 6 months older than smith.

Basically both reasonably FC batsman. Maxwell can bowl, smith can't.