The Big Show - Possible Test Star or T20 Money Grabber?

[PokerAce]

I don't see why Test cricket must always be associated with caution and passive batting, and why aggressive batting and test cricket are always deemed to be at odds.

There are cricketers who have been aggressive and at the same time had a successful test career as well. Gilchrist is one example, Sehwag is another. I know Sehwag went out with a bit of a whimper, but don't let that fool you. He was a destroyer with 3 scores of over 300 and averaging nearly 50 as an opener in tests. He was a killer, and not one bowler didn't shiver at the idea of bowling to Sehwag when he was at his peak. An avg of 49.35 clearly shows his aggression didn't impact his consistency. Plus he has centuries all over the world, be it Pakistan, SL, or Aus, or SA. He is the second highest SR in test after Afridi, but Afridi has scored 1/5th of Sehwags runs and has nowhere near the avg. Jayasurya whiile well short of Sehwags avg of nearly 50, is another who never let his aggression get in the way of effectiveness in tests.

I will admit there are not a lot of cricketers who have done it the way these few men have in tests, but that maybe because a conservative approach has so far been thought to be synonymous with Tests, and thus mostly aggression has been toned down by batsmen. However who is to say that Maxwell is not going to show the way ahead for aggressive batsmen in tests, or at the very least join this small group of 'madmen', who denounced the conventional and wrote their own rules.

 

[ethybubs]

I don't see why Test cricket must always be associated with caution and passive batting, and why aggressive batting and test cricket are always deemed to be at odds.

maybe because tests last five days and there is no need to bat aggressively when you can take the safe option.

 

[NoLeName]

maybe because tests last five days and there is no need to bat aggressively when you can take the safe option.

Thing is for Maxwell, his safe option is to play aggressively. Obviously he doesn't have confidence in his conservative play, and he gets out a lot less when going for broke. I didn't see the innings, but I can't think of any other form of justification for 127 off 102 when you're team is 6/9. His safe option is aggression. Perhaps he needs to improve his defence or gain more confidence in it to become a successful test player but I don't see why, if you can play aggressively better than defensively, you shouldn't do so just because of the game's 'tradition'.

And for the record, I call that 'leg glance through midwicket' a leg-side flick

 

[PokerAce]

maybe because tests last five days and there is no need to bat aggressively when you can take the safe option.

Maybe if less ppl thought like this, then we would have more aggressive batsmen.

150 scores over 2 days and 150 scored in 1 day, give the same runs, but by scoring fast u give your bowlers more time to get the opposition out.

Also its much safer to go for big shots in tests, most of field is in. So in an ODI or T20 a mis-hit that would be out caught in the deep would still go for a boundary because there are no many fielders out there in the deep. I know there are some field restrictions for a while, but they last a mere 6 overs or 15 overs. In a test match however u can still play shots after 7th over and 15th over without too many fielders in the outfield. That is what Sehwag's philosphy was, he once said, its safer to play big shots at the start of a test than at the start of a limited overs match, because even the mis-hits go for boundaries and there are no fielders in the deep.

Of course the batsman has to be good enough too, he cannot just keep edging to the slips and then moan that being aggressive didn't work for him. However if the batsman is good and can consitantly avoid the edges, then aggression in tests will do him good.

 

[ethybubs]

It was hard to choose just one quote for my signature from many like these:

Maybe if less ppl thought like this, then we would have more aggressive batsmen.

Also its much safer to go for big shots in tests, most of the field is in.

its safer to play big shots at the start of a test

if the batsman is good and can consitantly avoid the edges, then aggression in tests will do him good.

even the mis-hits go for boundaries

 

[SWITCHHIT]

That red test ball is not so much disciplined,you can't hit it easily as it is also heavier than odi ball.There are 3 layer stitches in a test ball while in odi ball there are two.Red Ball has always got something special.That is why test is slow.And cricketers are not crazy that they will respect test ball.This same maxwell failed on these pitches in 2014 indo-aus test.

 

[Spickery]

I think Glenn Maxwell will become a successful Test cricketer for Australia. The main thing he has to focus on though is balancing his aggression with a solid defence. There will be times when Maxwell will be able to take advantage of poor bowling and he can go and play an aggressive innings. Other times though the bowlers will be bowling well and he will have to play defensive shots and respect the good bowling. If Maxwell tries to play like he does in the Twenty20 format in the Test arena he will often be dismissed because of the wrong shot selection and he will be found out. David Warner is a perfect example of an aggressive minded player adjusting his batting technique for Test cricket. At the start of his career he looked to play attacking cricket all the time, as he matured as a batsman he realised he had to find a balance between batting attackingly and defensively. I believe that is why he is batting so well at the moment in Test cricket.

What Maxwell makes of his career only he can decide. Maxwell becoming a consistent Test batsman will depend on whether he can find the right balance or not with his batting.

 

[aussie1st]

He looks to be our ideal number 6. What stands out for me is his ability to rescue the team as he showed on a couple of occasions last season using his aggressive approach. Shot selection will be the key when making the step up, if he does a Brad Haddin when we are in trouble then the critics will be out for him.

 

[SaiSrini]

Maxwell and test cricket? Am I dreaming? That guy is just pure lucky. The amount of chances he gets due to the increasingly dropping fielding standards in cricket these days, that's why he has been getting most of these runs. He is nowhere near test level. Once his luck runs out, he will be nowhere.

 

[War]

Maxwell and test cricket? Am I dreaming? That guy is just pure lucky. The amount of chances he gets due to the increasingly dropping fielding standards in cricket these days, that's why he has been getting most of these runs. He is nowhere near test level. Once his luck runs out, he will be nowhere.

Ha well you better hope these words don't come back to haunt you in a few years.

 

[Parmesh killer]

Maybe if less ppl thought like this, then we would have more aggressive batsmen.

150 scores over 2 days and 150 scored in 1 day, give the same runs, but by scoring fast u give your bowlers more time to get the opposition out.

Also its much safer to go for big shots in tests, most of field is in. So in an ODI or T20 a mis-hit that would be out caught in the deep would still go for a boundary because there are no many fielders out there in the deep. I know there are some field restrictions for a while, but they last a mere 6 overs or 15 overs. In a test match however u can still play shots after 7th over and 15th over without too many fielders in the outfield. That is what Sehwag's philosphy was, he once said, its safer to play big shots at the start of a test than at the start of a limited overs match, because even the mis-hits go for boundaries and there are no fielders in the deep.

Of course the batsman has to be good enough too, he cannot just keep edging to the slips and then moan that being aggressive didn't work for him. However if the batsman is good and can consitantly avoid the edges, then aggression in tests will do him good.

I must say that you are a cricketing genius.

 

[NoLeName]

I must say that you are a cricketing genius.

 

[VC the slogger]

Maxwell and test cricket? Am I dreaming? That guy is just pure lucky. The amount of chances he gets due to the increasingly dropping fielding standards in cricket these days, that's why he has been getting most of these runs. He is nowhere near test level. Once his luck runs out, he will be nowhere.

What do you think started his rise to stardom in the IPL & T20 cricket? A couple of classy knocks in the Sheffield Shield earlier this year.

South Australia v Victoria at Adelaide, Feb 20-23, 2014 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
New South Wales v Victoria at Sydney, Feb 12-14, 2014 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

I reckon he'll be alright in Tests. He could play that No 6/7 game changer role that Gilchrist used to play for the Aussies.

 

[Parmesh killer]

You don't need to do like this. He posted quite correct. Test is best for big shots.

 

[ethybubs]

Oh my god, the world needs to be ended!