Banter The No Dazzlering Big Cricket Thread

[1sttermfadeout]

Fair point.
Didn't realise it was so good in finals.

Having said that, Gilly averaged 36 with a strike rate of 98.
Maxwell averages 47 with an unbelievable strike rate of 160.

So to say Maxxy isn't a white ball great is just wrong IMO.

Looking at the average and strike-rate isnt really comparable given the drastic inflation that has happened to both in the ODI game over the last 10 to 15 years (debatable if this is down to poorer bowlers, flatter wickets, or T20 inspired batting)

In ODIs Maxwell is good. Better than average probably. In my mind he's not that much better than James Faulkner was. Miles away from 'all time great' discussions

T20's on the other hand id call him Elite. but then IDGAF about the T20 format at all and wouldn't watch it at all if it didn't choke out the other formats when it was on.

 

[Tugga27]

Looking at the average and strike-rate isnt really comparable given the drastic inflation that has happened to both in the ODI game over the last 10 to 15 years (debatable if this is down to poorer bowlers, flatter wickets, or T20 inspired batting)

In ODIs Maxwell is good. Better than average probably. In my mind he's not that much better than James Faulkner was. Miles away from 'all time great' discussions

T20's on the other hand id call him Elite. but then IDGAF about the T20 format at all and wouldn't watch it at all if it didn't choke out the other formats when it was on.

It's all subjective I guess.

But Maxwell's average combined with his strike rate in WC ODI's is elite.

 

[ioppolo]

Anyone want to calculate Maxwell's average and SR minus the 201*?

 

[happy_eagle]

Strong boomer energy from KP and RP

 

[MrWoollie]

Looking at the average and strike-rate isnt really comparable given the drastic inflation that has happened to both in the ODI game over the last 10 to 15 years (debatable if this is down to poorer bowlers, flatter wickets, or T20 inspired batting)

In ODIs Maxwell is good. Better than average probably. In my mind he's not that much better than James Faulkner was. Miles away from 'all time great' discussions

T20's on the other hand id call him Elite. but then IDGAF about the T20 format at all and wouldn't watch it at all if it didn't choke out the other formats when it was on.

It's really trying to compare apples to oranges. Both were exceptionally good in their era.
But a lot has changed between when Gilly played and more recent times.

1. Bats - vastly different. Even spuds can hit it a mile with the modern bat.
2. Boundaries - when Gilly played it was a rope a metre or two inside the fence. Now it's electronic signage 5-10m inside the fence and a rope another 5-10m inside that. Taking 15m off the 6 line is a big change.
3. Fielding restrictions - previously restricted to two outside the circle for the first 10? or 15? overs. That was about it.
4. Power plays - didn't exist in Gilly's day.
5. Bowling (leg side) - used to be a valid tactic within the tramlines, now 1mm outside leg and it's No Ball.
6. Free hits - See power plays.
7. Bowling (short) - there were restrictions (no more than 2/over etc.) but it was an available weapon. Now it's anything above chest height is a no-no.
8. Match timings - really tightened up. No pace bowler can use a full run up nowadays.
9. Pitches - unless it's a flat track where 400 is a possibility it's whinge time.

 

[THE A5]

Strong boomer energy from KP and RP

Punter reads this thread apparently

 

[ioppolo]

That's all well and good Ricky but who else should we be picking based on Shield form?

 

[DanWCE]

Gotta love Kingy

 

[Ljp86]

Sure Gilchrest is a better test player.

He also had one of the easiest jobs in opening the batting in ODI's.

His record in World Cups doesn't come close to Maxwell's.

Maxwell's record in World Cups is overinflated by his 201 not out being a significant outlier in his career. Not including that innings takes his overall average in World Cups to 36.84, only fractionally higher than Gilchrist's 36.16.

Gilchrist's record in World Cups is still reasonable, but his best attribute was that he was able to play well in the biggest games of all, including one century and two fifties in three World Cup finals, averaging 86.67 across those finals and being awarded Player of the Match in the 2007 final for his 149, which is still the highest score in a 50-over World Cup final.

 

[THE A5]

Maybe Maxwell should start batting with a squash ball in his glove

 

[FKASC]

Gotta love Kingy

Michelle!

 

[Ochre]

How did Kingy not get a game in the WC just gone when it was all spinning pitches? Needed a 17th all rounder I guess.

 

[Tugga27]

Maxwell's record in World Cups is overinflated by his 201 not out being a significant outlier in his career. Not including that innings takes his overall average in World Cups to 36.84, only fractionally higher than Gilchrist's 36.16.

Gilchrist's record in World Cups is still reasonable, but his best attribute was that he was able to play well in the biggest games of all, including one century and two fifties in three World Cup finals, averaging 86.67 across those finals and being awarded Player of the Match in the 2007 final for his 149, which is still the highest score in a 50-over World Cup final.

If you want to go that route, take Gilchrest's highest score of 149 off of his stats and his average drops to 31.

Maxwell's 201 is one of the greatest WC innings of all time, if not the best.
His strike rate would still be around 160 which is insane.
No one comes close.

The point I'm trying to make, is that his record is still elite.
To say someone who averages 47 at a SR of 160 in WC's isn't one of the greats, is bemusing.