• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Glenn Maxwell- What are CWs thoughts on this article?

Riggins

International Captain
Maybe it is the same risk as playing the cover drive, and I actually don't mind that. But when you're trying to bat for 2 days to see out a draw you shouldn't be playing the reverse sweep OR the cover drive, you ****wit.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Keating couldn't give a **** about the Australian cricket team.

The article is a crock of ****. The 50s was the height of the Menzian torpor, in societal, economic and cricketing terms. Cricket nearly died in the 50s. It was horrible. I bet the ****wit who wrote that article laments 100 overs not being bowled in a day, despite the fact that when they were, teams would go to stumps at 4/170.

He's a ****.

But then, so is Maxwell.
 

zorax

likes this
Terrible article.

Maxwell is probably right about a cover drive and a reverse sweep being equal risk for him, and that he was likely to get out quicker if he was defending instead of attacking.

The problem isn't how Maxwell batted, it's that he was picked to begin with.
 

dermo

International Vice-Captain
nah i cant cop that it's the same risk, he might think he's good at the reverse sweep, he might even be alright at it but a cover drive will always be less risky
 

Riggins

International Captain
I don't even care about that. The suggestion that it's less risky than a forward defense though. Sheesh. If that's the case you shouldn't be playing test cricket bud.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
my favourite bit of that dumb article is:

Excuse me? That’s probably the most arrogant thing I’ve ever read – and I’ve read the Latham Diaries.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
nah i cant cop that it's the same risk, he might think he's good at the reverse sweep, he might even be alright at it but a cover drive will always be less risky
Dead set how many blokes schnick off cover driving versus how many runs they score off it, especially early in innings.

Maxwell's reverse sweep is no different to everyone else's normal sweep shot.
 

Riggins

International Captain
I think it is different. He's pretty great at it but it's still premeditated as far as I can tell.
 

Riggins

International Captain
The paddle sweep he used to play, sure. But they're basically all balls pitching outside leg anyway so it's not really the same level of risk. Most of his sweeping though I don't think so. I don't think you can be pre-meditating a sweep and still have so much time to run down the pitch and donk ****s back over their head.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
..because he premeditated when he was running down the wicket?

EDIT: there's obv. a difference between premeditation, and committing. Maxwell commits to the reverse sweep, whereas guys have the thought of running down the wicket if the ball is there for it. I think some players, even the Pakistanis in this past series, when sweeping basically commit to it like Maxwell does with the reverse.
 
Last edited:

flibbertyjibber

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If he smashes it for four he is a hero, get out he is a dickhead. You know what you get with him and if you are going to persist with him you have to accept he will have these brainfarts. Who knows he could become a good test bat in time like Warner has.
 

Top