Australia Test squad - 2014

[Doodlesweaver]

Make the selectors' life easier. Now they only have three dodgy batsmen to decide between.

Knew this was coming about Harris but still very disappointed. The selectors are going to have to brainwash Johnson into thinking that whatever rookie is picked is the 'real' leader of the attack.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Unlikely he'd have gotten a match in the UAE but this may shake up the top order with Warner not playing in Zimbabwe. Could see Watto return to opening or Hughes coming back in.

For one day cricket, I'd be more than happy for Watson to be opening. I don't understand why he's ever been moved from there.

 

[southernswannies]

For one day cricket, I'd be more than happy for Watson to be opening. I don't understand why he's ever been moved from there.

Yep, seems like the perfect chance to slot Smith in at 3.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Unlikely he'd have gotten a match in the UAE but this may shake up the top order with Warner not playing in Zimbabwe. Could see Watto return to opening or Hughes coming back in.

I'd look to the future with Jordan Silk, Travis Head or someone like that.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Consistency makes a great player! Marsh is average

You can't say "he's a tease" when he has actually delivered quite recently.

You're just buying into group think.

By "consistency", do you mean he needs to score a crucial century every Test? He was recalled for two Tests and he did it once. How can you complain about that?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You can't say "he's a tease" when he has actually delivered on occasion.

You're just buying into group think.

That is exactly what a 'tease' is! Scores a 100....followed by 15 scores under 10....repeat. Story of Sean's career. His brother is MUCH better. I'm glad I have 4 months without him near an Australian side.

 

[southernswannies]

I'd look to the future with Jordan Silk, Travis Head or someone like that.

For the ODI squad? A bloke who's played 4 matches with an average of 13.25 at a SR of 61 and another with a decent average but a SR of 74? Absolutely dreaming.

Both are a year or two away from Test selection anyway. Maxwell and Hughes will be the two extras for the UAE tour and rightfully so. The future starts for players like them when they have averages of 40+ and three Shield seasons under their belt. Head is wildly inconsistent as well so all signs point to potential, which is something the NSP are trying to move away from after the failures in the past 2 years.

 

[Ian Dargie]

That is exactly what a 'tease' is! Scores a 100....followed by 15 scores under 10....repeat.

Are you criticising him for innings he hasn't played yet?

There haven't been 15 scores under 10 since his last century. He's only played four innings since being recalled and one of them was a crucial century. On balance, his performance over those two Tests was respectable.

 

[southernswannies]

Are you criticising him for innings he hasn't played yet?

There haven't been 15 scores under 10 since his last century. He's only played four innings since being recalled and one of them was a crucial century. On balance, his performance over those two Tests was respectable.

So you call Marsh's inconsistency respectable... but then lambast Watson who can at least put up a 30 - 40 odd?

Love it.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So you call Marsh's inconsistency respectable... but then lambast Watson who can at least put up a 30 - 40 odd?

Love it.

At least I didn't have to say it! Not as if Sean Marsh is young either!

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Are you criticising him for innings he hasn't played yet?

There haven't been 15 scores under 10 since his last century. He's only played four innings since being recalled and one of them was a crucial century. On balance, his performance over those two Tests was respectable.

He is averaging about 25 since being recalled...and yet you smash Watson for averaging more! I am sorry but give me a bloke that gets 40 every time rather than a bat who scores a 100 and then nothing for the rest of the series. He is a tease. You THINK he is back when he scores a 100....then he gets 3-4 ducks and you say 'oh thats right it is Sean Marsh'. Wish he was nowhere near the side.

 

[drummond2fevola]

So you call Marsh's inconsistency respectable... but then lambast Watson who can at least put up a 30 - 40 odd?

Love it.

He is a walking contradiction that bloke

 

[Ian Dargie]

So you call Marsh's inconsistency respectable... but then lambast Watson who can at least put up a 30 - 40 odd?

Love it.

Sorry, what?

I said Marsh's performance since being recalled is respectable. In four knocks, he scored 192 runs at 48. I think that qualifies.

How does that in any way conflict with my criticism of Watson?

 

[Ian Dargie]

He is averaging about 25 since being recalled...and yet you smash Watson for averaging more!

Sorry, are we talking about Test cricket or ODI cricket?

Marsh was recalled for the series in South Africa and averaged 48.

I am sorry but give me a bloke that gets 40 every time rather than a bat who scores a 100 and then nothing for the rest of the series.

Again, I'm confused. Are we talking about Test cricket or ODI cricket?

If it's Test cricket, then by what rationale does Watson "score 40 every time"?

Since the start of 2011, he's nowhere near that.

You THINK he is back when he scores a 100....then he gets 3-4 ducks and you say 'oh thats right it is Sean Marsh'. Wish he was nowhere near the side.

Is that what I think? Fascinating insight.

I actually don't think Marsh is "back". I don't think he's in the XI. If he was, he'd have a lot of work to do before cementing a spot. All I'm saying is that his performance in South Africa was, overall, respectable. You can't criticise him in advance for failures that haven't come yet.

 

[drummond2fevola]

Sorry, what?

I said Marsh's performance since being recalled is respectable. In four knocks, he scored 192 runs at 48. I think that qualifies.

How does that in any way conflict with my criticism of Watson?

Whats with the selective use of stats? You always harp on about Watson's average and you go all the way back to 2011, but when it comes to Marsh you use his last four innings?

I understand you are trying to make a point re. Watson's position in the side, but a bit of consistency please.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Sorry, are we talking about Test cricket or ODI cricket?

Marsh was recalled for the series in South Africa and averaged 48.

Again, I'm confused. Are we talking about Test cricket or ODI cricket?

If it's Test cricket, then by what rationale does Watson "score 40 every time"?

Since the start of 2011, he's nowhere near that.

Is that what I think? Fascinating insight.

I actually don't think Marsh is "back". I don't think he's in the XI. If he was, he'd have a lot of work to do before cementing a spot. All I'm saying is that his performance in South Africa was, overall, respectable. You can't criticise him in advance for failures that haven't come yet.

I don't care one bit about ODI's, they are rather mickie mouse games for me. I watch us bat and then get the score in the morning. I very rarely watch us bowl in ODI's unless there is a player making his debut where I'll give him the coutesy and watch his first spell.

Marsh averages 20.9 in his last 6 tests, an that is including a 148! That is exactly my point, he teases you with a 100 and then does bugger all.

I hope we don't see him in another test match full stop!

 

[Ian Dargie]

Whats with the selective use of stats?

What are you talking about?

If the point I'm making is that Marsh's performance in South Africa was respectable, surely it makes sense to quote the stats from that series.

Or do you think it makes sense to dismiss his performance in South Africa by pointing to performances two years earlier and hypothetical failures still to come?

Let's just get something clear. I'm not saying Marsh is a superstar or that he's nailed on for a place in the XI. I'm merely saying that he did OK when recalled for the series against South Africa. You don't get to deny him credit for a reasonable performance in that series by assuming he'll fail next time. That's not sensible.

You always harp on about Watson's average and you go all the way back to 2011, but when it comes to Marsh you use his last four innings?

I understand you are trying to make a point re. Watson's position in the side, but a bit of consistency please.

Again, what are you talking about? If the only point I am making is that Marsh did OK in South Africa, why would I quote his stats dating back to 2011?

Your call for "consistency" doesn't seem to register that there are different points being made, and therefore different sets of evidence marshalled in support.

Point 1: Marsh did OK since being recalled – see his numbers from that series. Point 2: Watson has been short of runs since the start of 2011 – see his numbers from that timeframe. Where's the contradiction here?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Easy you are the one going back to 2011 with Watson...want us to do the same with Marsh? It isn't pretty reading. The bloke is a fraud!

 

[Ian Dargie]

I don't care one bit about ODI's, they are rather mickie mouse games for me. I watch us bat and then get the score in the morning. I very rarely watch us bowl in ODI's unless there is a player making his debut where I'll give him the coutesy and watch his first spell.

OK – then some of the numbers you've quoted are a bit strange.

What was that about Watson (presumably) scoring 40 every time? Was that just a number you pulled out of your arse?

Marsh averages 20.9 in his last 6 tests, an that is including a 148! That is exactly my point, he teases you with a 100 and then does bugger all.

So let's just walk through this slowly.

When was Marsh recalled to the Test side?

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerSeries.asp?PlayerID=3561

As you can see, he was recalled for the series in South Africa and averaged 48 in that series. Would you agree that is a respectable return?

I also think it's bizarre to refer to a crucial century as "teasing". I'd say that's more a case of well and truly delivering.

As for him then doing bugger-all, there was only one other Test. Admittedly, he was MIA but it's not like there's been a sustained trough after that last century. You seem to be judging him based on failures that are yet to come. Otherwise, you're only talking about one match.

In short, given that Marsh has averaged 48 since being recalled to the Test side, would you say that's respectable?

 

[Ian Dargie]

Easy you are the one going back to 2011 with Watson...want us to do the same with Marsh? It isn't pretty reading. The bloke is a fraud!

It depends what point you are trying to make. You don't seem to grasp this.

If you want to make the point that Marsh's overall Test record is ordinary, then it would make sense to go all the way back to his debut. And that's fair enough.

However, if the question is about Marsh's performance since being recalled to the side, then you'd have to agree his numbers in that window are respectable.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerSeries.asp?PlayerID=3561

As you can see, he was recalled for the series in South Africa and averaged 48 in that series. Would you agree that is a respectable return?

I also think it's bizarre to refer to a crucial century as "teasing". I'd say that's more a case of well and truly delivering.

As for him then doing bugger-all, there was only one other Test. Admittedly, he was MIA but it's not like there's been a sustained trough after that last century. You seem to be judging him based on failures that are yet to come. Otherwise, you're only talking about one match.

In short, given that Marsh has averaged 48 since being recalled to the Test side, would you say that's respectable?

After that 148.....44, 0, 0....what is that average...sweet stuff all. Exactly, Marsh teased again with a 100, and then did nothing. Then the Indian series before that he averaged about 3! He has no place in an Australian side he is less consistent than the bloke you seem hellbent in dropping despite him out performing Marsh anyway....compare BOTH their last 6 tests, Watson is better.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

He is averaging about 25 since being recalled...and yet you smash Watson for averaging more! I am sorry but give me a bloke that gets 40 every time rather than a bat who scores a 100 and then nothing for the rest of the series. He is a tease. You THINK he is back when he scores a 100....then he gets 3-4 ducks and you say 'oh thats right it is Sean Marsh'. Wish he was nowhere near the side.

He can't be averaging 25 since recall. It's only been four innings and he's scored nearly 200 runs.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It depends what point you are trying to make. You don't seem to grasp this.

If you want to make the point that Marsh's overall Test record is ordinary, then it would make sense to go all the way back to his debut. And that's fair enough.

However, if the question is about Marsh's performance since being recalled to the side, then you'd have to agree his numbers in that window are respectable.

Every time he was recalled he does the same thing...100 then ducks galore, coupled with the odd 10. He is a joke. He is just very very average. You know he will give you 4 scores under 10 out of 5 innings. Happens every single time. Even at Shield level he displays these issues and that is my point- there are better bats. He doesn't have the 'excuse' that he is young, he isn't.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He can't be averaging 25 since recall. It's only been four innings and he's scored nearly 200 runs.

You have to include SOME of the Indian series...and as I said take that one innings out and despite how good it was it showed his issue- then he got a pair next test despite being in 'career best form' as he called it!

 

[Doodlesweaver]

You have to include SOME of the Indian series...and as I said take that one innings out and despite how good it was it showed his issue- then he got a pair next test despite being in 'career best form' as he called it!

I'll agree with anything you say. I already don't want to read the rest of this thread.