Can only see S.Marsh being moved to 3rd and Burns coming in at 4th and Watson moved to 6th. Either that, or if Warner doesn't come up, he'll open... but I'm not sure who else will come in... Cowan?
Changes for Boxing Day - In: J.Burns Out: M.Marsh
- Thread starter Carbine Chaos
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Watson wasn't a great ODI player to begin with, nor was he any good as a test cricketer when he first started. But a move up the order produced runs, but now after his unbelievable run of injuries he's really struggling for form. His technique these days is just hit out or get out. Warner at least curbed his enthusiasm and makes runs most innings, whereas Watson if he makes runs it's more an aberration than the norm.
- Banned
- #428
That's why I reckon there could still be opportunities for guys like Cowan and Shaun Marsh. Even the likes of Doolan, Ferguson, Khawaja and White if they knuckle down and make some serious FC runs.
These guys will be 31-35 come the 2017 Ashes.
Agreed. Apart from Christian.
Agreed.
It would have been Hughes opening. Now you'd have to say Cowan is a big chance to replace Rogers as the 'old head' who compliments Warner.
Two Tests in Bangladesh, I think.
- Banned
- #429
Mitch Marsh doesn't command a spot as a specialist batsman. That's nonsense.
He might one day but not right now. He has a FC average of 29.
Hang on a second. You've just said that Mitch Marsh commands a spot as a specialist batsman. And then turned around and said Henriques isn't up to it.
But Henriques has a better FC batting record than Marsh (and a better bowling record). And, if you limit to the past 2-3 seasons, Henriques' batting average is well above 50.
I don't imagine either of these guys would command selection on the strength of their batting alone. But you can't pump up Marsh's tyres as a specialist batsman and then write off a guy like Henriques, who is, frankly, more accomplished with the bat than Marsh.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Mitch Marsh "commands" a spot at 6 by virtue of (a) passing 40 four times in 8 innings at test level, and (b), being a Marsh. His bowling has been useful but not threatening at this stage.
To put it into perspective, his batting average is already higher than that of Shane Watson - and Watson has been shoehorned into the test XI at every opportunity for a decade. Plus he's a Marsh.
Did I mention he is a Marsh?
To put it into perspective, his batting average is already higher than that of Shane Watson - and Watson has been shoehorned into the test XI at every opportunity for a decade. Plus he's a Marsh.
Did I mention he is a Marsh?
- Banned
- #431
I think that Marsh will be a key player in the side that gets built after the Ashes and should be picked ahead of Watson when it eventually comes to that. But I don't accept that he already warrants selection as a specialist batsman.
I think when it comes to certain players, Australia have done a decent job with talent identification. Certain players get fast-tracked and people whinge about it at the time, but it tends to pay off.
Think how much griping there was about the opportunities handed to Clarke at an early age. Think back to 18 months ago – did anyone think that Smith deserved to be recalled to the Test side?
I'm happy for Marsh to be fast-tracked on a similar basis. But it's implausible to say he already warrants selection as a specialist batsman.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Who does warrant selection as a specialist batsman in the test side?
I count Warner, Clarke and Smith - and only two of them are available for selection.
None of Rogers, Watson, S Marsh and M Marsh average even 40 at test level. You could mount a case that any could or should be replaced, and you could mount a case that some or all didn't do enough to warrant selection in the first place. The reality is no one is really beating down the door for selection.
Of the 4 guys I listed, S Marsh is only there because Clarke isn't. If Clarke comes back, out he goes. Rogers is 37 and has been serviceable at best. Watson has been ordinary for 95% of his career and is 33 with a history of injuries. M Marsh looks promising in his 4 tests so far, is 23 and can bowl. He's as safe as a guy averaging 37 can be. We're not going to make a handful of changes to our middle order with such slim pickings on offer in the shield.
I count Warner, Clarke and Smith - and only two of them are available for selection.
None of Rogers, Watson, S Marsh and M Marsh average even 40 at test level. You could mount a case that any could or should be replaced, and you could mount a case that some or all didn't do enough to warrant selection in the first place. The reality is no one is really beating down the door for selection.
Of the 4 guys I listed, S Marsh is only there because Clarke isn't. If Clarke comes back, out he goes. Rogers is 37 and has been serviceable at best. Watson has been ordinary for 95% of his career and is 33 with a history of injuries. M Marsh looks promising in his 4 tests so far, is 23 and can bowl. He's as safe as a guy averaging 37 can be. We're not going to make a handful of changes to our middle order with such slim pickings on offer in the shield.
- Banned
- #433
Is Mitch Marsh currently one of the five best Test batsmen in the country?
If not, he doesn't warrant selection as a specialist batsman. He has a FC average of 29 so I think that pretty much answers itself.
I agree that the batting stocks drop away after Clarke, Smith and Warner but let's not overstate it by suggesting Marsh has leapfrogged all the other guys to the point where he'd be picked on his batting alone.
Maybe you misunderstand me.
I'm not anti-Marsh. I think he should be given every opportunity. I'm just saying that, at the moment, he's being picked as an all-rounder. He's not there on his batting alone.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I follow, but what is a "test batsman"?
M Marsh is going better than Watson and also his brother. Rogers just scored two half centuries and opens the innings so he's ahead. Given there are only 5 or 6 batsmen in the test team at any one time I'd say he's top 5 right now.
His FC average is pretty much irrelevant. It wasn't the reason he was picked, and it's not what he is judged against. He is in the test team to perform at test level. So far he's been OK. Not amazing, but OK. Can you justify dropping a guy who averages 37 from 4 matches for someone who averages 40 in the shield?
Cowan is leading the run scorers in the shield. 590 runs @ 65, FC average of 41. Is he a better option? He averaged 31 from 32 innings. Is 32 now.
Voges 509 @ 101, FC average of 43. Should we give him a go at 35?
Burns is 4th and has been given a go with Marsh being injured. Averaging 55 for the year and 42 overall. He's having a good year but a 25 year old with 30 first class games to his name is a punt looking towards the future.
Is Watson? Was Smith? The cupboard of batsmen is pretty bare. Marsh has leapfrogged others by actually being in the test team and not being hopeless while doing so.
There aren't Lehmanns and Husseys and Hodges in the shield any more. In recent years we've had Cowan, Doolan and Quiney given opportunities based on FC form, and it doesn't always translate to test quality. Even the late Phillip Hughes plundered runs at shield level but couldn't consistently perform at test level.
- Banned
- #435
Someone who is picked for their batting in Tests.
Watson is another all-rounder so his sustained mediocrity isn't relevant. We're comparing Marsh to other specialist batsmen.
There's no doubt Marsh is a talent. And he should be given every opportunity. But he's made one half-century so far and didn't do much at FC level. So to turn around and claim he is one of the five best long-form batsmen in the country seems premature. It's OK to wait until he really delivers before elevating him to that status.
As opposed to his Test average after eight innings?
No one is saying he should be dropped.
I'm merely making the point that he wouldn't be there on the strength of his batting alone. He was picked because he's an emerging all-rounder with a ton of potential. That's not the same as being one of the five best specialist batsmen in the country.
Those three guys are all more accomplished batsmen than Mitch Marsh. Age is obviously a factor when building a side long-term. But if Mitch Marsh couldn't bowl and the Ashes started next week, would you have Marsh in a first-choice Australian side?
I don't think you would. You agree he's behind Rogers, Warner, Clarke and Smith and I reckon you could make an argument for one of a handful of other batsmen with a few more runs on the board.
If he's bowling, I'd pick him at No.6 ahead of Watson. But I wouldn't have him there on his batting alone.
What's the question here?
Watson definitely isn't there on his batting alone.
Smith, despite being talked up as a spin bowler, cultivated a FC average of 40-plus from pretty early in his career. So even when he was fast-tracked based on potential, he had some decent FC numbers under his belt. That's not the case with Mitch Marsh.
That's not to say I wouldn't pick Marsh. I think he's worth his spot as an emerging all-rounder who could and should eventually force Watson out of the side. But, once again, he wouldn't be there on the strength of his batting alone.
Premature.
You reckon he's leapfrogged others to the point where he's now one of the top five Test batsmen in the country? After eight innings that have produced one half-century?
That's crazy.
Just to be clear, I want Marsh to be picked as much as possible – as an all-rounder. But it's way too soon to say he warrants selection based on his batting alone.
Last edited:
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Marsh has bowled 61 overs in 7 innings. And in going out has been replaced by a batsman. Yes he's an all rounder but his bowling is more of a bonus at this stage.
If you've got a 'top 5 test batsmen' list that he doesn't make then by all means share it, but there really isn't a wealth of batting talent inside or outside the test team - hence we currently have two all rounders playing.
Marsh is 23 and doesn't look out of place in test cricket. If you want to analyse whether he should've been picked in the first place suit yourself, but he warrants selection because he is already in the team and has been OK. If you've got a better 'test batsmen' with a FC average of 50 then great, but getting rid of a bloke with a few 40s at test level for someone who averages no better in the shield is pointless.
The sooner Watson is ****ed off the better, but the cupboard is still bare whether you call Marsh a batsman or an all rounder.
- Banned
- #437
As it should be for someone batting in the top six.
It's only because Watson has been so s**t with the bat for so long that we've been conditioned to think otherwise.
Warner, Rogers, Clarke, Smith. Agreed?
And I think you could then argue that the likes of Voges, Burns and Cowan have him covered given their FC records. Currently, anyway. He could go past them. I'm just he hasn't yet.
That's circular reasoning: he deserves selection because he's already there? That's codswallop.
He warrants selection because he's a young all-rounder with a shitload of potential. And yes, in the early going he's looked pretty good. But that doesn't suddenly mean he's one of the five best batsmen in the country. He's got one half-century under his belt.
If you honestly think he's top five, why does he have a FC average of 29?
I don't know how many times I have to say it – I'm not saying he should be dropped.
I want him picked as much as possible and I want him to replace Watson as the all-rounder ASAP. How much more clear can I be on that point?
So can you stop suggesting that I want to 'get rid of him'? I haven't said anything along those lines. I'm just saying that he's not one of the five best batsmen in the country.
Also, since when is a 40 at Test level the new milestone? That used to be called 'a start'.
Last edited:
- Mar 1, 2014
- 13,957
- 17,612
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
In today's press Boof Lehmann has said that Brad Haddin's leadership and sharp glovework will not be enough to save him if he doesn't make runs soon. Haddin has averaged around 8 an innings since the Fifth Test in last year's Ashes series. It would appear that the Australian Coach shares the view that in modern Test cricket a keeper has to make runs.
- Mar 1, 2014
- 13,957
- 17,612
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
On the subject of Mitchell Marsh and his status as an all rounder the records show that some players develop as they play and where they start their career is not necessarily where they finish.
A perfect example of a player developing one aspect of his game is Steve Waugh who came into the Australian side as an all rounder only to develop into the No1 batsman in the world. I am not sure how many people realise that Steve Waugh batted at no 8 for the early part of his career and his bowling was seen as a bigger asset than his batting. Before recurrent injury Steve Waugh regularly bowled 20 overs in a Test innings and it was only after injury that he focused on his batting. In fact in his early career Waugh was often used as the third seamer because the Australian pace bowling stocks were not that high. Waugh had played at least a dozen tests before he was moved down the list to bat at no5 and even then it was a temporary measure.
It makes little difference to me if Mitchell Marsh is seen as an all rounder or a batsman at this stage of his career what is important is that he has the ability to do what Australia needs most at this stage and that is to bat in the middle order. Hopefully Mitchell will not suffer an injury as Steve Waugh did but if his bowling does fall away a bit only to improve his batting as Waugh did I will be happy.
A perfect example of a player developing one aspect of his game is Steve Waugh who came into the Australian side as an all rounder only to develop into the No1 batsman in the world. I am not sure how many people realise that Steve Waugh batted at no 8 for the early part of his career and his bowling was seen as a bigger asset than his batting. Before recurrent injury Steve Waugh regularly bowled 20 overs in a Test innings and it was only after injury that he focused on his batting. In fact in his early career Waugh was often used as the third seamer because the Australian pace bowling stocks were not that high. Waugh had played at least a dozen tests before he was moved down the list to bat at no5 and even then it was a temporary measure.
It makes little difference to me if Mitchell Marsh is seen as an all rounder or a batsman at this stage of his career what is important is that he has the ability to do what Australia needs most at this stage and that is to bat in the middle order. Hopefully Mitchell will not suffer an injury as Steve Waugh did but if his bowling does fall away a bit only to improve his batting as Waugh did I will be happy.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Hopefully. I only included Christian in that list - not because I rate him - because I think he is somewhere in the selectors plans, and if he keeps smashing runs like he has this season (unlikely he will) then his name will highlight further :/
Pretty sure Mark Waugh is a noted fan too.
People really need to get over their obsession with averages when it comes to player selection.
- Jul 20, 2013
- 13,042
- 8,824
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- LIVERPOOL, Sydney FC, Nottm Forest
My biggest concern is that we will have an England situation. The fact we are winning test matches is papering over the cracks. In the 2013 Ashes series they won 3-0, they had Trott, Prior, Swann, Anderson, Pietersen, Cook all performing at a reasonable level, but not to the standard they could have. But because the team won the series 3-0 no one worried, they traveled to Australia full of confidence and arrogance. By the end of that series they got humiliated 5-0, Trott had virtually retired, Swann had been belted into retirement, Pietersen was sacked, Cook was under extreme pressure as captain and Prior got dropped mid-series before being re-selected and dropped again against India.
We have Rogers, Watson, Clarke, Haddin, Johnson, Harris and Siddle that have been in the team recently from that 5-0 whitewash and 2-1 against South Africa and are mid to late 30s. The only ones that can be really safe and performing well enough is obviously Johnson and Harris, Clarke who's body is shot, and to an extent Rogers now that Phillip Hughes has passed away. I am afraid we will have an England situation, and we will be found out for having too many past it older players, and be destroyed over there. So while we definitely can't do wholesale changes and as we saw in 2006-08 we had too many players go out at one time and were left in no man's land for 3 or 4 years, some changes need to be considered. I'd go:
Rogers (safe because no Phillip Hughes, great record in England over many years and a great foil for David Warner)
Warner
Burns (provided he performs well)
Clarke (if fit)
Smith
M.Marsh
Wade/Nevill/Hartley/Whiteman
Johnson
Harris
Lyon
Hazlewood
So we have removed Watson, Haddin and Siddle, all who I believe will be liabilities in England. Watson is just plain not good enough, he simply can't bat anymore and his bowling isn't necessary with Johnson, Harris, Hazlewood, M.Marsh and Lyon. There still is enough experience in Rogers, Clarke, Johnson and Harris, while Smith, Lyon and Warner have played enough international cricket and test matches by now. I think the team above can win the Ashes, and the older ones can be eased out after that, starting with Clarke who will almost certainly retire.
Later than most people but yeah I've absolutely had enough of Watson up the order, if he wants a Test spot has to fight with Marsh for it and Mitch should be ahead of him at the moment if fit.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Hopefully the difference is we can see the writing on the wall and know where our guys are at. Judging by Lehmann's comments yesterday he is realistic about it.
They bought in Michael Carberry and Chris Tremlett (first test in nearly 2 years) as new blokes before the first test of the series, and to a lesser degree Joe Root was some new blood over the previous year. By the end as we know they had bought in Ben Stokes, Gary Ballance, Johhny Bairstow, Boyd Rankin and Scott Borthwick, while Tim Bresnan was bought in and dropped along the way. The only guy that showed much was Stokes, while Ballance has been good since, so there isn't much to suggest that had they made those changes leading into the series the result would have been anything different, and in all likelihood probably would have been worse. They were in complete disarray by the end. Not too far from what some are proposing now, and we haven't even been losing.
In cricket captaincy, a lot of the times you've got to think "What would the opposition least want us to do" as opposed to "What would we most like to do" (Sometimes they are the same option, but not always). Cricket selections are much the same. What would the Poms least like us to do right now? They'd least like us to turn up with a stable team, with a solid core that have been together a number of years, hopefully on the back of 7 test wins, At least 7 guys and maybe even as many as 10 in the squad (not all necessarily in the XI come the Ashes) who were part of the 5-0 summer.
FWIW we've now introduced (or reintroduced) four guys into the test arena in the last few months. Marsh x 2, Haze, Burns. All could play a part in the Ashes, and it's quite possible the trio of batsmen amongst them could force Watson out of the XI. Which would mean the only questionable player in the XI come England is Haddin, and to a less degree Rogers but I think most reasonable people see the value of the latter and the lack of replacements who are certain to provide an improvement on him.
Also I don't think any selection panel could have foreseen or planned for what happened last summer. It's about the most extreme of reverse fortunes I can remember in this game. I said elsewhere, but it's easy to sit on bigfooty or at the pub and say senior player X, Y, Z should be dropped for youngster A, B and C. But when you're a selector, in the national spotlight, and it's your reputation and job on the line, and it's six months out from our grand final, then it's a lot tougher.
All correct, at the end of the day, the team is heavily reliant on Mitch Johnson, whose record in England is not flash.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Great point actually. A bit of the elephant in the room that hasn't really been thought about.
- Apr 25, 2010
- 4,455
- 9,545
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
I think Haddin and Watson are on their last legs. They won't be dropped for this test, but if they both fail with the bat again then it's realistic that one or both will be dropped before the test in Sydney. There's a lot of ODIs and T20s to be played before the next test series and the Ashes, so it isn't like there's going to be a lack of cricket. The shield comp will be running as well, then there's the next test series against WI before we go to England.
Depending on how players like Voges continue in the national competition, he could be in the running for a spot in the test team or extended squad traveling to WI. I would expect that one or more new players will be introduced to the team in the WI series as it'll be a good time to see how they go against weaker opponents.
If the BF view of Wade is somewhat accurate, then you'd expect that Nevill will be drafted in after the boxing day test regardless how Haddin performs. Should Haddin fail to make runs then the Sydney test may well be his last.
Depending on how players like Voges continue in the national competition, he could be in the running for a spot in the test team or extended squad traveling to WI. I would expect that one or more new players will be introduced to the team in the WI series as it'll be a good time to see how they go against weaker opponents.
If the BF view of Wade is somewhat accurate, then you'd expect that Nevill will be drafted in after the boxing day test regardless how Haddin performs. Should Haddin fail to make runs then the Sydney test may well be his last.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
But, but Mitch Marsh averages 29 in FC cricket.
Similar threads
