Shaun Marsh

Remove this Banner Ad

Handscomb failed in the first innings, must be his fault as well.

He had an average series as well.

At least he isn't 34 years old with no chance of improving though
 
'Average', very funny. More like complete and utter s**t.

Newsflash every batsman aside from Steve Smith was ordinary. Renshaw gets a somewhat pass. The rest were awful. I'd rather stick with the younger Handscomb over a tried injury prone Marsh who yet again left us one short in the middle of a test match!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Newsflash every batsman aside from Steve Smith was ordinary. Renshaw gets a somewhat pass. The rest were awful. I'd rather stick with the younger Handscomb over a tried injury prone Marsh who yet again left us one short in the middle of a test match!
And here of course comes the biased excuses.
 
And here of course comes the biased excuses.

Where are there excuses? I said the whole batting side bat Smith was terrible. Renshaw gets a pass (5/10), the rest would get 3/10 or lower.
 
Chipping in with some piddly 'starts' woppee do.

Better than getting done under 10 every other innings.

Look he had a poor tour, but he still was better than Marsh. Both were utterly tripe though.
 
You're very good at cherry picking arguments.

Not his fault they made 600; is his fault he made 2 in the first innings.

It's disingenuous to give him credit for saving the Test, when his s**t contribution was one of the reasons it required saving. Like starting a fire and then wanting praise for putting it out.

A good player doesn't get under 10 every other game.
The only reason the test needed saving is because they made 600. We made 450 ffs, how the * do you think it was his fault for us being in that situation?
 
Yeh don't really understand that reasoning. Does that mean that we need to discount every match-saving second innings that was preceded by a failure in the first?

And why is Marsh taking all the blame for failures by other batsmen?
 
Butters wasn't great with the bat, but more than made up for it with his fielding in the first 2 tests.

Overall, his series has been OK with the bat and exceptional in the field.

Unfortunately, Jadeja will win player of the series, even though it should be Smith. Those two fifties & all the wickets is hard to beat.
 
Jadeja will probably win the campaigner.

Lyon was brilliant with the ball but really didn't put any pressure with the bat.

To win these type of series in these conditions,the players need to show something with bat and ball.

Tail was like a Cadbury Flake.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

We were in a dominant position in the second test then the "faulty" spidercam came out and stopped right in the middle of the pitch.
Both batsmen were settled until the stoppage then after that two very dodgy wickets were awarded to the Indians.

That was the turning point in the whole series.

Bloody spidercam started it.
 
Newsflash every batsman aside from Steve Smith was ordinary. Renshaw gets a somewhat pass. The rest were awful. I'd rather stick with the younger Handscomb over a tried injury prone Marsh who yet again left us one short in the middle of a test match!
Very harsh on Maxwell there, played only two tests and did alright in them. Wade improved as the series wore on too.

But of the rest of the top order series to forget.
 
So you admit that you didn't watch the first test, when he took 3 blinders?

Or the half-dozen or so blinders over the tour. By far our best fielder, without peer.
I watched, good fielding but doesn't make up for contributing nothing with the bat bar one innings.
 
Biased much? Jesus Christ he was mostly dead weight.
Are you kidding? Eths entire argument is bias and it goes like this "I like Marsh so I will ignore his 6 s**t scores and count his 2 good ones" If you and Eth can't understand why we have more patience with a 25 year old than a 34 year old walking Injury, then good luck to you. Pretty straight forward for just about every other poster in this thread I would have thought.
 
Are you kidding? Eths entire argument is bias and it goes like this "I like Marsh so I will ignore his 6 s**t scores and count his 2 good ones" If you and Eth can't understand why we have more patience with a 25 year old than a 34 year old walking Injury, then good luck to you. Pretty straight forward for just about every other poster in this thread I would have thought.

The bottom line is he fails way too often for someone occupying a number 4 spot in a Test batting line up. They are cold hard facts. It's time to give someone else chance.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top