But good for our bowlers. India’s batsmen haven’t put us to the sword, Pujara aside, it’s our batting that hasn’t been up to it.
100%. Plugged a gap during the sandpaper thing and then basically disappears. Definitely didn't disgrace himself either during that SA test.
He literally just ended the longest run of below ten scores of a top six bat for Aus since 1888. Fair enough if he saves this match, but acting like it's inconceivable his spot would be in question is silly.
The top 6 is one of the poorest in modern Australian history.
Unsure why you’re bringing up Marsh’s domestic form. Nobody is doubting his credentials at that level. His problem is that he’s a very good domestic player while being poor in the test arena. Last time I checked his 163 he scored against south australia counts for zero against India.
Marsh's had scored more runs than Handcombes has at the same stage of his career. Marsh's test matches didn't include games against Bangladesh and a weak Pakistani side. It's debatable who is the better player, however agree that hansdcomb has youth on his side.
Whatever Marsh scored at the same time as what Handscomb has in his career to date is irrelevant when considering Marsh became the first Australian batsman since 1888 to score 6 consecutive single figure scores. At 35 you don’t get to lean on what you did in the past. It’s all about what you produce in the present.
You are the one who raised Marsh's start to his career, I was simply pointing out that he had scored just as many runs as Handscomb and therefore I don't understand your basis for thinking handscomb was a better player at the same stage. But I agree that is irrelevant now.
I did not bring up Marsh’s start. You brought up Marsh’s last 20 innings and I simply stated that Handscomb’s career is barely 20 innings old, and as it stands it’s been a better run of form than what Marsh has produced in the same time.
As I have said previously Marsh has scored more 50s and hundreds than hamscomb in the last 20 innings. He has recently struggled to make starts at test level, however has scored runs domestically and at ODI level. He averages more than handscomb where you exclude innings he has scored less than 10. He also has a better average batting at 5.
Incorrect. Handscomb before this test: 2 centuries, 4 fifties. Marsh before this test in the same amount of innings: 2 centuries, 3 fifties.
I think those other stats compound the problem more than anything. He is clearly talented enough, but cracks under the pressure of a Test.
The fact he averages 59 after reaching 10 but his career average is only 35 actually makes him look even worse. Would much rather a player who can consistently score 40 to 60 than a player who is more likely to score a duck than a 50.
That's certainly not a recent issue.
