M.Marsh or Maxwell

to1994

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Posts
1,224
Likes
979
AFL Club
Essendon
#26
M.Marsh justifies a place in the ODI side but I would've left him in the Shield if they are serious about him developing into a start player. People talk about t20 ruining Test development but IMO ODIs are as much too blame. So many meaningless 5 match ODI series that result in fringe Test players missing Shield and never making a case for themselves. Guys like Faulkner could've been pushing for a Test call up if he'd had a proper Shield run, instead it's hard not to look at him as bits and pieces despite the potential.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Posts
497
Likes
266
AFL Club
Sydney
#27
Similar thoughts with Maxwell,an extremely talented player who could make a very good test cricketer with the right attitude and right support from his coaches and the off field support team.T20 cricket and 1 dayers have hampered his development for test cricket and if they are not going to play him in the 1 dayers let him play shield for Victoria.
 

LukeParkerno1

Premium Platinum
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Posts
86,809
Likes
30,998
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
#28
Similar thoughts with Maxwell,an extremely talented player who could make a very good test cricketer with the right attitude and right support from his coaches and the off field support team.T20 cricket and 1 dayers have hampered his development for test cricket and if they are not going to play him in the 1 dayers let him play shield for Victoria.
Maxwell will play 1 of these 3 games at least. he is staying around the side. You have Hastings available at least!
 

crows dude

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Posts
2,888
Likes
1,970
Location
adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
#29
Maxwell doesnt make the team on batting or bowling. Average at both. But to me he is the 3rd best fielder in the country behind Warner and Smith and thats important in the 20/20 and on day game.
 

roscreasl98

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Posts
7,509
Likes
3,477
Location
Over The Hill
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
All Local Footy
#31
Maxwell doesnt make the team on batting or bowling. Average at both. But to me he is the 3rd best fielder in the country behind Warner and Smith and thats important in the 20/20 and on day game.
Marsh took that pearler in the 1st test, but is generally not a great fielder. That effort on the boundary yesterday was comical.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Docker82

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Posts
2,699
Likes
2,741
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
#37
Faulkner isn't competition or either IMO. Faulkner's average with the bat is boosted by several not outs and doesn't have the technique Marsh or even Maxwell have. Since the World Cup Faulkner's batting has been poor as well. He's a bowler who can effectively slog better than most tail enders IMO.

I do however think Faulkner is in our best ODI side. As exciting as it is to have the three reasonably express quicks in the side, Faulkner would be our second best depth bowler and him and Mitch Marsh are certainly good enough to bowl first and second change IMO (unless it's a pace bowling paradise and there's no need for Zampa). Despite me not rating his technique at all he offers more as a package than Cummins at this point in time.

For me all three will be in the World Cup side in two and half years time. The selectors are trying to develop another young batsman as it is quite possible Bailey won't make it to the World Cup IMO. Maxwell is a bit of a scapegoat given Finch can underperform worse and not only still get picked but get talked up as an above average player even though he can't handle any movement whatsoever. Maxwell will be back the moment it looks like Head is capable of batting in the top four IMO.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

JG22

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Posts
10,723
Likes
11,984
AFL Club
St Kilda
#38
Marsh does average more with the bat than Maxwell.
And hes a better bowler especially on these wickets.
So he probably deserves it believe it or not.

Although i'd have Khawaja in the side anyway and slide everyone down.
 

Jimthegreat

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
13,191
Likes
4,959
Location
Geelong
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
#40
Marsh was terrific with the ball last night and we can't judge his batting on last night as he had the most unlucky dismissal imaginable.

All of Faulkner, marsh and Maxwell deserve to be in the team but they can only pick 11 player so the selectors have to make a choice. Either one would do well.
 

The Swans Blog

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Posts
9,700
Likes
5,954
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
The Swans Blog
Thread starter #41
Yeah. The selectors don't rate shield so pick players on talent
They picked Marsh on raw potential alone when he was 23 in the test side. Didn't work out too well, since his seaming was pretty shit back then and it hasn't improved much. He's serviceable in the short forms, but as a 3rd of 4th seamer in test cricket, there's better options. His batting doesn't exactly help him much, since he's picked as an he's infrequently knocking up 20s and 30s. Mitchell Johnson and Mitchell Starc are and were better batsman and they're the strike bowlers. Even Siddle is a better batsman that Marsh.

People love to use stats on this site, so you only need to look at his in both batting and bowling averages.

I'm certainly not advocating Maxwell on his stats either, but as a 2nd spin option he's useful.
 

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Posts
40,100
Likes
30,890
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
#45
They picked Marsh on raw potential alone when he was 23 in the test side. Didn't work out too well, since his seaming was pretty shit back then and it hasn't improved much. He's serviceable in the short forms, but as a 3rd of 4th seamer in test cricket, there's better options. His batting doesn't exactly help him much, since he's picked as an he's infrequently knocking up 20s and 30s. Mitchell Johnson and Mitchell Starc are and were better batsman and they're the strike bowlers. Even Siddle is a better batsman that Marsh.

People love to use stats on this site, so you only need to look at his in both batting and bowling averages.

I'm certainly not advocating Maxwell on his stats either, but as a 2nd spin option he's useful.
Yeah I agree that marsh most certainly does not belong in the test side.

Just saying that his selection wasn't because of his name.
 

Hellgood

Cancelled
Joined
May 21, 2006
Posts
10,087
Likes
8,650
Location
WA
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#47
That's a lazy argument made by ignorant people.

The selectors in their quest for an all-rounder have also gone to the wells of Henriques, Maxwell and Faulkner (all in virtually the same circumstances as Marsh in that it was far before anyone could claim that they had dominated the shield) with each being given a go out of recognition of their potential or the idea of what they could bring to the side rather than anything especially tangible. Mitch made an immediate good impression standing out with a couple of innings on the horrendous UAE tour in 2014, followed it up with a few team first slogging cameos after the top order had a field day against India at home. His test batting save for a couple of decent knocks (one as recent as Sri Lanka four tests ago) has been petering out, however fortunately for him this is when his bowling became more than useful with ongoing development from a disciplined role in the 2015 Ashes tour to a strike bowler when we were over in NZ.

Blame our nations / CA psyche for our/their ongoing quest for an all-rounder to be in the test side. But I guess it's easier for the mouthbreathers to put 2 and 2 together and get 5 "OMG he has the same last name as the chief of selectors, even though he isn't related that's surely why there's a conspiracy for him to be in the side". In actuality it's because he's positioned himself far better than his competitors for the role - Maxwell (too many slef implosions on the field and seemingly off it), Henriques (not as useful as Marsh - bowling is irrelevant at test level, batting not much of an improvement & from the outside Marsh seems to be a far better fit in the side being loved by his team mates) and even bigfooty's favourite old mate "Faulks" (whose agricultural batting and bowling is much better suited to the shortest format).
 

Rookie

Club Legend
Joined
May 12, 2004
Posts
2,829
Likes
1,288
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#49
Marsh, Faulkner and Marsh are all in our best 12-13 limited overs players without no doubt. Each brings something slightly different but they've all performed when it counts and their records are all very good. Plus, playing 2-3 of them in the same team gives us superb flexibility and depth.

Maxwell is the one who looks most likely to come on as a test cricketer as a number six and part time spin option. He's talented enough with the bat to hold down a position in the top six, he just needs to score some serious Shield runs to put himself in contention. Sure he's infuriating, but when he plays sensibly he isn't so terrible. He's got a lot to prove and he obviously wants to wear the baggy green - let's hope he learns from his mistakes and starts to kick on.

Marsh and Faulkner just aren't solid enough with the bat to hold down a number six position. If Gilchrist was batting at six, maybe they could make handy number sevens. Wade or Nevil, nope.
 
Top Bottom