M.Marsh or Maxwell

to1994

Club Legend
Jul 8, 2015
2,658
3,043
AFL Club
Essendon
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.
 

Voice of the G

Premiership Player
Jan 18, 2016
4,647
2,739
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
 
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

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 20, 2005
8,342
6,635
adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
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
Nov 12, 2016
7,509
3,517
Over The Hill
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
All Local Footy
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.
 

Docker82

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 21, 2013
8,661
14,219
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
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
Jul 12, 2016
12,311
14,159
AFL Club
St Kilda
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.
 
Oct 5, 2004
17,856
9,640
Geelong
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
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.
 
Apr 19, 2013
9,919
6,201
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
The Swans Blog
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 s**t 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.
 

Wolfs

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 10, 2016
7,259
3,761
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Memphis Grizzlies, Hertha Berlin
Depends on the make up of the team. You can have both.
 
Jan 26, 2006
40,446
31,699
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
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 s**t 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
10k Posts
May 21, 2006
10,084
8,713
WA
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
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

Premiership Player
May 12, 2004
3,100
1,883
Globetrotting
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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.
 
Back