Marnus Labuschagne

Remove this Banner Ad

I have to say that Marnus La..bush... Shane... has the most gorgeous name of the moment..

Don't mind his batting ability either but just give the lad applause for his nomenclature...

apologies I called him Marcus.. typo...
 
Last edited:
Chaisa said:
Yeah I was really critical of this selection but he's done an excellent job thus far. Maybe it might be a hot patch but from watching him bat I think it should be sustainable. A big find for that #3 slot.

From those who are big time Shield watchers, who strikes you as someone who can do a Labuschagne - not the greatest FC record, but young-ish, good head on his shoulders, strong technique, ability to improve, etc? Bonus points if they're an opener. Because for the vacant 2-3 slots in the lineup IMO they should be targeting that.
Click to expand...

Renshaw? Still can’t work out what he’s done wrong...apart from being a Qlder (Burns says hello!)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jimthegreat said:
Marnus made 69 today for Qld while everyone else may bugger all.
Click to expand...
Riding with a lot of confidence at the moment. Would love to see him be a permanent fixture at no.3 and just stick with him unless he has a Warner-like series. Reminds me a lot of Pujara - strong defence, technically sound, strong off the pads and eats up dot balls.
 
Hamingja said:
Wouldn't mind seeing him score a hundred, just saying.

You really want to convert when you are in good form.
Click to expand...

This.

His Shield record remains pretty mediocre - 32.92 average, with 4 hundreds and 16 fifties over 81 innings. Would be good to see him get some more runs against a pretty strong NSW bowling attack.

I know it's not all a linear progression and a numbers game/maths problem, but I still struggle to reconcile how blokes who barely average mid-30s in the Shield (eg. Labuschagne, Travis Head @ 36.41) manage to have Test success. Do we underrate how difficult it is to bat in Shield cricket (ergo, we have pretty great bowling depth, pitches aren't as flat as they are for international cricket)? Why don't they dominate Shield cricket, like guys like Hayden, Langer, Martyn etc. did before truly establishing themselves at Test level?
 
Last edited:
Damon_3388 said:
This.

His Shield record remains pretty mediocre - 32.92 average, with 4 hundreds and 16 fifties over 81 innings. Would be good to see him get some more runs against a pretty strong NSW bowling attack.

I know it's not all a linear progression and a numbers game/maths problem, but I still struggle to reconcile how blokes who barely average mid-30s in the Shield (eg. Labuschagne, Travis Head @ 36.41) manage to have Test success. Do we underrate how difficult it is to bat in Shield cricket (ergo, we have pretty great bowling depth, pitches aren't as flat as they are for international cricket)? Why don't they dominate Shield cricket, like guys like Hayden, Langer, Martyn etc. did before truly establishing themselves at Test level?
Click to expand...
That's something I've been thinking about as well. I think it has to be taken into account that a lot of Shield pitches back in the late 90s, and early 2000s especially, were much flatter than they are now. A few years ago some of the pitches at Shield level were consistently very green... they've flattened out a bit just recently but are still juicier than they were in the early 2000s. I also think we have reasonable bowling depth atm... but the level of national batting talent is a factor.

I think, with a lot of effort, the difficulty of batting at Shield vs. Test level over time could be quantised by measuring and comparing the batting output of players at Shield level and then their output when they are picked at Test level. Though there are a lot of confounding factors that are almost impossible to adjust for, such as player improvement over their career, and the timing of their selection at national vs. state level.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Aussie_boy said:
He's consistent at least. You'd take 50, 50 over 100, 0 wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
Depends on what the other 10 batsmen are doing.

I think in the current side 50, 50 is pretty darn valuable.
 
Aussie_boy said:
He's consistent at least. You'd take 50, 50 over 100, 0 wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
With our batting the way it currently is, 50 + 50 is more valuable.

If he were playing 15 years ago with multiple great batsmen around him, 100 + 0 would be more valuable.

IMO anyway.

My reasoning for this:
In the old team there are more great players to make up for the duck on the score sheet.
In the current team we are desperate for someone (other than Smith) to grind out consistent runs, and furthermore a duck (or a low score, which would mean at least two quick wickets) is a fair chance to precede an almighty collapse, as has happened a lot in recent years.
 
Last edited:
The Passenger said:
With our batting the way it currently is, 50 + 50 is more valuable.

If he were playing 15 years ago with multiple great batsmen around him, 100 + 0 would be more valuable.

IMO anyway.

My reasoning for this:
In the old team there are more great players to make up for the duck on the score sheet.
In the current team we are desperate for someone (other than Smith) to grind out consistent runs, and furthermore a duck (or a low score, which would mean at least two quick wickets) is a fair chance to precede an almighty collapse, as has happened a lot in recent years.
Click to expand...

I agree, anyone who can hang around regularly to collapses is an automatic pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top