Mitchell Marsh

[Richard Cranium]

For the Maxwell fanboi's out there - Marsh isn't competing against him for a spot.

If they want someone vying for a best 6 batsman in the country - that isn't Mitch Marsh. And that is where Maxwell could compete -

If they want an adequate Number 6 who can provide meaningful bowling - then Marsh truthfully isn't competing against a lot

If they want an adequate number 6 then someone with a Test average of 21 shouldn't even be in the discussion.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

If they want an adequate number 6 then someone with a Test average of 21 shouldn't even be in the discussion.

Like Steve Waugh's average of 25 after his first 26 tests?

Absolute plodder of the highest order.

The bloke is 26 and was picked before he was ready and before he started making red ball runs.

IF and that's a big IF - we want a seam bowling all-rounder - who is better in the country?

 

[Bigtrev41]

Problem for Faulkner is he's a bowling all rounder, so he belongs at 7 or 8. I don't think he'll ever be top 6 quality, so he's in no man's land unless we pick 5 bowlers.

I thought Marsh looked like he belonged at test level when he debuted, but he fell away pretty quickly and CA's Marsh-Watson-Marsh backflipping wouldn't have helped. He really needs a solid season or two at Shield level before he is in the frame at all.

Marsh and Faulkner have comparable FC records with the bat, except Marsh has more 5 100s and 18 50s to 2 and 15 from Faulkner, and generally bats higher in the order. Faulkner has a much better record with the ball. I rate Faulkner and I think he has the temperament to step up, but I don't think he has much improvement left in his game. Marsh on the other hand annoyingly has the family "potential" and looks like he could be a guy that averages 40-45 with the bat and 30 with the ball. At least at Shield level.

Faulkner cannot play the short ball, period.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

IF and that's a big IF - we want a seam bowling all-rounder - who is better in the country?

Wildermuth will be better than Marsh.

I'd rather just play 6 bats! A test average of 21 says Marsh is barely a test number 9 let alone a test number 6!

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Like Steve Waugh's average of 25 after his first 26 tests?

Absolute plodder of the highest order.

The bloke is 26 and was picked before he was ready and before he started making red ball runs.

IF and that's a big IF - we want a seam bowling all-rounder - who is better in the country?

lulz comparing the shit Marsh brother to one of our greats.
Just because Steve started slowly before his talent shone through doesn't mean it should apply to run of the mill plebs.

 

[new breed]

lulz comparing the shit Marsh brother to one of our greats.
Just because Steve started slowly before his talent shone through doesn't mean it should apply to run of the mill plebs.

Have you seen M Marsh play live when he is on song ?

A talent even if its just one dayers for Australia

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Wildermuth will be better than Marsh.

I'd rather just play 6 bats! A test average of 21 says Marsh is barely a test number 9 let alone a test number 6!

I know you are probably 16 - but I assume that's what everyone thought of Steve Waugh right? Before the 89 ashes series

Or Matthew Hayden (age 29) before India where after being in and out of the side for 6 years he averaged 24 with the bat.

He's 26 - not 34. Crazily - people get better.

Judge him on what he's doing - not what he has done when he wasn't ready!

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Have you seen M Marsh play live when he is on song ?

A talent even if its just one dayers for Australia

Cool. I'll enjoy watching the one dayers then.
Now back to 5 day cricket...

 

[The Falcon Strike]

lulz comparing the shit Marsh brother to one of our greats.
Just because Steve started slowly before his talent shone through doesn't mean it should apply to run of the mill plebs.

Or Hayden....
Or Langer...

At what age did these guys actually make bulk runs?

It is a very rare breed that make runs in their early 20's - usually reserved for the all time greats. Many of our batsman in their history don't secure a spot until their late 20s. Even Maxwell is 29 and has only just learnt which end of the bat to hold in shield cricket. Or do we compare him to the reverse sweeping 25 year old who didn't value his test wicket?

Marsh may continue to be shit - or he may actually strike form and average mid to high 30's with the bat - but Only an ignorant fool would assume that a bloke doesn't have the capacity to get better after their early to mid 20's

And from a very limited pool - he remains the best prospect we have

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Or Hayden....
Or Langer...

At what age did these guys actually make bulk runs?

It is a very rare breed that make runs in their early 20's - usually reserved for the all time greats. Many of our batsman in their history don't secure a spot until their late 20s. Even Maxwell is 29 and has only just learnt which end of the bat to hold in shield cricket. Or do we compare him to the reverse sweeping 26 year old who didn't value his test wicket?

Marsh may continue to be shit - or he may actually strike form and average mid to high 30's with the bat - but Only an ignorant fool would assume that a bloke doesn't have the capacity to get better after their early to mid 20's

Then come back when he does. I don't care about potential, I care about output. Marsh in this side is the biggest fillip England could get.
Right now he's decidedly average.

And from a very limited pool - he remains the best prospect we have

So we're ****ed then.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Then come back when he does. I don't care about potential, I care about output. Marsh in this side is the biggest fillip England could get.
Right now he's decidedly average.

So we're ****** then.

Marsh has started to make runs.. - for the first time. Of those not already in the test team - he has the 6th most amount of runs. He's got nowhere near that before. WOuld he be in the frame if he couldn't bowl? nope. But he is at least at the right end of the run chart

Personally I'd like to see him do it for a full season and start the next season in form as well before being picked.

BUT - bowlers win test matches. If they feel the 3 quicks need management - Marsh remains the most in form alternative.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Marsh has started to make runs.. as a bastman - for the first time.

Personally I'd like to see him do it for a full season and start the next season in form as well before being picked.

BUT - bowlers win test matches. If they feel the 3 quicks need management - Marsh remains the most in form alternative.

You realise Smith doesn't bowl all rounders all that much so the bowling aspect is largely moot.
So it comes back to batting where he should be nowhere near consideration.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

You realise Smith doesn't bowl all rounders all that much so the bowling aspect is largely moot.
So it comes back to batting where he should be nowhere near consideration.

He did with Marsh... because you know.. he can actually bowl

 

[carnthemlions]

Like Steve Waugh's average of 25 after his first 26 tests?

Absolute plodder of the highest order.

The bloke is 26 and was picked before he was ready and before he started making red ball runs.

IF and that's a big IF - we want a seam bowling all-rounder - who is better in the country?

You'd be very brave to suggest Mitch Marsh will ever have the game to be a genuine batsman at test level. Has the potential to be a decent all rounder averaging 30-35- perhaps.
Compare him with Ben Stokes. Stokes was very raw when he debuted here, but he was still one of the few who showed anything with the bat on a disastrous tour. Probably not a better bowler, but Stokes overcame his technical flaws with the bat and Marsh didn't (and I'm sure still hasn't).

Or Hayden....
Or Langer...

At what age did these guys actually make bulk runs?

It is a very rare breed that make runs in their early 20's - usually reserved for the all time greats. Many of our batsman in their history don't secure a spot until their late 20s. Even Maxwell is 29 and has only just learnt which end of the bat to hold in shield cricket. Or do we compare him to the reverse sweeping 25 year old who didn't value his test wicket?

Marsh may continue to be shit - or he may actually strike form and average mid to high 30's with the bat - but Only an ignorant fool would assume that a bloke doesn't have the capacity to get better after their early to mid 20's

And from a very limited pool - he remains the best prospect we have

Does he? Someone tell me what separates Marsh from Wildermuth. Not because I'm convinced Wildermuth is an exceptional talent, but because as I see it Marsh gives us nothing that a guy with 50 fewer first class games under his belt and potentially more room for improvement couldn't.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

He did with Marsh... because you know.. he can actually bowl

It comes out as roughly 8.5 overs per innings and hardly anything noteworthy.
Until he can get in on his batting alone we shouldn't be picking him.

We don't have a good enough allrounder to justify playing one. They need to be good at both, not ok at both.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

You'd be very brave to suggest Mitch Marsh will ever have the game to be a genuine batsman at test level. Has the potential to be a decent all rounder averaging 30-35- perhaps.
Compare him with Ben Stokes. Stokes was very raw when he debuted here, but he was still one of the few who showed anything with the bat on a disastrous tour. Probably not a better bowler, but Stokes overcame his technical flaws with the bat and Marsh didn't (and I'm sure still hasn't).

Does he? Someone tell me what separates Marsh from Wildermuth. Not because I'm convinced Wildermuth is an exceptional talent, but because as I see it Marsh gives us nothing that a guy with 50 fewer first class games under his belt and potentially more room for improvement couldn't.

Because Marsh isn't as good as Ben Stokes isn't a reason not to pick him. It is like saying don't pick Maxwell because he isn't as good as Joe Root. That is ridiculous.

On Wildermuth - looks a prospect - but he isn't exactly making runs at Shield level - he's well down on Marsh this year but.. he can get better too - he's only young.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It comes out as roughly 8.5 overs per innings and hardly anything noteworthy.
Until he can get in on his batting alone we shouldn't be picking him.

We don't have a good enough allrounder to justify playing one. They need to be good at both, not ok at both.

Averages are in this respect... misleading.

When the 4 strike bowlers rip through the opposition - his need to bowl is negligible. ANd if you could guarantee that you wouldn't pick an all-rounder.. ever

However - he has also bowled double digit overs a dozen times - as many as 26. An all-rounder is there for when we are under the pump or someone goes down injured (or to stop someone going down injured)

 

[dogs105]

Or Hayden....
Or Langer...

At what age did these guys actually make bulk runs?

It is a very rare breed that make runs in their early 20's - usually reserved for the all time greats. Many of our batsman in their history don't secure a spot until their late 20s. Even Maxwell is 29 and has only just learnt which end of the bat to hold in shield cricket. Or do we compare him to the reverse sweeping 25 year old who didn't value his test wicket?

Marsh may continue to be shit - or he may actually strike form and average mid to high 30's with the bat - but Only an ignorant fool would assume that a bloke doesn't have the capacity to get better after their early to mid 20's

And from a very limited pool - he remains the best prospect we have

At the age Marsh is, Steve had made 2000 runs at 38.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Averages are in this respect... misleading.

When the 4 strike bowlers rip through the opposition - his need to bowl is negligible. ANd if you could guarantee that you wouldn't pick an all-rounder.. ever

However - he has also bowled double digit overs a dozen times - as many as 26. An all-rounder is there for when we are under the pump or someone goes down injured (or to stop someone going down injured)

and he's not good enough to be one for Australia. We learnt that last time and nothing will have changed.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

At the age Marsh is, Steve had made 2000 runs at 38.

At his age

Mike Hussey had made no runs at 0
Hayden had made 261 at 22
Maxwell had made 80 runs at 13


But blokes don't get better

 

[The Falcon Strike]

and he's not good enough to be one for Australia. We learnt that last time and nothing will have changed.

So nothing can ever change? No one can ever get better?

Wow... interesting life perspective

To be clear - from my end - Marsh may be shit and may continue to be rightly shit with the bat.

or

He may improve.

At present he is doing things in shield cricket with a bat he's never done before. He is showing signs of improvement with the bat. He carries that on and earns back selection - then I will cheer him for it. He drops his bundle and goes back to averaging 30 in shield cricket - I don't want him anywhere near the side.

 

[frankrizzo]

The team always just looks more solid with 6 frontline batsmen yet we just won't give up on this allrounder fantasy.

Both tests we were 4 down for not many and frontline batsmen saved us, The batting is still so brittle so if handscomb is in danger why should he be dumped for a bloke with a woeful test batting record?

My biggest issue with these allrounders is that unlike batsmen and bowlers there seems To be no clear way to judge them, the potential of what they could do if everything clicks ends up outweighing actual runs and wickets for a series.

If marsh bowls ok but averages 25-30 is that a pass mark? If he averages 30 but struggles with the ball is that a pass mark?

The bar just seems to get set so low for allrounders yet batsmen and bowlers with good records are dumped after a few poor games.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

So nothing can ever change? No one can ever get better?

Wow... interesting life perspective

To be clear - from my end - Marsh may be shit and may continue to be rightly shit with the bat.

or

He may improve.

At present he is doing things in shield cricket with a bat he's never done before. He is showing signs of improvement with the bat. He carries that on and earns back selection - then I will cheer him for it. He drops his bundle and goes back to averaging 30 in shield cricket - I don't want him anywhere near the side.

'Will have' is past tense meaning from when he was axed until now. How can we say it has changed when he didn't start bowling until 24th November?

 

[dogs105]

At his age

Mike Hussey had made no runs at 0
Hayden had made 261 at 22
Maxwell had made 80 runs at 13


But blokes don't get better

Why did you choose Steve Waugh as your first example then?

Hayden is probably the best choice, as talent who failed then came back better. I hope if Mitch plays he makes a million runs, but he doesn't have a great body of work in FC cricket.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Why did you choose Steve Waugh as your first example then?

Hayden is probably the best choice, as talent who failed then came back better. I hope if Mitch plays he makes a million runs, but he doesn't have a great body of work in FC cricket.

Because someone else referred to Marsh as a failure by number of tests. I simply showed it wasn't the be all and end all.

Equally writing him off by age is folly as well.

The bloke is 26 and was unfortunately picked on potential. He is starting ... and i emphasise the word "starting" to show actual signs of maturity and talent with the bat in red ball cricket. He carries that on, then he becomes a valuable commodity.