Mitchell Marsh

[spookism]

Smith can bowl he is just too stubborn to use himself much even when we are way ahead in a match, root bowls himself for 2 or 3 when the bowlers need a rest, clarke bowled himself so why can't a bloke who actually started as a leg spinner bowl 3-4 overs when we have runs to play with?

I think Smith is concerned his back will go like Clarke's did.

 

[frankrizzo]

Clarke had pretty bad back issues from a young age didn't he?

Smith isnt going to turn into that if he rolls his arm over for 3 overs.

 

[archibald]

Do the AFL All- Australian selectors take into account someone’s career disposal average, or only their most recent (that seasons) form?

Making arguments based on Mitch’s career average is ridiculous. Players get dropped on their most recent form, and players get picked on their most recent form.

As has been mentioned, of the potential bats that can reliably bowl 8-12 overs in an innings of fast-medium, MM’s recent (2017/18) season form is the best.

Handscomb’s most recent exposed form is the issue, not his Test career average.

All Australian selection compared with the selection of the Australian cricket team is rather different to be fair. It's a yearly award, not based on fostering talent for the teams future results.

Players get dropped on recent form, but were picked in the first place due to their records of consistency. Players get called up who have recent form and a backlog of performance. Marsh doesn't have that. Thats how it should work anyway!

 

[Kram]

Not that I agree with the selection but M.Marsh has recent good form.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Mitch Marsh has made 2 50s in 31 dismissed Test Innings, so he basically bats like a number 9.

 

[Scotland]

Making arguments based on Mitch’s career average is ridiculous. Players get dropped on their most recent form, and players get picked on their most recent form.

As has been mentioned, of the potential bats that can reliably bowl 8-12 overs in an innings of fast-medium, MM’s recent (2017/18) season form is the best.

Handscomb’s most recent exposed form is the issue, not his Test career average.

If your name isn't Marsh, the selectors look at your FC record and say that 2,815 runs @ 33 from 54 matches (excluding tests) probably isn't test #6 material. He also has 21 tests to his name for 2 50s and an average of 22,

For the 2017/18 Shield season Mitch Marsh has 402 runs @ 45 from 10 innings. He's 7th for runs scored and has batted as many times as anyone. Now that's a good start to the season, but let's not get carried away. Not many average 45 for a very short period in FC cricket then turn that into strong performances in test cricket.

If we desperately need a batsman who can "reliably bowl 8-12 overs in an innings of fast-medium" (dubious at this point) then Mitch Marsh does have the best Shield form this season, but that's a very small body of work to pick a player on.

 

[Scorpus]

Pat Cummins and Mitch Starc both have better Test batting averages than Mitch Marsh, and all three are roughly on par at batting at FC level.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe Mitch Marsh has value as a lower order batsman at Test level. He should be selected as a bowler if his bowling is good enough, which it clearly isn't when we have the three quicks in the current side.

 

[Pykie]

His quality with bowling has never been in question. It is what carried him to 21 tests on the back of inept batting.

If he is back bowling at 140k as has been suggested - then it is his batting which is all that needs assessing.

Hasn't it?

I would of thought his test sample of bowling pretty clearly show's he should be a batting all-rounder.

He's on Watson levels of bowling.

Scratch that, Watto was a pretty damm good test bowler, I haven't seen that potential from Marsh yet. After 21 tests Watto averaged 40.16 with the bat and 28.41 with the ball. We'd kill for that atm.

 

[Hangover Noir]

All Australian selection compared with the selection of the Australian cricket team is rather different to be fair. It's a yearly award, not based on fostering talent for the teams future results.

Players get dropped on recent form, but were picked in the first place due to their records of consistency. Players get called up who have recent form and a backlog of performance. Marsh doesn't have that. Thats how it should work anyway!

The Test team (especially an Ashes Series) is not the place to be "fostering talent". If it was, Renshaw would still be opening, instead of being rightly dropped to go find some form. Handscomb has looked fairly ordinary in his 3 digs this series, and his position is in jeopardy.

If you don't like the All-Australian analogy, try a Richmond one - would you have been happy for Hardwick to carry a player who had underperformed in the QF and PF and played him in the GF to "foster talent"? The Ashes are our GF. Series against Bangladesh are where you (might) trial a few rookies and do your "talent fostering".

 

[Scotland]

Pat Cummins and Mitch Starc both have better Test batting averages than Mitch Marsh, and all three are roughly on par at batting at FC level.

Cummins has barely batted at test or FC level. He has faced 874 balls at FC level, Marsh 6211. It's a silly comparison.

Starc is more valid because he comes in at 8 in the test side and has 9 50s from 58 innings including a 99. That's a reasonable body of work to judge his batting on. He's a clean hitter of the ball and strikes at nearly 70 in test cricket, but he rarely hangs around long.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe Mitch Marsh has value as a lower order batsman at Test level. He should be selected as a bowler if his bowling is good enough, which it clearly isn't when we have the three quicks in the current side.

Marsh has 5 100s and 18 50s at FC level with a top score of 211. He also has 1 100 and 9 50s at ODI level with 3 100s and 18 50s overall in List A and 6 50s in T20. He's a very talented batsman. Starc has 1 FC 50 outside his 9 test 50s and 1 ODI 50, that's it. Cummins has 1 FC 50.

IMO while handled poorly by CA Marsh has had his "potential" time in the test side already. In order to be recalled he should be performing to the same level as Maxwell, Burns etc. in the Shield with the bat and contributing with the ball for WA. Maybe averaging 40 for one Shield season doesn't cut it when you are 26 in my book.

 

[Hangover Noir]

He's on Watson levels of bowling.

Scratch that, Watto was a pretty damm good test bowler, I haven't seen that potential from Marsh yet.

Watson's Test bowling average was 33.68, with a wicket taken every 73 balls.

Marsh's Test bowling average is 37.48, with a wicket taken every 65.5 balls.

Would've thought MM's bowling stacks up pretty well.

Watto made a Test career (similarly derided by the fans, mind) with a 35 batting average and a 33 bowling average.

Are people seriously suggesting they don't think MM can at least get to career stats rivalling Watson?

 

[Pykie]

Watson's Test bowling average was 33.68, with a wicket taken every 73 balls.

Marsh's Test bowling average is 37.48, with a wicket taken every 65.5 balls.

Would've thought MM's bowling stacks up pretty well.

Watto made a Test career (similarly derided by the fans, mind) with a 35 batting average and a 33 bowling average.

Are people seriously suggesting they don't think MM can at least get to career stats rivalling Watson?

Do you seriously think he can average 45 for the next 2+ years at test level, including tours to SA and England in that time?

That's what would be required to bring his average up to Watsons of 33......

If he did, he'd be one of the best players in the world by 2020.

I see him nominating for the AFL draft by 2020 before reaching that level tbh.

 

[Hangover Noir]

Do you seriously think he can average 45 for the next 2+ years at test level, including tours to SA and England in that time?

That's what would be required to bring his average up to Watsons of 33......

So you acknowledge MM's bowling is at a similar level to Watto? That's a good start

Not sure if he can make it up in just 2 years, but he is only 26. If he can average 40 for 40 Tests (which I think we as pseudo-selectors would take), then he'll be pretty close to Watto's 35 av after the same number of Tests.

 

[Kram]

Pat Cummins and Mitch Starc both have better Test batting averages than Mitch Marsh, and all three are roughly on par at batting at FC level.

It's about as relevant as Adam Voges having a better batting average than Ricky Ponting.

 

[Big Bryza]

This is infuriating and im a fan of mitch.

What he needs is time away from the lime light perfecting his game (especially his batting) for WA and consistently performing well for a period of time.
The selectors are seriously ******* him up by selecting him when he isn't even ready.

This. Would have been great to see him play a full season of shield, knocking up 2-3 tons and half a dozen 50's. Obviously mixed in with the Big Bash.

They dropped him, what 12 months ago? Recalling him already and based on what?

Stop ****ing the bloke around, Maxwell should have been selected instead. The bowlers don't need back up, they're doing just fine.

 

[Big Bryza]

Evidently on his bowling return was bowling mid 140 km and was the quickest bowler in the Qld game at the WACA a few weeks ago plus he is probably averaging above 50 with the bat and now Captain .....so all round pretty handy cricketer .

Bowling 145kph... Is that actually correct?

 

[roscreasl98]

Mitch Marsh has made 2 50s in 31 dismissed Test Innings, so he basically bats like a number 9.

Just read possibly the funniest thing ever in the history of cricket.
Justin Langer, bless his soul, saying that Mitchell Marsh is a future Australian Test Captain.

C'mon Alfie, what you been drinkin' mate?

 

[Big Bryza]

His quality with bowling has never been in question. It is what carried him to 21 tests on the back of inept batting.

If he is back bowling at 140k as has been suggested - then it is his batting which is all that needs assessing.

What's his bowling ave at test level?

 

[HODGEYROAD]

What's his bowling ave at test level?

29 wickets @ 37.48.

 

[Demosthenes]

I don't really care if it's clicked for him in a couple of shield games and he's bowling over a certain speed.

The fact of the matter is, he has played 21 tests, that's a hell of a lot of sample size, that's only 4 games less than his brother who has 5 tons and averages just under 40 and is almost as much maligned.

An average of 21 with the bat and 37 with the ball is the definition of an absolute shit truck, who atm would go down as probably the worst player Australia has produced, that has played over 20 tests, in the past 25 years.

It's not as if his first class record is that much better, he averages 30 with the bat and 29 with the ball.

Cummins averages 30 with the bat at FC level, if they want a bowling all-rounder, promote S.Marsh to 5, Paine to 6, Cummins to 7 and play Chad Sayers as complete point of difference to the rest of the bowling unit.

We'd be getting far more value..

75 first class matches at a batting average of 30 just isn't good enough for a bloke who's bowling at test standard indicates he is a batting all-rounder.

I don't think Mitchell Marsh should be in the team, but career averages mean diddly squat in this sort of situation. Clearly talented players often get fast-tracked for development reasons, and those first few seasons weigh down the overall stats significantly. They also have little relevance to the player they are now.

 

[gordo2016]

Watson's Test bowling average was 33.68, with a wicket taken every 73 balls.

Marsh's Test bowling average is 37.48, with a wicket taken every 65.5 balls.

Would've thought MM's bowling stacks up pretty well.

Watto made a Test career (similarly derided by the fans, mind) with a 35 batting average and a 33 bowling average.

Are people seriously suggesting they don't think MM can at least get to career stats rivalling Watson?

Watson was a fine cricketer and Marsh at this stage is nowhere near him. The talent may be there but he needs to start producing with results. Australia would kill to have someone like Watson now.

 

[Pykie]

It's about as relevant as Adam Voges having a better batting average than Ricky Ponting.

Not really.

I think Cummins will average about 25-28 at test level, that's purely the eye test, he's a better batsman than Starc.

Which is still better than 21.....

 

[Kram]

Not really.

I think Cummins will average about 25-28 at test level, that's purely the eye test, he's a better batsman than Starc.

Which is still better than 21.....

Good luck with that.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Good luck with that.

Cummins will average mid to high 20s at Test level, bloke can seriously bat for a bowler.

 

[Pykie]

Good luck with that.

Starc averages 24.

Not an earth shattering prediction.