Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Mitchell Marsh

  • Thread starter Thread starter JG22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Smith , never ,ever bowls the all rounder in the team (unless your his NSW mate ), So i thought the selectors had learned going with 6 batmen a wkt and 4 bowlers. I suppose he is expectin one of the quicks will break down:thumbsdown:
 
Tigerssaints said:
Smith , never ,ever bowls the all rounder in the team (unless your his NSW mate ), So i thought the selectors had learned going with 6 batmen a wkt and 4 bowlers. I suppose he is expectin one of the quicks will break down:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...
stfu Hodgey.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Hangover Noir said:
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.
Click to expand...

Watson was an unfulfilled talent but Mitch Marsh will never get anywhere near Watson's level.
 
Hangover Noir said:
Do you even cricket?

His bowling is already comparable. “Never get anywhere near Watson’s level” is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes I cricket, Watson was an immense talent who didn't achieve what he should have due to injury and batting out of position. Marsh can bowl straight 140kph and can't bat - he averages 30 at domestic level (and that is after 75 games!). Marsh can slog that's it. He will never get anywhere near Watson as a cricketer.
 
Hangover Noir said:
Do you even cricket?

His bowling is already comparable. “Never get anywhere near Watson’s level” is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Watson was a better bowler than Marsh is at the moment. Watto probably started similarly to Marsh, but after all his injuries he turned into a very clever swing/seam bowler who genuinely gave us something different in the right conditions. Marsh isn't close to that at this stage. Ok, he bowled a quick spell recently. He might be occasionally capable of that, but even when he's fit to bowl he's rarely 100% and mostly bowls mid-low 130s. He's not a bad bowler by any means, but he just doesn't give us anything we don't already have.
 
Kram said:
Watto's bowling is pretty underrated, especially on BF.
Click to expand...

By the time he was 30, he was a very skilful bowler. Mitch has got more pace and probably more long-term ability to be a strike bowler but he hasn't yet got anything like the control of the seam Watto could offer.
 
Hangover Noir said:
Do you even cricket?

His bowling is already comparable. “Never get anywhere near Watson’s level” is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
His bowling is not comparable at all. Watson could always be relied on to dry runs up as well as take vital wickets of key batsmen. Marsh has never done that. He has obtained a few wickets but at the same time he also been hit out of the attack several times. Watson was a genuine all rounder and as well as easily being a better bowler than Marsh, his batting is also far superior. Marsh is talented and still has time to show his worth, but at this stage he is not anywhere near the player Watson was.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The state-based player bias on this board is amusing. So many WA posters flocking to defend this selection.
 
The 747 said:
Yes I cricket, Watson was an immense talent who didn't achieve what he should have due to injury and batting out of position. Marsh can bowl straight 140kph and can't bat - he averages 30 at domestic level (and that is after 75 games!). Marsh can slog that's it. He will never get anywhere near Watson as a cricketer.
Click to expand...

While still not good he actually averages 33 from 54 games at domestic level. Test matches are counted towards first class stats.
 
Is he in for his batting or his bowling?

If it's his batting, then a Test average of 21.74 isn't going to cut it. And if we're going on Shield form, what about the following players:

Maxwell - 590 runs at 73.75
Ferguson - 541 runs at 60.11
Burns - 514 runs at 57.11
Weatherald - 457 runs at 45.7

So then, it mustn't be his batting, but it's his bowling. But his Test record here is hardly any better than his dismal batting display. Of all 32 fast bowlers that have played a Test for Australia since 2000, he is currently sitting at:

- 18th in total wickets (29 wickets)
- 22nd best average (37.48)
- 26th best economy rate (3.43)
- 20th best strike rate (65.41)

The guy averages LESS THAN ONE WICKET per innings! And he isn't really tying down an end particularly well, so what benefit does he actually provide the team?
 
Kram said:
Watto's bowling is pretty underrated, especially on BF.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He was genuinely quick when he was young but kept getting injured. Was a smart bowler in the latter part of his career. Like Marsh his stats were nothing special as a part timer but his ODI bowling record is excellent. It's his batting that was the problem. 4 100s from a 109 innings isn't good enough for someone batting mainly in the top order.
 
Sketi said:
The state-based player bias on this board is amusing. So many WA posters flocking to defend this selection.
Click to expand...

That's a good story but from what I've read here, most WA fans want him left alone for at least another year to see if he can hang some form together at a lower level.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It doesn't matter what level of sport or what the sport is, every coach/manager/selector etc. will have their favourites. Sometimes the selection is based on a player's talent, sometimes it is based on intuition and sometimes it is simply because of a lack of alternatives.

I have to say I wasn't surprised at Mitch Marsh's selection because the rumour mill had been active for a few days beforehand. I think he should have been given a full year of Sheffield Shield cricket, that being said, they don't play another game until February. It is pretty obvious he is going to play in this Test match being his home ground and Handscomb being out of form. Personally, I don't see the need to change the team.

I think Mitch Marsh can succeed at Test level with both bat and ball but he certainly hasn't proven that yet. I think the selectors persisted with him way too long last time to the detriment of his confidence.

Hopefully, he succeeds at Test level this time but I am not expecting anything above what we have seen so far. Fingers crossed I am wrong.
 
So we are apparently dropping a guy who averages 48 for a guy who averages 20? Mitch Marsh has averaged around 30 this season in shield and has only picked up 2 wickets.

I would understand changing a winning team for someone like Maxwell who is smashing down the door but not for Marsh.

Handscomb can consider himself very unlucky. Two poor tests after an awesome year and he is going to get dropped. Ridiculous.

Sucks to be Victorian.
 
Last edited:
Knock knock said:
So we are apparently dropping a guy who averages 48 for a guy who averages 20? Mitch Marsh has averaged around 30 this season in shield and has only picked up 2 wickets.

I would understand changing a winning team for someone like Maxwell who is smashing down the door but not for Marsh.

Handscomb can consider himself very unlucky. Two poor tests after an awesome year and he is going to get dropped. Ridiculous.

Sucks to be Victorian.
Click to expand...

Marsh being selected is a joke but Hanscomb only has himself to blame. Too many times he's made a start and not cashed in - I know Marsh can't even make a start but you know, reasons.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom