Mitchell Marsh

[PhatBoy]

I was thinking we took our losses ridiculously hard in the golden era of the 2000s.

Lose to India In 2001 - avoid enforcing the follow on at all costs, forever

Lose to England in 2005 - Must keep the dream alive of our own Freddie flintoff.

Mitch marsh has a record that all of England’s touted next Bothams pre Freddie that would make them blush.

Actually craig whites record is only marginally better than Mitch Marsh’s (24 with the bat, 37 with the ball)

At least Chris Lewis, DeFreitas, White etc had the odd memorable day out. Marsh is still waiting for his.

 

[frankrizzo]

If larger is right and marsh is a future skipper then rather than finding out own Flintoff I guess we have found our very own darren Sammy.

Actually that's harsh on Sammy he was more of a wicket taker even though the average was similar.

 

[PhatBoy]

If larger is right and marsh is a future skipper then rather than finding out own Flintoff I guess we have found our very own darren Sammy.

Actually that's harsh on Sammy he was more of a wicket taker even though the average was similar.

And made a test hundred. Which is no mean feat batting at 8 in the West Indies side at that stage.

 

[Blue1980]

And made a test hundred. Which is no mean feat batting at 8 in the West Indies side at that stage.

He batted at 8 too, not 6.

Another thought, Bairstow looked really good at 6 today as he batted like a normal batsmen. You know who does this for NSW? Peter Nevill, averages 40 or so batting at 5 or so. Why does our keeper have to bat at 7?

On past trends if Bairstow makes a triple ton tomorrow, for the next 25 years we will be searching for a keeper to shoehorn into the top 6

 

[Blue1980]

At least Chris Lewis, DeFreitas, White etc had the odd memorable day out. Marsh is still waiting for his.

Mitch marsh is prob more David Capel

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Capel

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Lol selectors, you find news ways to hurt our team. The bloke has had 20+ tests, haven't you got it through your heads that maybe he's just not that good!

 

[Scotland]

That’s a fairly weak argument.

Literally anyone at first class level will beat the bat occasionally and can bowl a good yorker. Hell, give me 6 cracks at it and I could bowl at least one good Yorker in an over of test cricket.

LOL.

What makes a bowler stand out is what happens in between all those instances, things that heighten their chances of those specific deliveries succeeding

No shit, but test bowlers rarely stand out in two over spells. It's not like Marsh bowled 2 good balls and 40 pies. He went for 3.5 an over for 7 overs of 90 that went for 3.4 an over.

If literally anyone can do it, why don't they just give Handscomb a bowl? Or Maxwell? Or whoever else is making runs in the Shield? The selectors obviously think he can bowl.

 

[PhatBoy]

LOL.



No shit, but test bowlers rarely stand out in two over spells. It's not like Marsh bowled 2 good balls and 40 pies. He went for 3.5 an over for 7 overs of 90 that went for 3.4 an over.

If literally anyone can do it, why don't they just give Handscomb a bowl? Or Maxwell? Or whoever else is making runs in the Shield? The selectors obviously think he can bowl.

I didn’t say ‘literally anyone can do it.’

You chose to highlight an isolated incident - bowling a Yorker ffs - and have a mini-flog about it. All I did was point out that any half capable club Cricketer can land the ball on a Yorker length once an over if given an opportunity.

 

[BRWB]

Ended up bowling 7 overs as the 3 front line quicks bowled 60 between them - more than the first innings of the 2nd test when they needed a rest! England are only 4 down so we could be bowling most of tomorrow. Makes no sense to grind nothing overs out of the front line quicks while Marsh is just standing around at slip or third man.

7 overs for 25 is roughly equivalent to the overall run rate for the day's play. Given a decent spell I would've backed Marsh to bowl 10-15 overs for 3-3.5 runs an over today which for a 5th bowler is useful. He nearly had an outside edge in his first 2 overs and bowled a great yorker in his second spell, so could've jagged a wicket as well.

Picking Marsh and scarcely bowling him does nothing to ease the load on our front line quicks, unsettles the batting order and likely weakens the overall batting strength of the top 6. I don't get it.

Chicken and egg. Perhaps if Marsh bowled better he gets bowled more.

But agree don't get his selection at all.

One of my frustrations is that we continue to have an unhealthy facination with picking an all rounder. Even if they are obviously shit.

I think Benaud used to say that a genuine all rounder should be in your top 6 bats and/or top 5 bowlers. Marsh is plainly neither.

Steve Smith could be our reverse Benaud if he just bowled and practiced more. Just a shame and waste of talent

Smith commits to 5-15 overs per innings and we pick a genuine six irrespective of bowling 'talent'. That id like to see.

And if I'm honest, I reckon that as Smith ages he may need that second string if his batting tails more than most due to a technique that seems to rely upon eye more than most. Just IMO.

 

[Scotland]

Chicken and egg. Perhaps if Marsh bowled better he gets bowled more

True, but given he had a ball nearly take the outside edge and was getting up to 140 km/h in his first over I reckon he was worth persisting with for at least 5 or 6 overs to get some rhythm.

But agree don't get his selection at all.

One of my frustrations is that we continue to have an unhealthy facination with picking an all rounder. Even if they are obviously shit.

I think Benaud used to say that a genuine all rounder should be in your top 6 bats and/or top 5 bowlers. Marsh is plainly neither.

Steve Smith could be our reverse Benaud if he just bowled and practiced more. Just a shame and waste of talent

Smith commits to 5-15 overs per innings and we pick a genuine six irrespective of bowling 'talent'. That id like to see.

And if I'm honest, I reckon that as Smith ages he may need that second string if his batting tails more than most due to a technique that seems to rely upon eye more than most. Just IMO.

Agree with all of this. I don't think Marsh's recent form is enough to justify a return (his poor body of work at test level is from 21 tests so he's not like Bancroft who has played 2 and averages 33, and it really dropped of the latter half of those) and I don't think we need an all rounder right now anyway. He's in the top half a dozen or so for runs in the Shield this year and has barely bowled. When he's in the top half a dozen for runs in the Shield for a season or two and is regularly bowling then he should be in the frame.

The all rounder fascination hurt us for years. Shane Watson was a decent bowler but played 59 tests - most in the top order - for an average of 35. Shane Watson 2009 in is every test side in the world. Shane Watson 2010 was pretty solid. Didn't capitalise but 1 100 and 8 50s from 22 starts is very consistent and as an opener he hung around and faced plenty of balls. Shane Watson 2005, 2008 and 2011-2015 was bog ordinary but we just kept playing him again and again because of a patch of form in 2009/10. You can't keep a guy in the top 6 averaging 30 over 5 years.

The fabled top 6 batsman and top 5 bowler is so rare that if not for Jacques Kallis I doubt I would have seen it in my lifetime. Even the top 6 batsman or top 5 bowlers all rounder is pretty rare. Freddie Flintoff was a beast in the 2005 Ashes but we're talking about a guy who averaged 32 with the bat and 33 with the ball over a decade or so. Shane Watson was a top 6 batsman for a short period at test level but never a top 6 bowler.

What I just don't get is the disconnect between the captain, coach and selectors. If Mitch Marsh is in he should be bowling 10-15 overs an innings. If he's only needed for the odd over or two here and there then just throw Smith or Warner or whoever else the ball and pick 6 batsmen. If you look at limited overs sides everyone is picked to play a role, and you can carry an all rounder won't bowl their full 10 overs (or 4 in T20) and might only face a few balls late in the innings. It feels like Marsh is picked for that role in a game that lasts for 5 days. Bizarre.

 

[avishka5]

It will be a pity if Marsh is recalled, apart from not being a test cricketers shoelace he is a flog with a head only a mother could love.
Watching him fail will however make the test more enjoyable.

I've met him a couples times and he I didn't get the impression. Second time I met him, I was pissed one night and was giving him so much shit in the middle of a club and he took it on the chin and was laughing it off. Then had a bit of a chat to him later on and he seemed like a decent bloke and made me feel hell shitty ahaha.

 

[avishka5]

Ideally these two get a lead and mitch comes in and is there to get quick runs. That would do his confidence a whole lot of good imo.

 

[Voice of the G]

Sure, but injuries have stunted this progress. Still believe he’ll give us 5-6 good seasons of Test cricket.

Good on you seeing you are from WA,lol

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Smith was just as dangerous in his 3 overs, not expecting much with MMarsh with the bat, that is his worst area. If he isn't getting wickets, he's fairly useless.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Should have bowled more. I didn't like his selection but if we're to go with him then wind up in the field for 115 overs he should have sent down at least 12-15. Otherwise there was little to no point. I did like it that Smith game himself a few overs just to try something different though.

 

[Bob Neil]

If ever a hundred was in offer...England almost on their knees.

 

[pugsville]

True, but given he had a ball nearly take the outside edge and was getting up to 140 km/h in his first over I reckon he was worth persisting with for at least 5 or 6 overs to get some rhythm.



Agree with all of this. I don't think Marsh's recent form is enough to justify a return (his poor body of work at test level is from 21 tests so he's not like Bancroft who has played 2 and averages 33, and it really dropped of the latter half of those) and I don't think we need an all rounder right now anyway. He's in the top half a dozen or so for runs in the Shield this year and has barely bowled. When he's in the top half a dozen for runs in the Shield for a season or two and is regularly bowling then he should be in the frame.

The all rounder fascination hurt us for years. Shane Watson was a decent bowler but played 59 tests - most in the top order - for an average of 35. Shane Watson 2009 in is every test side in the world. Shane Watson 2010 was pretty solid. Didn't capitalise but 1 100 and 8 50s from 22 starts is very consistent and as an opener he hung around and faced plenty of balls. Shane Watson 2005, 2008 and 2011-2015 was bog ordinary but we just kept playing him again and again because of a patch of form in 2009/10. You can't keep a guy in the top 6 averaging 30 over 5 years.

The fabled top 6 batsman and top 5 bowler is so rare that if not for Jacques Kallis I doubt I would have seen it in my lifetime. Even the top 6 batsman or top 5 bowlers all rounder is pretty rare. Freddie Flintoff was a beast in the 2005 Ashes but we're talking about a guy who averaged 32 with the bat and 33 with the ball over a decade or so. Shane Watson was a top 6 batsman for a short period at test level but never a top 6 bowler.

What I just don't get is the disconnect between the captain, coach and selectors. If Mitch Marsh is in he should be bowling 10-15 overs an innings. If he's only needed for the odd over or two here and there then just throw Smith or Warner or whoever else the ball and pick 6 batsmen. If you look at limited overs sides everyone is picked to play a role, and you can carry an all rounder won't bowl their full 10 overs (or 4 in T20) and might only face a few balls late in the innings. It feels like Marsh is picked for that role in a game that lasts for 5 days. Bizarre.

You just fault under stand all rounders. You don't need to be a top 6 and a top 5 bowler. Some could be a top 10 bats and top 20 bowler and be extremely useful at test level. (or not at all )

It's about contribute with bat and ball regularly

Obsession with number of overs bowled is just silly. It's about having the option even if it's not particularly used.

 

[outabounds]

Looking like Donald Bradman compared to Handscomb right now.

 

[pugsville]

C
I think Benaud used to say that a genuine all rounder should be in your top 6 bats and/or top 5 bowlers. Marsh is plainly neither.
.

Beaund would never say anything so completely stupid.

All rounder don't have to be a top 6 and /or top 5 bowler otherwise they would be picked solely on their batting or bowling and would not be an allrounder.

Do you follow cricket? Or is this your first time?

 

[Blue1980]

He looks better than he ever has batting in a test before. Doesn’t look as heavy handed as he has in the past

 

[ioppolo]

This thread died very quick, as soon as he started doing well.

 

[Power Raid]

I'm really happy to see him perform

 

[Scholz Supremacy]

Where was this in the second test in India?

 

[outabounds]

I'm really happy to see him perform

Me too but lets reserve our excitement for when he starts performing away from his home ground.

 

[Van_Dyke]

Where was this in the second test in India?

He actually got given the time to go back and work on his game and his issues as a batsman, compared to being called back in after a summer of Big Bash.