Mitchell Marsh

[cricketnut14]

Has 116 FC wickets @ 30 from 78 matches so is more than handy.

Agree 100% with the last sentence. We need someone at #6 averaging 40-50 with the bat. If they can bowl a bit it's a bonus.

Right now Marsh averages 29 with the bat and 42 with the ball in tests. If that was 42 and 42 we'd be rapt. 29 and 29 not so much.

hypothetical, would you accept m.marsh @ #6 averaging 40-45 or so with the bat for the rest of his career - giving him an career average of 37ish ?

 

[Scotland]

hypothetical, would you accept m.marsh @ #6 averaging 40-45 or so with the bat for the rest of his career - giving him an career average of 37ish ?

In the current climate, yes. If we have another golden era of test quality batsmen, no.

A lot more to it than pure averages, though. Warner, Khawaja and Handscomb all average 45+ at test level and are iffy. Shaun Marsh has dragged his average above 40 and this is the first series you can say he was a consistent contributor. 5 of our top 6 averaged 47 or more for the series, so it's a small sample size.

Mitch Marsh just made 320 runs in 4 innings which is great, but if he goes to South Africa and can't dig in when we're 4/80 then we're in the same hole we were 3 tests ago. Pleasingly he scored pretty freely in Perth and Sydney but hung around hours in Melbourne when the pitch was low and slow without throwing his wicket away. As the #6 he is the last of the recognised batsman before the keeper and bowlers, so his role is to hang around if the top order is dismissed cheaply and push forward quickly if he comes in and we already have 3-400 on the board. If he can keep doing that he'll have a long career. If not then someone else will come in.

 

[Agent93]

Has 116 FC wickets @ 30 from 78 matches so is more than handy.

Agree 100% with the last sentence. We need someone at #6 averaging 40-50 with the bat. If they can bowl a bit it's a bonus.

Right now Marsh averages 29 with the bat and 42 with the ball in tests. If that was 42 and 42 we'd be rapt. 29 and 29 not so much.

I've always like the all-rounder measurement of batting average minus bowling average. There's very few that are positive. This is an older article demonstrating as much, but you get the idea.

So if Mitch averages mid thirties with the ball and bat, that's fine by me. Hell, his dad played 50-odd tests as an opener and averaged mid thirties.

 

[cricketnut14]

I've always like the all-rounder measurement of batting average minus bowling average. There's very few that are positive. This is an older article demonstrating as much, but you get the idea.

Not a fan of that rule coz where do you draw the line that they are an allrounder. Is bradman an allrounder 99/36 = +60 etc (furthermore he hardly bowled), but I get your drift.

For me a "genuine test" allrounder should be 40+/30- meaning they should be warranted selection on both skillsets and not just the one.

Only Aubrey Faulkner achieved this and just (small sample size of tests too).
Tony Greig got really close and shakib is thereabouts.
Imran Khan finished 37/23 but did average 50 with the bat in his last 10 years in the game.

If that's too harsh try 35+/35- and yep - watto makes it !! (and stokes)
surprisingly flintoff falls into the 30+/30+ category - no mans land.

40+/30+ = batting allrounder
20+/30- = bowling allrounder

again it all changes when it comes to the shorter formats of the game.

 

[kane249]

Not a fan of that rule coz where do you draw the line that they are an allrounder. Is bradman an allrounder 99/36 = +60 etc (furthermore he hardly bowled), but I get your drift.

For me a "genuine test" allrounder should be 40+/30- meaning they should be warranted selection on both skillsets and not just the one.

Only Aubrey Faulkner achieved this and just (small sample size of tests too).
Tony Greig got really close and shakib is thereabouts.
Imran Khan finished 37/23 but did average 50 with the bat in his last 10 years in the game.

If that's too harsh try 35+/35- and yep - watto makes it !! (and stokes)
surprisingly flintoff falls into the 30+/30+ category - no mans land.

40+/30+ = batting allrounder
20+/30- = bowling allrounder

again it all changes when it comes to the shorter formats of the game.

Left out possible the GOAT all-rounder, Kallis.
55.37 with the bat and 32.65 with the ball, phenomenal.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Left out possible the GOAT all-rounder, Kallis
55.37 with the bat and 32.65 with the ball, phenomenal.

Yeah, if the formula misses out on Kallis and also Sobers, then it's probably not the best judge.

 

[G Mus]

All rounders bowling averages are a poor indication of bowling ability, when the ball is new they hardly bowl, when the pitch is doing a lot they hardly bowl, and normally come in for spells against set bats which the frontline bowlers haven't managed to crack - they also generally bowl shorter spells where it's difficult to get consistency up

 

[Doodlesweaver]

All rounders bowling averages are a poor indication of bowling ability, when the ball is new they hardly bowl, when the pitch is doing a lot they hardly bowl, and normally come in for spells against set bats which the frontline bowlers haven't managed to crack - they also generally bowl shorter spells where it's difficult to get consistency up

Well, that's the way Smith uses them that's for sure.

 

[JackOutback]

Well, that's the way Smith uses them that's for sure.

Mitch Marsh would be ecstatic if Smith used him like that.

 

[Gethelred]

All rounders bowling averages are a poor indication of bowling ability, when the ball is new they hardly bowl, when the pitch is doing a lot they hardly bowl, and normally come in for spells against set bats which the frontline bowlers haven't managed to crack - they also generally bowl shorter spells where it's difficult to get consistency up

Don't think that's how SA used Kallis; I seem to remember him opening the bowling sometimes.

 

[Scotland]

Kallis played 166 tests and opened the bowling at one end maybe half a dozen times.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Mitch Marsh would be ecstatic if Smith used him like that.

When he uses him, that's how he uses him. Gives him 3 overs at a time with the old ball. Clarke was the same. Never seemed to use him at all if there was anything in the pitch.

Smith obviously wants to rely on his front-liners to do the job and Marsh or whoever is just there to spell the others.

 

[Scotland]

Using Marsh with the old ball anywhere from overs 20-80 is fine. If he bowls 10 economical but not threatening overs per innings that's doing a job - it's 10 overs Starc/Hazlewood/Cummins don't need to bowl. Shane Watson bowled plenty of spells of nibbly medium pacers when the ball wasn't doing much and he'd jag the odd wicket from it.

If Starc is bowling a spell of nothing overs from say over 20-30 and then the ball starts reversing then you look a bit silly taking him off because he's tired. Ditto if the ball is 70 overs old and doing nothing you don't want your opening pair grinding through overs with the new ball due. You might give them an over each with the old ball to loosen up then take the new ball.

Problem is Smith doesn't use Marsh enough to warrant having him there as an all rounder. It's fine while he's smashing 100s every other innings but you can't justify carrying a #6 averaging 20 on the off chance you might bowl him 2-3 overs. David Warner could do that. Hell go full Matthew Wade and give Tim Paine a bowl.

 

[StingBitten]

Marsh going to county cricket this year instead of accepting a +1 million pay-packet in the IPL is surely an indication of where his loyalty and dedication lies.

While half the cricketing world will pocket enough money to watch Sydney NYE fireworks from their catamaran sized balconies Mitch will be ploughing his trade and dissecting the conditions on English grass.

He might not be amazing now but he has Cricket in his veins and he’ll do what he can to become a Master of the game.

 

[The Passenger]

Kallis played 166 tests and opened the bowling at one end maybe half a dozen times.

Well he's not going to open the bowling from both ends now is he

FTR he opened the bowling 8 times.

 

[The Passenger]

All rounders bowling averages are a poor indication of bowling ability, when the ball is new they hardly bowl, when the pitch is doing a lot they hardly bowl, and normally come in for spells against set bats which the frontline bowlers haven't managed to crack - they also generally bowl shorter spells where it's difficult to get consistency up

This theory sounds fine but doesn't necessarily always hold true. Shane Watson (33) only averaged a run more per wicket than Michael Kasprowicz (32) and Andy Bichel (32). Andrew Symonds (37), Michael Clarke (38) and Allan Border (39) were not all that far behind them either.

I would've thought over a longer timescale (i.e. more overs being bowled) there was far more difference in quality of bowling than 1 run per wicket between Kasper/Bichel and Watson and more than 4/5/6 runs difference between Watson and Symonds/Clarke/Border.

All rounders and part-timers averages don't suffer as much as front line bowlers when the batsmen get on top (either through good batting or batsmen-friendly wickets). The #5 (and part timers) will generally bowl a few overs and get moved on if they don't make the breakthrough. The first four bowlers need to just keep fronting up whenever the captain throws them the ball and will have those 1/100 days if they play enough test cricket. Even pidge had a few tough days in the field (not many it must be said).

But do understand the general point you make.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Watson also bowled a lot more overs that MMarsh does, except later in his career when the body couldnt take it.

 

[Kram]

Gee some people really underrate Robot's bowling.

 

[DaRick]

Yeah, Watson was actually a very smart bowler.

 

[samFFC]

This theory sounds fine but doesn't necessarily always hold true. Shane Watson (33) only averaged a run more per wicket than Michael Kasprowicz (32) and Andy Bichel (32). Andrew Symonds (37), Michael Clarke (38) and Allan Border (39) were not all that far behind them either.

I would've thought over a longer timescale (i.e. more overs being bowled) there was far more difference in quality of bowling than 1 run per wicket between Kasper/Bichel and Watson and more than 4/5/6 runs difference between Watson and Symonds/Clarke/Border.

All rounders and part-timers averages don't suffer as much as front line bowlers when the batsmen get on top (either through good batting or batsmen-friendly wickets). The #5 (and part timers) will generally bowl a few overs and get moved on if they don't make the breakthrough. The first four bowlers need to just keep fronting up whenever the captain throws them the ball and will have those 1/100 days if they play enough test cricket. Even pidge had a few tough days in the field (not many it must be said).

But do understand the general point you make.

You’ve piqued my mathsy side.
Bu the same token when the bowlers are on top / green deck, the frontline players will get the benefit of the good figures, and the all rounder won’t get a look in.

Might look into it later.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

You’ve piqued my mathsy side.
Bu the same token when the bowlers are on top / green deck, the frontline players will get the benefit of the good figures, and the all rounder won’t get a look in.

Might look into it later.

Watson should have been used whenever there was a green deck when he was in the test team. Used it far better than Siddle or Johnson. In SA during that Haddin-brain fade test, I'm pretty sure he cleaned SA up.

 

[Belnakor]

surprisingly flintoff falls into the 30+/30+ category - no mans land.

flintoff was easily the most overrated cricketer of the past 20-30 years

 

[The Passenger]

You’ve piqued my mathsy side.
Bu the same token when the bowlers are on top / green deck, the frontline players will get the benefit of the good figures, and the all rounder won’t get a look in.

Might look into it later.

Yeah this is a good point. Does swing both ways a bit.

Gee some people really underrate Robot's bowling.

Not sure if direct at me. Rate him very highly as #5 bowler. Just think there is much bigger difference than 1 run per wicket between him and Andy Bichel and Michael Kasprowicz who were very good bowlers. Both would've had much better test averages if they had a bit more fluency in their selection but such was the nature of the Australian team at the time this wasn't really possible.

And like I said there was a much greater difference than 4/5/6 runs between Watson than Symonds/Clarke/Border. Watson is a very good #5 bowler. Symonds as an average #5 bowler and Clarke and Border obviously part timers. You could like at those four overall career bowling performances and get the impression they were all fairly similar in standard but anyone that watched them knows Watson was clearly the best bowler of those four.

 

[Kram]

Yeah this is a good point. Does swing both ways a bit.

Not sure if direct at me. Rate him very highly as #5 bowler. Just think there is much bigger difference than 1 run per wicket between him and Andy Bichel and Michael Kasprowicz who were very good bowlers. Both would've had much better test averages if they had a bit more fluency in their selection but such was the nature of the Australian team at the time this wasn't really possible.

And like I said there was a much greater difference than 4/5/6 runs between Watson than Symonds/Clarke/Border. Watson is a very good #5 bowler. Symonds as an average #5 bowler and Clarke and Border obviously part timers. You could like at those four overall career bowling performances and get the impression they were all fairly similar in standard but anyone that watched them knows Watson was clearly the best bowler of those four.

Well maybe you are overrating imo Bichel and Kasper who were pretty ordinary (not bad though) at Test level. Watson averages nearly the same because he was easily at their level as a bowler. Symonds was a very handy 5th bowler and although Clarke and Border were part-time they were about the best that you would get in this category.

Nothing against Bichel and Kasper no shame in their Test efforts but I think the averages are a reasonable representation.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

flintoff was easily the most overrated cricketer of the past 20-30 years

He had a very slow start so his figures were dragged down a bit. He really wasn't a 30 bowler. Far better than that. Well, he would have been if he'd bowled at the stumps more often.