Shaun Marsh

[PhatBoy]

Starc was always coming back in. At this point I don't know but he should be forced to earn it, not just swan back in like Watson, picked on potential and the performance of one series.

Forced to earn it via two centuries, a 60 and a match saving hand. Good one.

Starc got picked on the back of 3 good tests before he cut his leg.

The performance of 4 matches across 4 different series

Where does 'one good series' come from?

Enjoy fantasy land.

 

[The Passenger]

chunkychicken you're sounding like those guys who are just like sack em all or why are we even fielding a team

In an ideal well Shaun Marsh is very much a backup player. An Andy Bichel, Martin Love type player.

But we still have to field XI players every test.

You're sounding like Brade's or Parks who refuse to entertain the idea of promoting guys to the test team unless they are taking 5 wickets every innings or tonning up every time they bat (which has never been the case anyway).

You can only select what's in front of you.

 

[The Swans Blog]

You're sounding like Brade's or Parks who refuse to entertain the idea of promoting guys to the test team unless they are taking 5 wickets every innings or tonning up every time they bat (which has never been the case anyway).

You can only select what's in front of you.

Of course not, but I do find it enlightening and somewhat amusing, just how far some opinions have swayed. From Marsh being a pretty s**t cricketer, to suddenly being our best batsman, the uplift is astonishing. Yet 2 years ago he was derided, constantly cut from the team and should have had his international career ended after the last Ashes & Indian series.

Yet Australia persisted because of a pretty ****ed up state set up, and you're right, there really were no other options. But now we do, although a number of them are inexperienced or haven't played. I'm all for backing the best run maker in the team, not someone who's just as likely to capitulate and make ducks, as he is to make 50s. If it was 20 tests over 2-3 years, sure. But it's 20 over 6 and he has a pretty poor record.

 

[The Passenger]

In 2013 we had half a dozen blokes average 35+. Not a great level of performace, but in the shitty circumstances it was ok. Clarke, Warner, Smith, Haddin, Watson, Rogers. Our batting was a concern then, but there was a decent nucleus of guys who could put a score together.

Now in 2016 the problems have reached nuclear proportions. This year we have only 4 guys averaging over 35 and one of those is Adam Voges who's very unlikely to get another game. There are 4 other guys averaging 35+ from a couple of games. Two are debutants Renshaw and Handcomb. Another is Siddle. The other is Marsh, who actually has our highest batting average of the year (57.5) albeit from 2 games. It goes without saying I don't put too much stock on 2 matches, but my point is from the regular batsmen only 4 have reached the "acceptable" standard of batting average 35 (it really should be 40, but that's for another debate). We don't have options.

Marsh is a better batsmen now then he was 3 years ago, and our batting line up is worse now then it was 3 years ago. Putting those factors together and that's why he is the team or thereabouts.

I agree in an ideal world he's not in the team. But we just got ******* rolled time and time again in the last few months. We're not in an ideal world right now.

 

[PhatBoy]

Of course not, but I do find it enlightening and somewhat amusing, just how far some opinions have swayed. From Marsh being a pretty s**t cricketer, to suddenly being our best batsman, the uplift is astonishing. Yet 2 years ago he was derided, constantly cut from the team and should have had his international career ended after the last Ashes & Indian series.

Yet Australia persisted because of a pretty stuffed up state set up, and you're right, there really were no other options. But now we do, although a number of them are inexperienced or haven't played. I'm all for backing the best run maker in the team, not someone who's just as likely to capitulate and make ducks, as he is to make 50s. If it was 20 tests over 2-3 years, sure. But it's 20 over 6 and he has a pretty poor record.

Who the hell has said he's our best player?

Australia has 3 dependable batsmen and 4 other spots being filled up on purely speculative picks. Your argument is that the only available player who has a test average over 40 over a decent period, who also happens to have not put a foot wrong in any of his last 4 tests, is somehow not good enough.

That's what people are arguing.

 

[Docker82]

Whether Marsh is test standard can be debated. Those sticking up for him are doing so based off 4-5 games. Personally I think he's barely test standard. As in he is but only just. We should have better options but we don't.

What can't be debated is that he is better than Maddinson right now. I don't see Maddinson ever being test standard either so there's no real point playing him because he's younger. Unless the selectors think it's a good idea they select an all rounder again (which would be stupid because we don't have one who's good enough at batting and offers enough with the ball to get himself a game over the 6th best batsman), I really can't see any reason why the change wouldn't just be made straight away. Maddinson never should've been picked in the first place.

Knowing the selectors they'll probably bring Marsh in for Renshaw who actually showed something though.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Swans Blog]

Who the hell has said he's our best player?

You have more than once leaned on his stats and made claims that he's currently the best batsman in the team based purely on stats from 3-4 matches, comparing him to Smith, Warner and KP.

 

[PhatBoy]

You have more than once leaned on his stats and made claims that he's currently the best batsman in the team based purely on stats from 3-4 matches, comparing him to Smith, Warner and KP.

No I haven't.

Comparing Voges to Bradman last summer didn't equal saying Voges was as good as Bradman. how anyone could be dumb enough to draw the parallel is anyone's guess.

 

[The Swans Blog]

No I haven't.

Comparing Voges to Bradman last summer didn't equal saying Voges was as good as Bradman. how anyone could be dumb enough to draw the parallel is anyone's guess.

By comparing him to Bradman, enough said.

 

[PhatBoy]

By comparing him to Bradman, enough said.

Good argument.

That's really put me in my place

 

[The Swans Blog]

Good argument.

That's really put me in my place

I laughed my way off the forums last summer when I saw the comparisons. I'd completely forgot about that insane argument until you dredged it up, so thanks for letting me relive the happy memories.

 

[PhatBoy]

I laughed my way off the forums last summer when I saw the comparisons. I'd completely forgot about that insane argument until you dredged it up, so thanks for letting me relive the happy memories.

And at no point do you stop and think 'I wonder if people are comparing them because they think Voges is as good as Bradman, or because through a few statistical and circumstancial anomalies, they have a similar average?'

F*** me did, how did this place survive without you.

 

[The Swans Blog]

And at no point do you stop and think 'I wonder if people are comparing them because they think Voges is as good as Bradman, or because through a few statistical and circumstancial anomalies, they have a similar average?'

F*** me did, how did this place survive without you.

Barely hanging on I see. Those "statistical anomalies" also included a rather hilarious several-page discussion on whether Voges was actually as good as Bradman.

 

[PhatBoy]

Barely hanging on I see. Those "statistical anomalies" also included a rather hilarious several-page discussion on whether Voges was actually as good as Bradman.

Really. I'm itching to see anyone claim that he was, and furthermore judging by the way you're fisting yourself over it, you have it in your head that EVERYONE thought it and you were the lone voice of reason.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Really. I'm itching to see anyone claim that he was, and furthermore judging by the way you're fisting yourself over it, you have it in your head that EVERYONE thought it and you were the lone voice of reason.

Why don't you go on and use the search function, since it was before your time

 

[PhatBoy]

Why don't you go on and use the search function, since it was before your time

What, so I can read a bunch of people going 'whoa, he's into Bradman territory here'

 

[JackOutback]

When the facts change, I change my mind.

Honestly, I assumed most people did the same. Clearly not.

 

[Run n Spread]

In 2013 we had half a dozen blokes average 35+. Not a great level of performace, but in the shitty circumstances it was ok. Clarke, Warner, Smith, Haddin, Watson, Rogers. Our batting was a concern then, but there was a decent nucleus of guys who could put a score together.

Now in 2016 the problems have reached nuclear proportions. This year we have only 4 guys averaging over 35 and one of those is Adam Voges who's very unlikely to get another game. There are 4 other guys averaging 35+ from a couple of games. Two are debutants Renshaw and Handcomb. Another is Siddle. The other is Marsh, who actually has our highest batting average of the year (57.5) albeit from 2 games. It goes without saying I don't put too much stock on 2 matches, but my point is from the regular batsmen only 4 have reached the "acceptable" standard of batting average 35 (it really should be 40, but that's for another debate). We don't have options.

Marsh is a better batsmen now then he was 3 years ago, and our batting line up is worse now then it was 3 years ago. Putting those factors together and that's why he is the team or thereabouts.

I agree in an ideal world he's not in the team. But we just got ******* rolled time and time again in the last few months. We're not in an ideal world right now.

Agree. But at what point do you call time and just say he is too injury prone? Unfortunate as his last 3 tests recorded 2 centries and a 50 but a year apart.

The selectors were given a manadate to try a mix of youth (however harsh on Ferguson Mennie etc). It worked for the time being. Got to pick and stick. Or risk stuffing a new generation around Hughes and Kahawaja style.

 

[PhatBoy]

Agree. But at what point do you call time and just say he is too injury prone? Unfortunate as his last 3 tests recorded 2 centries and a 50 but a year apart.

The selectors were given a manadate to try a mix of youth (however harsh on Ferguson Mennie etc). It worked for the time being. Got to pick and stick. Or risk stuffing a new generation around Hughes and Kahawaja style.

When that injury isn't the same sort of injury that absolutely any player can pick up. Since when does busting a finger by being hit with a flying projectile have anything to do with one's proneness to injury?

 

[PhatBoy]

Agree. But at what point do you call time and just say he is too injury prone? Unfortunate as his last 3 tests recorded 2 centries and a 50 but a year apart.

The selectors were given a manadate to try a mix of youth (however harsh on Ferguson Mennie etc). It worked for the time being. Got to pick and stick. Or risk stuffing a new generation around Hughes and Kahawaja style.

By the way, how was Hughes stuffed around?

Most people would consider a batsman lucky to even be in the frame if they'd scored 1 century in 24 tests?

 

[The_Reaper]

Agree. But at what point do you call time and just say he is too injury prone? Unfortunate as his last 3 tests recorded 2 centries and a 50 but a year apart.

The selectors were given a manadate to try a mix of youth (however harsh on Ferguson Mennie etc). It worked for the time being. Got to pick and stick. Or risk stuffing a new generation around Hughes and Kahawaja style.

He was dropped after the first test. Came back and broke a finger then rushed back and had it broken again.

Fingers can be broken by cricket balls

 

[Run n Spread]

By the way, how was Hughes stuffed around?

Most people would consider a batsman lucky to even be in the frame if they'd scored 1 century in 24 tests?

Shouldn't have been dropped 09 ashes when his weakness against the shirt ball was grossly overstated. Unorthodox yes but he hadn't been yet dismissed by one.

Also was selected again in 2010 ashes when remodelling his game and averaging about 12 for the year. Rogers should've been picked then imo.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Shouldn't have been dropped 09 ashes when his weakness against the shirt ball was grossly overstated. Unorthodox yes but he hadn't been yet dismissed by one.

Also was selected again in 2010 ashes when remodelling his game and averaging about 12 for the year. Rogers should've been picked then imo.

That was a massive stuff around since he was still batting well enough at the time.

 

[Kram]

WI aside that average dips below 40 and his stats once again resemble that of an ordinary batsman.

If Hodge can get dropped for a double century and a ridiculous average, why can't Marsh for significantly inferior stats?

There was actually a good reason Brad Hodge was dropped, at Test level he was shown up as being s**t.

 

[RookiePick]

Gee you would hate losing your wicket to andre nel wouldnt you?