The Australian cricket non-official thread!
- Thread starter Matty76
- Start date
How many more chance can a player have ? He's an all rounder which means he can bat and needs to score runs concistitly and doesn't, not like a cummins or a Starc that are bowlers that can bat at the end and hold up the end , like the bowlers did for wade at the Gabba, there are better allrounders than marsh
The Mad Hatter
OzCardTrader
Smith didn't make the ICC Test team of the year. Got 12th man cordial mixing duties.
I shouldn't be overly critical of an international due to my limited park level cricketing ability but I will say the following regarding MM.
Firstly I think he is a likable kid and I can recall when he and Hazlewood won the U/19 world cup several years back.
In terms of test cricket he has had 31 innings and averages a very uninspiring 23 which for an all rounder batting at 6 generally isn't good enough. His bowling isn't so bad, consistent pace and can move the ball but no variation, I feel Faulkner and his off speed balls would have been a much better option on dry and dusty Indian wickets which will grip.
I think he is still a good ODI option although his dismissal today, chipping a first ball half volley to cover was very poor. I never want to see an Australian player go poorly, will support them all the way but I feel that MM has been given his chance in the test arena and not succeeded so time to move on.
The ICC rankings and TOTY selections are generally quite laughable I find.
In his defence I will say that he is a victim of CA's love for fast medium all rounders. This has been their selection process for over a decade and there have been some shockers in that time.
Firstly I think he is a likable kid and I can recall when he and Hazlewood won the U/19 world cup several years back.
In terms of test cricket he has had 31 innings and averages a very uninspiring 23 which for an all rounder batting at 6 generally isn't good enough. His bowling isn't so bad, consistent pace and can move the ball but no variation, I feel Faulkner and his off speed balls would have been a much better option on dry and dusty Indian wickets which will grip.
I think he is still a good ODI option although his dismissal today, chipping a first ball half volley to cover was very poor. I never want to see an Australian player go poorly, will support them all the way but I feel that MM has been given his chance in the test arena and not succeeded so time to move on.
The ICC rankings and TOTY selections are generally quite laughable I find.
In his defence I will say that he is a victim of CA's love for fast medium all rounders. This has been their selection process for over a decade and there have been some shockers in that time.
I never said he couldn't bowl , I'm talking about him being a all rounder who needs to score runs, India is going to be real tough like always for Australia, we cant play against pakistans straight spin in the one dayers , there not turning a lot like the Indians will over there
The Mad Hatter
OzCardTrader
Faulkner's and MM's first class averages are:
Faulkner - bat 32.67, bowl 24.54
MM - bat 29.05, bowl 28.38
Funnily enough, Faulkner's best test bowling (1 test, average 16.33) is 4/51. His batting average is 22.50.
Marsh is 4/61 (19 tests, average 37.27). His batting average is 23.18.
Of MM's 19 tests, only 2 were against India, 3 vs England and 1 vs South Africa. 13 vs "lesser" Pakistan, NZ, WI and SL and he hardly covered himself in glory.
So on pure numbers, I'd have Faulkner.
Faulkner - bat 32.67, bowl 24.54
MM - bat 29.05, bowl 28.38
Funnily enough, Faulkner's best test bowling (1 test, average 16.33) is 4/51. His batting average is 22.50.
Marsh is 4/61 (19 tests, average 37.27). His batting average is 23.18.
Of MM's 19 tests, only 2 were against India, 3 vs England and 1 vs South Africa. 13 vs "lesser" Pakistan, NZ, WI and SL and he hardly covered himself in glory.
So on pure numbers, I'd have Faulkner.
numbers aside I will raise my point again regarding Faulkner. Cutters both leg and off and pace variation from 110-130 would be a bitch on those Indian wickets. Wade at the stumps to keep the Indians in their crease and I think it will be a very good move
The Mad Hatter
OzCardTrader
I agree.
Would give a requisite amount of 'agro' too. MM seems a bit of a milquetoast to me. For a bloke who is 6 foot 6 and supposedly could have been a ruck man (or whatever it is they call it)...he has no presence for mine.
Scotty_WCE
West Coast card collector!
Yep - and that's why he's won 6 ODI man of the match awards (1 in every 8 games he's played).
I mean, come on, there's a time and place for criticism - but at least make it even slightly correct or reasonable!
Scotty_WCE
West Coast card collector!
Did you know, Sir Donald Bradman made TWO golden ducks in his Test career? And this is a format where there's no need or pressure to score quickly! Add him to the list of players who don't (or didn't) "have enough ability to be an international cricketer"...
On the other hand, this I do agree with. Stop fiddling around and leave it the way we're used to it and it's always been!
Think comparing a guy like Bradman to Mitch marsh is a bit of a stretch
A guy that averaged 99.94 in the premium format of the game to a guy that averages 22 or 23 with the bat in that same format.
Australia due to injuries tonight went in a batsman short and had too many all rounders, Mitch is a batsman that comes off the best when he has 10 overs left in the innings and Australia has 230-250 on the board already. Not ideal for him at 2 or 3 for not many
Scotty_WCE
West Coast card collector!
I completely agree that Bradman and Marsh shouldn't be compared, but I think your criticism was a bit of a stretch too
I agree with your last paragraph too. Head, Maxwell and Wade all probably should have gone in ahead of him in a situation like tonight. We should always be aiming for him to go in around the 35 - 40 over mark unless we're 5 or 6 down inside 30 overs. He seems to play his best when he has the freedom to just play his natural game.
It's more the selection policy regarding him I don't like in the test side, he's played 19 tests and averages 22 or 23 with the bat, batting at number 6.
To me that's nowhere near good enough to be a test 6 at this stage of his career, when he goes back to shield cricket pours on buckets and buckets of runs consistently for a season or 2 then pick him.
Picking an all rounder for the sake of picking one doesn't work unless your name is Jacques Kallis or have the fight in you like Ben stokes from England does.
To me that's nowhere near good enough to be a test 6 at this stage of his career, when he goes back to shield cricket pours on buckets and buckets of runs consistently for a season or 2 then pick him.
Picking an all rounder for the sake of picking one doesn't work unless your name is Jacques Kallis or have the fight in you like Ben stokes from England does.
The initial argument was MM's inclusion in the Indian test squad and while this has gone off track a bit this is still the issue.
MM is a very good cricketer and despite a few poor ODI's in a row has a decent record and should be still an Australian ODI squad member unless his current run of poor form continues.
As for tests I believe he has had more than his chance. 19 matches and still not producing. If he were to go away and have a couple of really good domestic season in the four day game then absolutely he should come under consideration again.
We have so much talent waiting in the wings and I blame the selectors for much of our issues as they are so reluctant to blood new players. Look what happened when we finally blooded some new players? A few wins, confidence flowed on.
This infatuation with medium fast / fast medium bowling all rounders is ridiculous also and MM is s victim of that. I loved Watto but how many chances did he get despite his inconsistencies?
I wasn't a fan of Watson either so its not a vendetta against MM, just the policy of hoping with selecting guys like MM, Shane Watson, Hilton Cartwright that we will find a allrounder like Ben Stokes, Jacques Kallis or Andrew Flintoff.
They don't come up too often players like them
Fellas. At the end of the day, bad players don't play cricket for Australia, let alone their state. Sure they go through their form phases, but the thing about cricket is it ebbs and flows. You can't be consistently great, and you also can't be consistently bad. In before 'but Mitch marsh is consistently bad' I think the fact he's made runs and taken wickets at an international level is pretty good in itself. We can only imagine of doing that. We'd get smacked all over the park, and then clean bowled first ball with a searing Yorker. That's 'bad'. Mitch Marsh middled that half volley on his first ball last night, I reckon he was unlucky that it went straight to a fielder. In a gap or a little higher and that was 4 runs every day of the week.