Will Shaun Marsh be better than his father for Australia?

[Top_Cat]

I said his Test career was curtailed by a series of poor scores, which he did not get the chance to come back from, opening in Sri Lanka.

The point is, though, that he didn't have to open to get a place in the team - Boon had proven he was perfectly capable of opening in Tests and what's more had done so previously when Moody had come into the side in place of an opener.

It just makes no sense to me that Moody was shoehorned in to open. None whatsoever. Unless of course they actually wanted him to fail so they could pick Martyn and Langer who were more "exciting".

It's pretty obvious why they wanted Moody to open; like I said, he had all the right ingredients, he wanted to open (and had done so in ODI's) and they were looking to the WI series. Boonie preferred batting at 3 and the idea was to give a bloke a shot so they'd have him played-in as a Test opener in time for the WI to arrive. When that didn't happen (can't emphasise enough, though, that Moody had several absolutely shocking decisions in a row against him in SL), Boonie moved up to open in the next home series. But only because there was little choice but to do that.

And Langer was definitely neither an opener nor exciting in those days. People used to joke that he had a 'vast array' of shots between third-man and point. That's why when he was smacking cover drives to the fence post 2001 the commentators made a big deal of it; he just never used to play those shots.

 

[Richard]

I know that, but he was younger than Moody, and therefore more "exciting".

Why on Earth Moody actually wanted to open in Tests I'll never know. Seems as mad as Shane Watson, Simon Katich, Brad Hodge, Mark Ramprakash and Greg Blewett deciding they wanted to.

 

[Top_Cat]

I know that, but he was younger than Moody, and therefore more "exciting".

Why on Earth Moody actually wanted to open in Tests I'll never know. Seems as mad as Shane Watson, Simon Katich, Brad Hodge, Mark Ramprakash and Greg Blewett deciding they wanted to.

That he was younger had little to do with it because the Aussies wanted experience for the next home series, as evidenced by the fact that Langer didn't even play until the 4th Test against the WI (although dropping Dean Jones for Martyn still ranks pretty highly on my "WTF?!" meter). He was exciting because he hit 150 in the Sheffield Shield final.

Firstly, as far as Moody goes, he was told his future as a Test player was as an opener. Mark Waugh was preferred as number 4 so it was opener or bust.

And Blewwy should have been picked as an opener right from the start of his career. He never batted anywhere else for SA and all of his success, especially his runs for Aust A that got him in the side, were as an opener. Picking him as an all-rounder against England was just to get him in the side because Slats and Taylor were there already. That he scored runs there initially was more a function of the fact he was in awesome form than anything else. When he was finally picked as an opener, a stroke-maker from the start, he was apparently told he had to be the stable grafter while Slats blazed away at the other end and that just wasn't his game. Was not surprised in the slightest when he didn't do as well as opener.

 

[river end]

Why on Earth Moody actually wanted to open in Tests I'll never know. Seems as mad as Shane Watson, Simon Katich, Brad Hodge, Mark Ramprakash and Greg Blewett deciding they wanted to.

I find it very difficult to believe Moody wanted to open in tests. Mark Waugh opened for Australia in ODIs but I don't remember him opening in too many tests and seriously doubt he would have wanted to open in tests.
It's almost a certainty he was given no other option, and then was discarded for good when it didn't work out.
Once you get a reputation in cricket, no matter the circumstances, it's all over.

 

[Richard]

That he was younger had little to do with it because the Aussies wanted experience for the next home series, as evidenced by the fact that Langer didn't even play until the 4th Test against the WI (although dropping Dean Jones for Martyn still ranks pretty highly on my "WTF?!" meter). He was exciting because he hit 150 in the Sheffield Shield final.

Thought Jones was dropped to bring Stephen Waugh back myself TBH. Though he and Moody both went at the same time, with Waugh and Martyn coming in, so I guess you could say it either way.

Wasn't Jones dropped because his only 2 scores of note for ages and ages came in a dead-as-a-doughnut Fifth Test and a game in SL where he was dropped about 4 times by Kaluwitharana? Has still seemed a bit odd as runs are runs, but looking back upon it rather than witnessing it at the time it seems at least moderately justifiable.

If anything I've always been surprised they did it because (as you mention) when going into that WI series experience and more importantly proven calibre would seem to be the watchwords. Evidently not, and sure enough Martyn and Langer both failed. And S Waugh too, apart from in that SCG game.

Firstly, as far as Moody goes, he was told his future as a Test player was as an opener. Mark Waugh was preferred as number 4 so it was opener or bust.

I suppose - if Boon was sufficiently keen on not opening. Seems he could've stayed if they were going to elect to drop Jones though.

And Blewwy should have been picked as an opener right from the start of his career. He never batted anywhere else for SA and all of his success, especially his runs for Aust A that got him in the side, were as an opener. Picking him as an all-rounder against England was just to get him in the side because Slats and Taylor were there already. That he scored runs there initially was more a function of the fact he was in awesome form than anything else. When he was finally picked as an opener, a stroke-maker from the start, he was apparently told he had to be the stable grafter while Slats blazed away at the other end and that just wasn't his game. Was not surprised in the slightest when he didn't do as well as opener.

Haha, was he?! Always presumed Blewett was a middle-order batsman. Had never even looked at where he'd been batting for SA early in his career.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Haha, was he?! Always presumed Blewett was a middle-order batsman. Had never even looked at where he'd been batting for SA early in his career.

facepalm

 

[Top_Cat]

Wasn't Jones dropped because his only 2 scores of note for ages and ages came in a dead-as-a-doughnut Fifth Test and a game in SL where he was dropped about 4 times by Kaluwitharana? Has still seemed a bit odd as runs are runs, but looking back upon it rather than witnessing it at the time it seems at least moderately justifiable.

That's part of it. Also started to develop a rep as a player who only scored late in a series when it was already won or lost. 216 against the WI in Adelaide in 89/90 is another example. Still, he had a reasonable tour in SL but was hampered by the fact that unseasonable rain in Melbourne (yes, even for Melbourne standards....) meant just about every grade game and home Vic game for some time was washed-out so he didn't get many opportunities and in the one match he played before the first Test against the WI, he didn't get a score. Was still a big surprise when he was dropped.

I suppose - if Boon was sufficiently keen on not opening. Seems he could've stayed if they were going to elect to drop Jones though.

Moody was always on a hiding to nothing. He had to fight to get the spot against India so was always walking a bit of a tightrope to remain in the team. His play against quick bowling was suspect too; at his height (6'7", from memory), very few balls ever got up to head-height so was considered suspect at handling the ones that did. So they got Boonie to open again because he was in form and not too adverse to the idea. Total team man.

Haha, was he?! Always presumed Blewett was a middle-order batsman. Had never even looked at where he'd been batting for SA early in his career.

Always was an opener. FC and OD's. Only changed when his time as a Test player was over.

 

[NUFAN]

Well that 16 off 34 was very Geoff Marshesque.

 

[NUFAN]

I've not had the chance to see Mitch Marsh bat today, can someone let us know how good his 60 from 29 balls was?

 

[Athlai]

I've not had the chance to see Mitch Marsh bat today, can someone let us know how good his 60 from 29 balls was?

Only saw a third of the innings but it was a bit flukey at times.

 

[NUFAN]

Only saw a third of the innings but it was a bit flukey at times.

Ah true, did you see him drop his bat? Sounded quite unusual that.

I guess when you score at 2 runs a ball you would generally need a bit of a luck, I'm just happy that he's chosen Cricket over AFL.

 

[Matt79]

Lol at this thread. I'll answer the original question by saying I can't see Shaun ever playing a test.

 

[NUFAN]

Lol at this thread. I'll answer the original question by saying I can't see Shaun ever playing a test.

Do you still think this is the case?

I've been thinking lately that Shaun Marsh could potentially be very close to the Test team soon with North's spot free and Hussey at his age and form.

Marsh averaged 59.62 last Shield season in just 5 matches - injuries and being part of the ODI setup limiting his matches.

Watching Marsh in this match made me think that if a top order spot is not available in the Test team, he could perform very nicely at 5 or 6 and be Australia's answer to England's Morgan.

I'm really hopefully that he has a strong start to the year for WA in the 4 day games, because I think he's an excellent backup batsman (at least) because he has the ability to bat anywhere in the top 6.

 

[pasag]

Do you still think this is the case?

I've been thinking lately that Shaun Marsh could potentially be very close to the Test team soon with North's spot free and Hussey at his age and form.

Marsh averaged 59.62 last Shield season in just 5 matches - injuries and being part of the ODI setup limiting his matches.

Watching Marsh in this match made me think that if a top order spot is not available in the Test team, he could perform very nicely at 5 or 6 and be Australia's answer to England's Morgan.

I'm really hopefully that he has a strong start to the year for WA in the 4 day games, because I think he's an excellent backup batsman (at least) because he has the ability to bat anywhere in the top 6.

He'll play at least 5 Tests for Australia, there's no doubt about that.

 

[Prince EWS]

I like Marsh, but I don't like the idea of him in the Test team yet. It'd again send the wrong message that one's path into Test cricket is to look good at the crease.

 

[NUFAN]

He'll play at least 5 Tests for Australia, there's no doubt about that.

Do you think so because the selectors love his dad or do you think he deserves it?

Or would you rather Klinger

 

[NUFAN]

I like Marsh, but I don't like the idea of him in the Test team yet. It'd again send the wrong message that one's path into Test cricket is to look good at the crease.

I dunno. Just reading the English lads talking about that Moneyball book in the Eng vs Pak thread got me thinking of the ideal candidate in Australia - Marsh is the best Cricketer that I could think of.

Marsh has shown a cool head in ODI Cricket and has done quite well over the past 3 domestic seasons.

BTW - I've not read the book, just going off what was mentioned in the other thread.

 

[Prince EWS]

I dunno. Just reading the English lads talking about that Moneyball book in the Eng vs Pak thread got me thinking of the ideal candidate in Australia - Marsh is the best Cricketer that I could think of.

Marsh has shown a cool head in ODI Cricket and has done quite well over the past 3 domestic seasons.

BTW - I've not read the book, just going off what was mentioned in the other thread.

Here's a post I made about Marsh a while ago:

He averaged 23 last season. In his last five summers he's hit a grand total of two First Class hundreds, and he averages less in First Class cricket overall than North does in Tests. He's been having a good season so far, but that's consisted of just five games. I like him, but he needs to do more IMO.

As I said in another thread before, the last thing the Australian team needs is another batsman who looks good at the crease and gets lots of starts but never converts unless the score's at 3/250 already. Not only has that been a perennial problem within the team over the last year or two, but it also sends a message back to domestic cricket that what one needs to do to get into the team is create hype around oneself and make pretty unconverted starts. Even if we pick blokes like Rogers, Hughes or even Dussey and they fail, it'll send the right sort of message back that players need to work on scoring big runs to get picked.

And here's one I made about Marsh and Ferguson combined:

I like them both as players but I'd really like to see them put together a genuinely good period of Shield performances with some attritional tons before they got picked. If we saw either of them in the team now (pretending Fergo is fit for argument's sake) we'd see a lot of the same frustrating problems we see in the Test team at the moment - good looking starts thrown away, runs only scored when the team is on top, etc etc. They're actually a much more exaggerated version of these problems than the players we already have. What a want to see from there is that hunger for runs - until then I'd rather see Rogers, Hughes, Klinger, Jaques, Dave Hussey etc given a go because despite their faults we know they do have that hunger for runs and they'll make hay when the sun shines. If nothing else it'd send a positive message to the players at Shield level as to what they have to do; picking Ferguson or Marsh would tell the country that what you need to do to get in the team is create hype around yourself, look good at the crease and average mid 30s.

.. and I still very much stand by it. These guys need to show they're more hungry to make big scores and tough out difficult conditions before I'd advocate their selections. I'm not saying you should merely just look at the averages and pick the bloke with the highest one whenever a batting slot opens up, but I don't think mid-30s is enough to be in consideration, particularly given the fact that Marsh's last full season was actually much, much worse than that.

 

[NUFAN]

You mention some good points, but Australia are surely not going to give another guy in his 30s a go when we've already got Katich, Ponting and Hussey, don't you think? Which is unfortunate for C.Rogers and rules out Dussey and maybe Jaques although he does have test runs on the board and if he had a Katich like season scoring 1500 runs he would be in contention..

Klinger and Hughes are both on the 'good' side of 30, you've got Marsh, Klinger, Khawaja, Hughes, White, Cosgrove, Ferguson, Bailey in that group at the moment, just as an exercise where would you rank the above 8 for the following categories (if you could be arsed).

Can convert a start into a big score:
Bats well in tough conditions:
Scores freely when needed:
Looks comfortable in big matches:

 

[Kylez]

Yes, I used to not think much of Shaun Marsh but after watching him bat the last few seasons, he has grown on me. Drives the ball pretty well and is also an excellent player of the short ball, I've seen him hammer some hook and pull shots before. He does tend to play around his front pad sometimes and LBW can sometimes be a problem but I do think he will play for Australia but I'm not sure about the Number 3 spot, I think Khawaja will bat there.