***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2013/14

[benchmark00]

knowledgeable person's eyes gave us Bailey.

knowledgeable person's eyes gave us Maxwell

knowledgeable person's eyes gave us Agar

and Doherty, and Beer, and Hastings, and Quiney and all the other ****ing stupid selections we've come up with over the last couple of years.

Everyone thinks they're a more knowledgeable person that they really are. Which explains the above decisions.

The game is smarter than all the knowledgeable eyes you can poke a stick in. The rare occasions the knowledgeable eye's pick one out of left field that come off are vastly outnumbered by the times they turn out to be duds. It comes off no more often than random chance would allow because largely that is all it is. Sticking with the numbers doesn't guarantee success on every occasion, but it greatly increases the odds. Coaches exist to try help players develop their abilities, not to delude themselves that the player in question is better than he really is.

There's just no way that's true. Coaches exist to identify talent and figure out ways to maximise that talent. They don't exist to sit on their arse, look at score cards and then select accordingly. Marsh has wasted his potential to this point, there's no doubt about that. But the fact that these people work with these players day in and day out and know what their games are is the reason they get selected. Anyone can do what you're doing and just read the stats. Hey why don't we just select our XI based on who has had the best stats in the Shield??

The real world dictates that game styles is what counts when predicting success, pas success at a different level is a very poor indicator. The way you're painting selection out to be an exact science is just so far off the mark so please stop arguing against Marsh's selection based on stats it has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[benchmark00]

Which is the rare random chance that I referred to. No one ever doubted Mitch's potential to destroy, just that the odds weren't great that he wouldn't be just as like to destroy us. He proved the doubters wrong and good on him, but if jagging that call has emboldened Invers to go speculating on Marsh like they did on the other nuffies mentioned then we're in for a hard few years of seeing more crap selections justified by 'oh but we got MJ right'.

ffs, it's not random chance. It's looking at him bowl in the nets and how he's carrying himself. I got the MJ thing as wrong as anyone else and I can put my hand up. His selection wasn't random chance, it's the panel looking at him bowling and saying he can be formidable when provided with appropriate plans.

 

[benchmark00]

I mean ****, if Marsh fails, the reason will be because he has a shortcoming in his game, not because he's average x in Shield. Live in the real world is all I ask and argue why you think his game is not up to it like we all did with Bailey.

 

[social]

Marsh's stats don't lie - the guy has been a dud for the better part of 13 years

Furthermore, one of the people that has allegedly recommended him is the West Australian coach, Justin Langer

Now either Marsh is an unpolished diamond (in which case Langer is a dud coach) or he is a dud

 

[social]

I mean ****, if Marsh fails, the reason will be because he has a shortcoming in his game, not because he's average x in Shield. Live in the real world is all I ask and argue why you think his game is not up to it like we all did with Bailey.

He averages X in the shield because he has shortcomings in his game

Cant see why that is so hard to work out

 

[adub]

The reason Marsh has a **** record is because he has shortcomings in his game. That is the ****ing real world. If he wasn't a dud he would have better numbers. It's two sides of the same coin. You can't be **** and have good numbers (over a reasonable sample), and you can't have **** numbers if you're a good player. That's it. End of.

I don't hate Marsh's selection because he has **** numbers. I hate his selection because he's a **** player and he has been all his career. If he wasn't a **** player he wouldn't have such **** numbers. All the people spunking their load over him don't change that one simple fact. He's a **** and will always be a ****.

 

[Adders]

Which is the rare random chance that I referred to. No one ever doubted Mitch's potential to destroy, just that the odds weren't great that he wouldn't be just as like to destroy us. He proved the doubters wrong and good on him, but if jagging that call has emboldened Invers to go speculating on Marsh like they did on the other nuffies mentioned then we're in for a hard few years of seeing more crap selections justified by 'oh but we got MJ right'.

I was sort of playing devils advocate with my post and I get that you acknowledge that on occasion it can work and clearly Mitch was one of those........tbt I think there is truth and logic on both yours and Benchy's arguments.

Selection shouldn't be based on stats alone and of course the coaches and selectors have to see something in a player that sometimes the stats don't back up.......but I also think (and especially in a career as long as Marsh's) the numbers don't lie and you can't ignore Shield form. But as in the case with Johnson maybe they have seen a hunger or a work ethic or something that wasn't there before that has convinced them he's worth a shot??

 

[social]

I was sort of playing devils advocate with my post and I get that you acknowledge that on occasion it can work and clearly Mitch was one of those........tbt I think there is truth and logic on both yours and Benchy's arguments.

Selection shouldn't be based on stats alone and of course the coaches and selectors have to see something in a player that sometimes the stats don't back up.......but I also think (and especially in a career as long as Marsh's) the numbers don't lie. But as in the case with Johnson maybe they have seen a hunger or a work ethic or something that wasn't there before that has convinced them he's worth a shot??

Totally unreasonable to compare MJ with Marsh as the former had shown that he was capable of performing at the highest level on numerous occasions

 

[NUFAN]

BTW, does any fieldsman (who doesn't keep) with say 10 plus catches in their career, average above Bailey's 2 per game?

 

[benchmark00]

The reason Marsh has a **** record is because he has shortcomings in his game. That is the ****ing real world. If he wasn't a dud he would have better numbers. It's two sides of the same coin. You can't be **** and have good numbers (over a reasonable sample), and you can't have **** numbers if you're a good player. That's it. End of.

I don't hate Marsh's selection because he has **** numbers. I hate his selection because he's a **** player and he has been all his career. If he wasn't a **** player he wouldn't have such **** numbers. All the people spunking their load over him don't change that one simple fact. He's a **** and will always be a ****.

I can tell you what MArsh's short comings are, but can you please list the areas in which he is poor?

And 'because he averages x in shield cricket' is not an acceptable answer.

 

[Adders]

Totally unreasonable to compare MJ with Marsh as the former had shown that he was capable of performing at the highest level on numerous occasions

Yep, fair call. But there are some parallels that can be drawn even if only the fact that they are/were both contentious selections that were not supported by the majority. MJ proved the selectors right and the masses wrong, maybe Marsh will do the same??

Edit:

Oh Goody......Benchy is handing out exam papers again, hope we've all done our revision.

 

[benchmark00]

I can tell you what MArsh's short comings are, but can you please list the areas in which he is poor?

And 'because he averages x in shield cricket' is not an acceptable answer.

And 'dubbers, I ask you this because I want to have a discussion about why you think he won't succeed. At the moment all you've said is because he averages poorly in Shield. That's not a reason. Smith isn't going to have a meeting with Steyn and say 'yeah we'll bowl to his poor first class average'.

 

[Tangles]

What exactly is the case for Marsh? Looks good, has the right last name and people like his game enough to ignore his lack of results on the actual field. Is there more because that shouldn't be enough to jag a spot on a tour or in the top 6. Is having some standards to much to ask?

 

[hendrix]

I dare say it was someones knowledgeable eye that decided to give Mitchell Johnson another crack at test cricket............certainly not many of us "experts" here thought it a good call.

Just saying......

This is incorrect.

Mitch Johnson's stats have always stood up very well. He'd taken over 200 test wickets at a respectable average. There was noone else available for selection (i.e. not injured) who was ahead of him in terms of stats.

He had a poor couple of seasons and an extremely poor test a couple of years ago, but had come into good form. I would say people not wanting to pick him is more of an example of people using their "eyes" to judge him than stats. Certainly, his first wicket - I think it was a leg side strangle - had plenty of people saying "oh here we go again".

 

[Top_Cat]

Now I want Marsh to have a middling series so we can all keep arguing about it. Would be really disappointed if he averages 100 or 10. Solid 30, Marsh, please.

EDIT: No tons.

 

[adub]

I was sort of playing devils advocate with my post and I get that you acknowledge that on occasion it can work and clearly Mitch was one of those........tbt I think there is truth and logic on both yours and Benchy's arguments.

Selection shouldn't be based on stats alone and of course the coaches and selectors have to see something in a player that sometimes the stats don't back up.......but I also think (and especially in a career as long as Marsh's) the numbers don't lie. But as in the case with Johnson maybe they have seen a hunger or a work ethic or something that wasn't there before that has convinced them he's worth a shot??

Yeah look that's pretty much my position. Skidders00 as is his want (and the restrictions of the medium) grossly oversimplify my arguement to being a simple spreadsheet. Of course some discernment comes into it, but only when judging between players of similar ability. Whilst I've bagged Johnson I've never said his career record was so out of bounds that he should never have played tests, merely that others with better records probably deserved some of the second chances he has had over the years. With the injuries we had to the quicks it wasn't completely unreasonable to look at him even though from my distance he was too much of a risk. Those closer obviously saw something more and it ended up being a good call. Bravo.

But Marsh is a completely different kettle of fish. Nothing leading up to his original selection hinted that he would be a success. At best he was good for a ton every 12-18 months and a bunch of crud between that and his next injury. Luckily for him he started with the ton but didn't take too long to revert to his mean. Remember he was taken to pieces by an Indian attack that could only muster 46 wickets in a 4 test series. It wasn't Steyn, Philander and Morkel he was up against. Since then he has been just abysmal. He's had further disciplinary issues and scored the square root of **** all. His only real score in all that time has come when he was hiding down at 5 against an undermanned attack his team mates had already smashed about for 300 runs before he came in. If Marsh really has turned it around (and haven't we heard it all before) then a few Shield matches would be all he needs to prove it. We all know however that he wouldn't do jack in the Shield, and why the **** should he? Never needed to to be selected before.

MJ was a punt but not that unreasonable to take considering the injury situation and informed by close observation. Anyone trying to justify Marsh on something they've seen in the nets should get their eyes tested.

 

[NUFAN]

Here are some reasons why Shaun Marsh is often a poor player.

Shaun Marsh - Duck Season (5 ducks in 8 innings) - YouTube

I'm going to be especially critical of his first two dismissals against India. They are typical Marsh outs in that he likes to feel bat onto ball, even when the ball is clearly outside off. The South African quicks should start with 4 slips, gully and point early on and I wont be surprised to see a fair few chances offered up.

On the plus side, Marsh is capable of batting anywhere in the top 6 so he is a decent reserve bat, he knows his teammates well enough and a younger guy gets to play Shield Cricket instead of sitting on the Test sidelines.

 

[social]

And 'dubbers, I ask you this because I want to have a discussion about why you think he won't succeed. At the moment all you've said is because he averages poorly in Shield. That's not a reason. Smith isn't going to have a meeting with Steyn and say 'yeah we'll bowl to his poor first class average'.

All they will need to do is bring up a couple of his Indian series dismissals

Meeting will last about 30 seconds

 

[Adders]

Noofers gonna get an A+ there.

 

[TimAngas]