-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2013/14
- Thread starter TimAngas
- Start date
the big bambino
International Captain
True but Johnson was picked on a hunch of speed. Plus everyone else in front of him fell over so he Bradburied his way into the team. Also you could pick Johnson on past form. Maybe he would win a test for us and that would be cool enough. That he went onto bowl so brilliantly exceeded expectations but those expectations and the circumstances at the time justified selection.
But what the **** is the reasoning for Marsh? What has he done? He's like our Tremlett selection but Tremlett had an experience of success at test level in Oz. What are the selectors pointing at to justify Marsh?. He reckons he was surprised at his call up. So were we all but at least he admits it. Then he goes onto say he's learned his lesson from his failings. What bull ****. He's stuffed around in the shield perhaps contented he'll play out his career as an odi and T20 specialist and that, I'd reasonably speculate, would have been the limit of his ambitions. Then he gets called up for the test squad against the best side in their own paddock with the kind of bouncy bowlers that always find him out. Well fmd. Way to take the air out of a heady summer.
Neither do I see the problem with Hughes IF Marsh is the alternative. I've only see him in T20 but he looks to have greater fluency on the leg side. He doesn't look as knotted and choked on that side of the wicket as he used to. Yes he still has problems there. Plus he still looks like he nicks off. But he does seem to have improved imo. He looks more likely to overcome his limitations and may even use Smith as an inspiration. He might be a baby face but Hughes is a bit of a determined dog. I think he still has the belief to fulfil his potential inspite of the setbacks. Determination is no guarantee for selection but I have more faith in player that has it and works works works. Certainly more deserving than a bludger like Marsh and I can't help feeling that his selection will have a greater effect on morale than anything Hughes might have done if he was selected and failed.
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
I think it is telling that 6 months ago there was debate over every position in the Aus line up save for a couple. The fact that in that short time you have now got 10 locks and the only debate (fun though it is) is over one spot in the order is surely a credit to your selectors and coaches?? I think given this turn around you have to have a bit of faith in them and just see what pans out?
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Look, this is the last I'll say on it until someone actually brings up analysis on Marsh's short comings instead of just saying he has been poor in shield cricket. We ****ing know he has been.
Marsh had one bad series. and it was a mother ****ing train wreck of a series. How many players have had bad series over the course of their career? Some reason we forget how Marsh started his career, apparently those runs were just luck though so I can understand why they're overlooked.
Australia, despite their recent success, are not flush for batting talent. The cupboard is close to bare. Marsh has had mental problems in the past and has been a little soft. For the good of Australian cricket, we need a successful Shaun Marsh. Picking 40 year olds who have failed even more than Marsh in test cricket is not the answer.
We have a settled line up (compared to recent times) and now is the time to try a guy like Marsh who has the ability to be a really good international cricketer.
Having said that, I would be very very disappointed if he gets first go because Alex Doolan has just as good a game and is younger and he needs to have first go.
Marsh had one bad series. and it was a mother ****ing train wreck of a series. How many players have had bad series over the course of their career? Some reason we forget how Marsh started his career, apparently those runs were just luck though so I can understand why they're overlooked.
Australia, despite their recent success, are not flush for batting talent. The cupboard is close to bare. Marsh has had mental problems in the past and has been a little soft. For the good of Australian cricket, we need a successful Shaun Marsh. Picking 40 year olds who have failed even more than Marsh in test cricket is not the answer.
We have a settled line up (compared to recent times) and now is the time to try a guy like Marsh who has the ability to be a really good international cricketer.
Having said that, I would be very very disappointed if he gets first go because Alex Doolan has just as good a game and is younger and he needs to have first go.
Last edited:
the big bambino
International Captain
I don't think that's the way to look at it. Besides if we bring up all the selector stuff ups there'd be plenty of reasons to doubt them. There just isn't a single reason for picking Marsh and we are about to see why again. I hope Doolan gets a run. But I think they are looking at six. Marsh has batted high in the past but Doolan is a no.3 now. I'm thinking they'll give Marsh 1st go if its a direct swap for Bailey - which logically it is.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I don't think your view is incorrect by any stretch. But at the same time it is perfectly understandable for people to think that despite his obvious talent, that he shouldn't be picked because he is consistently underperforming at first class level.
Of course that isn't always an indicator of likelihood of success. And of course you shouldn't just judge a player solely on numbers. But in this case, Marsh's numbers and performances are so bad that those that think he definitively doesn't deserve to be there for that reason aren't necessarily wrong. They may be proven wrong in due course of course, but their view is not unreasonable.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm not saying their view is unreasonable. Their argument of purely numbers is just one I'm not interested in.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I know this is a change to your usual modus operandi but how about you provide some analysis rather than sweeping statements for a change
Let's start with Marsh
Why do you believe that he has the game to contribute with the bat at test level when he struggles to maintain a place in his state team?
Nb. saying that he's "talented" or "mentally ready" will be treated with the contempt it deserves unless accompanied by a full technical analysis
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
lol yeah mate I never provide technical analysis. I'm all about the words.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
adub
International Captain
I said earlier in this threat that what the yarpies will do with Marsh is dry up his singles and bowl fullish in the corridor. They'll pick up the edge or get one to move in a bit to attack the stumps. In fairness that ain't a great revelation as it will be pretty standard sop to most top order bats. I wouldn't say Marsh has a glaring singular weakness in the same way you just knew second slip was in the game when Bailey came in, but he's going to keep the cordon interested. He's also a bit of an lb/bowled candidate but not in Watson's class. In all he just seems to find a way to get out. Concentration, not watching it closely enough whatever. In the end it not up to those of us dismayed by the selection to explain exactly how he is going to get out. It's up to his boosters to explain why the best bowling attack in the world aren't going to work over this nuffy with a 35 average the way they'd work over any other nuffy with a 35 average and the way Shield bowlers have done to him for 13 seasons. They're the ones holding him out to be a special case, all I'm saying is that he isn't.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The fact that he has no massive glaring weakness IS a reason to select him though. His big weaknesses are as you say the inability to rotate strike on a regular basis (but not to the Khawaja level) and the fact that he has a tendency to play outside the line of his head early on in his innings.
Having said that, he is one of the best back foot players in the Australian game, he is excellent on the front foot (if not at times a little lazy) and plays spin very well as well (not that it will be a big factor this series).
He is one of the most still batsmen in Australia at the moment, if not the stillest and gets himself in perfect positions. Just looking at his game you know his shortcomings are mental at the start of his innings (maybe nerves, who knows) and sometimes relies on poor balls, but I mean **** me, SA are going to work out the other options far more easily than they are Marsh.
And he has had success in test cricket. That's a fact. It wasn't luck, it was a man with talent making runs.
Having said that, he is one of the best back foot players in the Australian game, he is excellent on the front foot (if not at times a little lazy) and plays spin very well as well (not that it will be a big factor this series).
He is one of the most still batsmen in Australia at the moment, if not the stillest and gets himself in perfect positions. Just looking at his game you know his shortcomings are mental at the start of his innings (maybe nerves, who knows) and sometimes relies on poor balls, but I mean **** me, SA are going to work out the other options far more easily than they are Marsh.
And he has had success in test cricket. That's a fact. It wasn't luck, it was a man with talent making runs.
Last edited:
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And furthermore, he doesn't hit the ball in the air.