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

[Top_Cat]

See? All words!

 

[social]

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.

Aside from the mental side of his game, he has a MASSIVE glaring weakness and the entire cricketing world knows about it - hence the career record

 

[Jono]

And furthermore, he doesn't hit the ball in the air.

Was in the wrong thread and thought this was about Peter Luczac

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Playing devil's advocate here a bit, but given his problems are largely mental, does that not make the quality of the opposition less important than it would be for other players? If he's been getting himself out through lack of concentration, then his ability to technically handle the bowling could well see him average a similar amount at all levels. And I'll tell you this much - if Australia's sixth batsman (where he bat 3 or 6 - still the sixth selected bloke) averages 35 against South Africa in South Africa, they'll take that at the moment.

The fact that he averages 35 in First Class cricket isn't so much the issue, with me. It's a good way to point out that he's over-rated or that he doesn't deserve to be picked, but selection isn't all about picking players based on how well they've performed in the past or giving players deserved medals of honour. I think it's a poor pick, but it's really because of the sequence of events than anything. It's important to not ignore performance - and I use the word performance rather than averages as they don't always match up - at Shield level or players will end up focussing on looking like they'll score runs rather than developing ways to actually do it, but it doesn't have to be a complete blanket policy.

The issue for me is that he got dropped from the side and he has not improved his game at all since then; if anything his weaknesses have been much more pronounced. To get back in the side, for me, he needed to actually perform well to demonstrate things might be different this time. He's performed really poorly since then, and it's not just "that he's averaged 25"; that's just a numerical representation of the fact that he's gone out to the middle and played poor cricket, which he has. He's also had some serious off-field issues in that time which, for a player who even himself would probably admit his issues were largely mental rather a poor technique or a lack of ability, are a bad sign.

He should be further away from the side now than he was when he got the chop; a lot further IMO. Yeah, different selection panel and a couple of retirements can change that a bit, but it does seem a bit silly that you drop a bloke and then recall him a couple of years later when his performances haven't been up to par at the level of cricket you dropped him down to.

 

[Dan]

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.

What do you feel has prevented him from racking up the 45+ average in FC cricket that a guy with his technique and obvious talent should have? Nerves at the start of his innings can't be the only explanation, otherwise he'd presumably have a lot more FC hundreds (a distribution of scores not unlike Marcus North's in Test cricket).

That inability to rotate the strike and reliance on poor balls building pressure if he gets a sustained spell of quality fast bowling?
Some form of mental indiscipline, laziness, or lack of concentration?

It's not like it can be written off as "oh he should average 50 but he's been unlucky for 13 years at FC level", and there's no way you'd suggest such a thing. I think we'd both agree that there has to be some reason why he's never lived up to his potential. So why is it that a player as technically-limited as Phil Hughes has 3 times as many tons in half the career of Marsh, at a significantly better average?

 

[Top_Cat]

Same reason Hussey averaged high-30's for WA for a decade.

 

[morgieb]

Same reason Hussey averaged high-30's for WA for a decade.

Hussey scored his runs in a much tougher competition though IMO.

 

[benchmark00]

What do you feel has prevented him from racking up the 45+ average in FC cricket that a guy with his technique and obvious talent should have? Nerves at the start of his innings can't be the only explanation, otherwise he'd presumably have a lot more FC hundreds (a distribution of scores not unlike Marcus North's in Test cricket).

That inability to rotate the strike and reliance on poor balls building pressure if he gets a sustained spell of quality fast bowling?
Some form of mental indiscipline, laziness, or lack of concentration?

It's not like it can be written off as "oh he should average 50 but he's been unlucky for 13 years at FC level", and there's no way you'd suggest such a thing. I think we'd both agree that there has to be some reason why he's never lived up to his potential. So why is it that a player as technically-limited as Phil Hughes has 3 times as many tons in half the career of Marsh, at a significantly better average?

I honestly think it's because he doesn't care as much as he should. He doesn't work as hard and just rides on his talent.

IMO there's a part of Marsh, no matter how small it is, that thinks he's too good for state cricket. I've watched him a fair bit in first class cricket (because I like watching him play) on streams etc and he often just plays shots which reek of 'I'm better than this bloke so I'm going to take him through covers no matter what'. This attitude is not conducive to performing, there's no doubt about it.

There's a long list of sports people who just ride on their talent and get by. Marsh is one of them. He is so comfortable that **** like what happened at the champions league happens. That is inexcusable.

Now, players like Marsh, who stagnate at the state level get motivated when they move up a level. I'm no psychologist, but IMO a guy like Marsh changes his mindset because when he goes to national level he's no longer a big fish (in his head). He has things to prove and he's no longer just the best there because of his talent, he's now playing against people he believes are his equals. That's why I think he performs so well in ODI's. He's doing it against other internationals.

I'm not defending his attitude, but it is what it is. It's what I've witnessed in Marsh over his career.

Since that incident at the champions league, Marsh played well at the back of that FC season and then ripped the **** up against the Lions and then for Australian in one dayers. Yeah he hasn't produced the numbers we all want him to, but if you dangle a carrot in front of a guy that talented and provide an environment where he has to scrap there's a better chance he's going to reach his potential.

 

[Top_Cat]

Cosgrove similarly gifted and with the same attitude except the carrot was a mistake*.

*should have been a hot-pack

 

[the big bambino]

The reason why Marsh has never lived up to his potential is maybe he just isn't as good as we thought he was and the selectors still think he is. Maybe that's all he is; a 35 player at fc level who looks so much better than his actual performances (and yes folks that's what an average indicates - how good you've been) tell you. Think he's good? Then you've been seduced. Open your eyes. He'll never change sweet hearts.

 

[adub]

The issue for me is that he got dropped from the side and he has not improved his game at all since then; if anything his weaknesses have been much more pronounced. To get back in the side, for me, he needed to actually perform well to demonstrate things might be different this time. He's performed really poorly since then, and it's not just "that he's averaged 25"; that's just a numerical representation of the fact that he's gone out to the middle and played poor cricket, which he has. He's also had some serious off-field issues in that time which, for a player who even himself would probably admit his issues were largely mental rather a poor technique or a lack of ability, are a bad sign.

And the highlighted quote is exactly my point. If he had been playing good cricket he wouldn't be averaging 25. As I've said hundreds of times the numbers don't tell you everything, but they do tell you a lot. I could go through video of all his innings and write a ****ing essay on all the ways he's ****ed up, but what would be the point when stating he's averaged 25 tells you succinctly the important information. He's not poor because he averages 35 (or 25 since being dropped, or 12.8 batting top this season), he has these numbers because he's poor and in even poorer form than his normal poor (at least up until Dec and we have no idea how his red ball form is presently). A guy with Marsh's obvious technical qualities (which no one has ever doubted) should not have his record if he is up to it. But he does have his record and it's getting worse not better. Therefore he is not up to it Q.E.D.

Pointing to his few good innings doesn't change this fact. No one is claiming he's a park cricketer. He clearly is good enough to make runs when the planets align. He clearly is not good enough to do it as regularly as his better peers, nor regularly enough to be seriously considered Test quality. Those pumping his tyres are engaging in wishful thinking. He looks good so magically he's going to stop getting out cheaply so often. Surely if that was going to happen it probably would have happened in the Shield at sometime in the last decade.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah blokes who make tons on test debut are mugs.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah blokes who make tons on test debut are mugs.

so this is an admission skippy sinclair is a gun?

 

[adub]

I honestly think it's because he doesn't care as much as he should. He doesn't work as hard and just rides on his talent.

IMO there's a part of Marsh, no matter how small it is, that thinks he's too good for state cricket. I've watched him a fair bit in first class cricket (because I like watching him play) on streams etc and he often just plays shots which reek of 'I'm better than this bloke so I'm going to take him through covers no matter what'. This attitude is not conducive to performing, there's no doubt about it.

There's a long list of sports people who just ride on their talent and get by. Marsh is one of them. He is so comfortable that **** like what happened at the champions league happens. That is inexcusable.

Now, players like Marsh, who stagnate at the state level get motivated when they move up a level. I'm no psychologist, but IMO a guy like Marsh changes his mindset because when he goes to national level he's no longer a big fish (in his head). He has things to prove and he's no longer just the best there because of his talent, he's now playing against people he believes are his equals. That's why I think he performs so well in ODI's. He's doing it against other internationals.

I'm not defending his attitude, but it is what it is. It's what I've witnessed in Marsh over his career.

Since that incident at the champions league, Marsh played well at the back of that FC season and then ripped the **** up against the Lions and then for Australian in one dayers. Yeah he hasn't produced the numbers we all want him to, but if you dangle a carrot in front of a guy that talented and provide an environment where he has to scrap there's a better chance he's going to reach his potential.

So he's a ****.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah blokes who make tons on test debut are mugs.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah you're still tasting that.

 

[Dan]

I honestly think it's because he doesn't care as much as he should. He doesn't work as hard and just rides on his talent.

IMO there's a part of Marsh, no matter how small it is, that thinks he's too good for state cricket. I've watched him a fair bit in first class cricket (because I like watching him play) on streams etc and he often just plays shots which reek of 'I'm better than this bloke so I'm going to take him through covers no matter what'. This attitude is not conducive to performing, there's no doubt about it.

There's a long list of sports people who just ride on their talent and get by. Marsh is one of them. He is so comfortable that **** like what happened at the champions league happens. That is inexcusable.

Now, players like Marsh, who stagnate at the state level get motivated when they move up a level. I'm no psychologist, but IMO a guy like Marsh changes his mindset because when he goes to national level he's no longer a big fish (in his head). He has things to prove and he's no longer just the best there because of his talent, he's now playing against people he believes are his equals. That's why I think he performs so well in ODI's. He's doing it against other internationals.

I'm not defending his attitude, but it is what it is. It's what I've witnessed in Marsh over his career.

Since that incident at the champions league, Marsh played well at the back of that FC season and then ripped the **** up against the Lions and then for Australian in one dayers. Yeah he hasn't produced the numbers we all want him to, but if you dangle a carrot in front of a guy that talented and provide an environment where he has to scrap there's a better chance he's going to reach his potential.

Yeah, I thought that might have been your opinion on it. And Marsh is far from the only one in that sort of situation. Jesse Ryder did it when he was back in NZ domestic cricket, only playing in a more 'dominant' style of play, hitting run-a-ball tons or getting out bowled trying to smack his third ball over the bowler's head for six. I thought I saw elements of it in Maddinson towards the end of last year as well, making run-a-ball 50s and getting out (but then he went and did it on the A tour as well, so I'm less convinced it's a case of the cbfs so much as "that's the way he plays").

I'm not quite sure what I posted at the time of Marsh's initial call-up, but IMO picking him at that time was a decent enough piece of selection - we were desperate for a number three, and picking a guy who looks the goods in the hope that Test cricket would motivate him was a sensible enough option. Better than picking, say, David Hussey in the same role.

The thing that has muddied the waters in Marsh's case is that horror series. He made the big "**** you doubters, I can step up" Test ton on debut, and looked good enough in those first few games. But then he hurt his back in South Africa and averaged about as much as Chris Martin in the India series. Yeah, everyone has rough patches, but the series was that bad that it eroded any credit he had in the bank. It wasn't a series that you could write off as him getting good balls with everyone else struggling too; there had to be something at play there - either physical, technical or mental. Combine that with his recent FC average and his lack of consistent cricket due to injuries, and it's pretty tough to reselect him with any real confidence.

I mean, you would hope that the poor series would have spurred him on to work his arse off, at least for a season, in order to prove that the India series was an anomaly and he still was class. It links into what Cribb said above - you'd hope that he'd be willing to put aside the "I'm better than these blokes" attitude for a while to prove himself as a gun deserving of reselection, but he simply hasn't made those big scores that have counted. Yet you put him against international opposition in ODIs or A-team games and he's performed at every opportunity.

It's not unlike the Bailey selection in some ways - we need someone to bat 6, he doesn't have the FC numbers behind him, but he has made international runs (albeit in different conditions against very different opposition). Only unlike Bailey, he doesn't have the obvious technical weakness. It's imperfect and it could go either way; we just have to hope that ODI form and ton on debut Smarsh shows up, not India series and recent Shield Smarsh.

 

[dermo]

nah we just have to hope d00lers gets first go like he should

 

[wiff]

Cosgrove similarly gifted and with the same attitude except the carrot* was a mistake.

*should have been a carrot cake

fixed

 

[social]

I honestly think it's because he doesn't care as much as he should. He doesn't work as hard and just rides on his talent.

IMO there's a part of Marsh, no matter how small it is, that thinks he's too good for state cricket. I've watched him a fair bit in first class cricket (because I like watching him play) on streams etc and he often just plays shots which reek of 'I'm better than this bloke so I'm going to take him through covers no matter what'. This attitude is not conducive to performing, there's no doubt about it.

There's a long list of sports people who just ride on their talent and get by. Marsh is one of them. He is so comfortable that **** like what happened at the champions league happens. That is inexcusable.

Now, players like Marsh, who stagnate at the state level get motivated when they move up a level. I'm no psychologist, but IMO a guy like Marsh changes his mindset because when he goes to national level he's no longer a big fish (in his head). He has things to prove and he's no longer just the best there because of his talent, he's now playing against people he believes are his equals. That's why I think he performs so well in ODI's. He's doing it against other internationals.

I'm not defending his attitude, but it is what it is. It's what I've witnessed in Marsh over his career.

Since that incident at the champions league, Marsh played well at the back of that FC season and then ripped the **** up against the Lions and then for Australian in one dayers. Yeah he hasn't produced the numbers we all want him to, but if you dangle a carrot in front of a guy that talented and provide an environment where he has to scrap there's a better chance he's going to reach his potential.

Most of what you have said here is total horse**** but you have touched upon the glaring technical deficiency that results in him being a walking wicket against better bowlers when they are supported by slips

<credibility00 mode> Keep guessing as I have better things to do than educate you

<moderately generous Social mode> The answer lies in the proportion of the bat capable of hitting the ball when the batsmen attempts to hit it to certain areas of the ground

Good luck as some of us want you to adopt a more human persona