-
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 + South Africa in Australia 2016/17
- Thread starter StephenZA
- Start date
It could play almost anywhere in the same way me and my mates could play almost anywhere.
Bahseph
International Debutant
This situation with Marsh reminds me of SA's post-Kallis obsession with finding an all rounder. For months leading up to the first Test against Aus in 2014 the media was going crazy about how we would cope.
That lead to Ryan McLaren and Robin Peterson being picked at 7 & 8. The plan was quickly abandoned because the selectors realised that neither of them were good enough to play on one discipline and it weakened the team. Now SA were lucky cos AB kept wicket so Duminy could play and contribute with his bowling to a degree, but the fact remains that you can't have a player with such glaring defensive faults in your top 7. This applies to Marsh.
Shane Watson had his detractors but he was a way better Test bat and his bowling was always useful. Surely Voges and Smith could be asked to bowl 10 overs a day between them and then you get a batsman at 6. There's no point picking an all rounder for the sake of it if he isn't a major contributer in one dicipline. To the Aus fans, how confident would you be with Marsh walking in at 40/4?
That lead to Ryan McLaren and Robin Peterson being picked at 7 & 8. The plan was quickly abandoned because the selectors realised that neither of them were good enough to play on one discipline and it weakened the team. Now SA were lucky cos AB kept wicket so Duminy could play and contribute with his bowling to a degree, but the fact remains that you can't have a player with such glaring defensive faults in your top 7. This applies to Marsh.
Shane Watson had his detractors but he was a way better Test bat and his bowling was always useful. Surely Voges and Smith could be asked to bowl 10 overs a day between them and then you get a batsman at 6. There's no point picking an all rounder for the sake of it if he isn't a major contributer in one dicipline. To the Aus fans, how confident would you be with Marsh walking in at 40/4?
Marius
International Debutant
Yeah, I agree.
Marsh isn't good enough in the side on either his batting or bowling. If you want an all-rounder they need to have at least one discipline where they would be in the side anyway, even if they weren't playing as an all-rounder.
If Kallis couldn't bowl he would still be the first name on your teamsheet because of his batting. That is definitely not the case with Mitchell Marsh.
I have always been in favour of investing in him because of his talent, but clearly he should be drinking in last chance saloon. Just done so little with bat, even accepting excuses about opportunities.
Bahseph
International Debutant
Genuinely thought it was a selection philosophy to have an allrounder in the mix. He is fine as a fourth seamer, if he gets his batting to even the level of his ODI returns I think he will have a good run. I just hope they don't keep picking him until there is an overwhelming perception that he can't cut it at this level. I think he could eventually.
StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If Aus had a keeper than could bat 6, then M.Marsh at 7 is perfect for him. For all his talent he just does not look like a number 6. If you don`t have keeper that can bat top 6 and no genuine batting all rounders, then you have to suck it up, play your best 6 batsmen, 4 bowlers and keeper. There is a reason quality all rounders are rare, but there seems this mystical belief every test team needs an all rounder, yes it helps bring balance but is not a requirement.
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
But the important question is does he make it to a club side in Australia?
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yup. He actually had a really promising start to his career (batted really well in the UAE from memory) but has really struggled since replacing Watson.
Gnske
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Watto got far too much hate out of jealousy for Herculean physique of the gods, which was his downfall at the end of the day. Such a beautiful body of work could never have succeeded, because his body itself was success defined.
On Marsh though, I think the M. Marsh bowled dismissal will be on par with the Watson LBW in terms of meme if he keeps getting preferential treatment and selection for the next 10 years like Watson (except the latter deserved it).
sheldon65
Cricket Spectator
I think his issue was he was given too many different roles with the bat during his career, and when his bowling wasn't up to par people took a closer look at his batting stats. An average of 35 is acceptable for an all rounder that bats at 6/7 but not for someone who bats in the top 3.
Bijed
International Regular
Yeah, that's my perception too, though I did a quick check and he averaged 37 or so batting 1-3 and 23 batting 4-7. Whilst his bowling certainly wasn't bad, I think it's fair to say he didn't bowl enough to justify taking a batsman's spot after his run of form whilst opening had ended. Still reckon people were too harsh on him when he was making runs, though.
sheldon65
Cricket Spectator
I think that lately sides are overestimating the value of all rounders. If you have someone good enough the be in the side as both a batsman and a bowler then great but marsh is not in that category. Surely in home conditions you either pick 5 bowlers or trust the 4 experienced bowlers they have to get the job done.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That was the great problem with Watto. He was at his best opening the batting, but if you played him at that position you're effectively entering the game with one review down already.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
With Ponting as captain, Watson went up the order to open and averaged 41 under his captaincy.
Clarke moved him all around the order and he averaged 31.
Ponting put faith in him and gave him a role that suited him. Clarke ****ed him around and made him feel unstable.
Watson thrived on feeling important, Ponting got that, but Clarke was too selfish to get it.
Clarke moved him all around the order and he averaged 31.
Ponting put faith in him and gave him a role that suited him. Clarke ****ed him around and made him feel unstable.
Watson thrived on feeling important, Ponting got that, but Clarke was too selfish to get it.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not surprising considering Clarke and Watson supposedly hated each other
hindsight really shows what a genuinely good, unselfish bloke Ricky Ponting was. Especially compared to others.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Ferguson and Mennie debuting apparently. It's been a bloody long wait for Ferguson hasn't it.