The Battlers Prince
International Vice-Captain
So you have to be a good bloke according what he thinks is a good bloke? So, if he doesn’t like you then you’re out. Good policy. Darsh must be the best man ever to make up for his lack of runs.
-
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.
Australian test selection 2018/19
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He must think Renshaw has been sleeping with his wife then. And Maxwell must have killed someone.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Langer comments. The shorter format can act as an audition for tests. What happened to the 30 run rule?
Marsh's test slump should have no bearing on his ODI selection. But you also said you will recognise runs wherever they came from and he just averaged 3!
On merit Marsh has to play one dayers. He's recently scored 2 odi hundreds. Ok but how does he merit his test spot?
The only currency of value are runs. Or any other bullshit you come up with to justify your prejudices.
Australia is being forced to pick players who average in the low 30s for tests. Well then stand up and call out the ban on your 3 test batsmen who average considerably more than that, for the injustice and overreaction that it is. Throw that arsehole Sutherland under the bus for shitting on the desk and throwing you the keys as he walks out the door. Get them back and hopefully a fit Khawaja and we just might be able to compete with India this summer.
Marsh's test slump should have no bearing on his ODI selection. But you also said you will recognise runs wherever they came from and he just averaged 3!
On merit Marsh has to play one dayers. He's recently scored 2 odi hundreds. Ok but how does he merit his test spot?
The only currency of value are runs. Or any other bullshit you come up with to justify your prejudices.
Australia is being forced to pick players who average in the low 30s for tests. Well then stand up and call out the ban on your 3 test batsmen who average considerably more than that, for the injustice and overreaction that it is. Throw that arsehole Sutherland under the bus for shitting on the desk and throwing you the keys as he walks out the door. Get them back and hopefully a fit Khawaja and we just might be able to compete with India this summer.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Ah, Renshaw averages more than low 30s, so does Maxwell, why aren't they being picked?
Blow it out your ****hole Langer.
quincywagstaff
International Debutant
Is this ‘good bloke’ thing anything new? Pretty sure it occurred in the Steve Waugh era; certainly seems the prime reason why Michael Slater was discarded because it was perceived (rightly or wrongly) that he’d gone off the rails. And of course Slater’s omission probably saved Langer’s career. Wasn’t the only one who suffered in that era from what I’ve heard.
The big difference is whether it’s right or not, but whether it works. In the Waugh era you could do it because Australia was so enormously talented and the best side going around. Much more risky now, especially with Langer so explicit about it.
The big difference is whether it’s right or not, but whether it works. In the Waugh era you could do it because Australia was so enormously talented and the best side going around. Much more risky now, especially with Langer so explicit about it.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Yep. maybe they're not good blokes? Basically comes back to the response to Langer comment no.4: Any BS that justifies his prejudices.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Renshaw and Maxwell and Burns all average over 40 and have test match experience. One went on tour and didn't get picked. The other two were left at home.
Sure, 40 is not 50 like was possible even five years ago but it's a hell of a lot better than the low 30s.
Sure, 40 is not 50 like was possible even five years ago but it's a hell of a lot better than the low 30s.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think I may be literally the only regular poster on CW who'd pick Shaun Marsh for the next Test. Y'all can fight me IRL.
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Tend to think if Khawaja is out for the start of the Test summer then we pretty much have to select Darsh purely for experience
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I don't even really care about the experience. I just don't think there are better batsmen available.
If Smith, Khawaja and Warner were available, this is precisely when I'd be dropping Marsh, or possibly one Test ago. But at this point he could get a pair in the next Test and I'd still pick him after that. We know he can have horrendously bad trots of single-digit scores so this isn't evidence of a decline, and we also know that despite that he's a mediocre to decent Test batsman, capable of sporadic serious contributions. Mediocre to decent is well above the standard required to get in the team right now.
If Smith, Khawaja and Warner were available, this is precisely when I'd be dropping Marsh, or possibly one Test ago. But at this point he could get a pair in the next Test and I'd still pick him after that. We know he can have horrendously bad trots of single-digit scores so this isn't evidence of a decline, and we also know that despite that he's a mediocre to decent Test batsman, capable of sporadic serious contributions. Mediocre to decent is well above the standard required to get in the team right now.
Last edited:
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Fair enough I guess, a series like 0, 7, 0, 2, 155, 3, 0, 21, 128*, 0 is probably better than a lot of our other batsman could produce.
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Fair enough I guess, a series like 0, 7, 0, 2, 155, 3, 0, 21, 128*, 0 is probably better than a lot of our other batsman could produce.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I see where you're coming from, but when both Marshes are being joined by Low-30 merchants like Head and Labuschagne it's unacceptable.
If you can guarantee that, Marshes aside, the selectors will pick the best players available (Renshaw, Maxwell, Burns, Ferguson etc.) then I wouldn't argue too much about selecting them. Maybe the Marshes are in the best available team, but there are better players being left out.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think this is part of the problem. They should be treated as separate players. "LOL MARSH BROTHERS" is a funny meme but it's not a serious analysis given they're totally different players with different records, different strengths and weaknesses, at different phases in their careers etc.
I feel like both their places are under more pressure just because they're related and the other one also failed in this apparently career-defining two Test series. It's funny but it's dumb. I struggle to take any post that references "both Marshes" or "Marsh brothers" together as if their cases are in any way similar aside from failing in this series. Sometimes they're funny, but it's Facebook meme stuff, not CW serious stuff.
The fact that I think Burns is a **** ****, that while Maxwell being left out in the UAE was criminal that his relative prospects in Australia are slightly less good, and that I don't care about Labuschagne taking a few wickets might be obscuring the conversation slightly though. It might not be that I rate Shaun Marsh higher than you guys but that I rate his potential replacements (Ferguson aside, who I think is of very similar overall quality) less than you do.