4th Test at Old Trafford, Manchester

[Burgey]

No wonder you post the same drivel day in day out

Of course, my posts contain no mistakes, so as usual you've proven one doesn't need a long neck to be a goose.

 

[GotSpin]

It would be a terrible decision to choose Marsh

Selectors are just never held accountable for their jobs

 

[vcs]

Maybe it's just me but I don't mind MMarsh coming back at all. Yeah he's been terrible in Test cricket but he has it in him to play a monster innings like he did last Ashes, and reportedly this wicket will be relatively fast and bouncy and as long as there isn't excessive sideways movement it could really suit him.

When did he play a monster innings in the last Ashes? Both the Marsh brothers downhill-skiied to some easy runs after Smith broke the English attack.

 

[Second Spitter]

Past history also dictates that past history means nothing. You select based on your current situation , and right now Aus need a 5th bowler.

Why was Marsh picked in the squad to begin with is a different story. But you cant use past history as an excuse.

I'd back Starc to get more runs and wickets than MMarsh, itbt.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Of course, my posts contain no mistakes, so as usual you've proven one doesn't need a long neck to be a goose.

How do you know he doesn't have a long neck? And don't body shame

When did he play a monster innings in the last Ashes? Both the Marsh brothers downhill-skiied to some easy runs after Smith broke the English attack.

Perth, Sydney and to a lesser extent Melbourne. And yes they were pure downhill-skiing.

 

[Burgey]

Forget Marsh. Anyone who countenances Marsh as a viable selection needs their head read. Makes Tony Dodemaide seem like Garfield Sobers.

 

[vcs]

How do you know he doesn't have a long neck? And don't body shame



Perth, Sydney and to a lesser extent Melbourne. And yes they were pure downhill-skiing.

His returns since that series are terrible. As Burgey says, there's no upside to playing him at all unless you absolutely require a fifth bowler. He's never going to turn into a Stokes so why persist.

 

[aussie tragic]

I would never normally pick Marsh, however he is the only alternative in the squad who hasn't had a chance yet (can't be worse than Bancroft and Harris).

He has done everything asked of on tour with 178 runs @ 44.50 and 9 wkts @ 12.11 in the 3 tour games. In the 4 List A games for Aus A he also made 126 runs without being dismissed and took 5 wkts @ 29.60.

 

[Daemon]

Wasn’t great in the shield tbf. 30 odd with the bat and 40 with the ball.

Australia will happily take those numbers if he can replicate them at the international level though.

 

[the big bambino]

I’d rather they pick Bancroft again over Marsh or play all four of Starc Haze Cummins and Pattinson.

 

[aussie tragic]

I’d rather they pick Bancroft again over Marsh or play all four of Starc Haze Cummins and Pattinson.

Archer will be happy with Paine at 6 followed by this lot and Lyon lol

 

[Daemon]

I’d rather they pick Bancroft again over Marsh or play all four of Starc Haze Cummins and Pattinson.

That’s just silly. Bancroft is a walking wicket. Marsh is a walking wicket but can bowl some decent lineage and length.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Marsh will make you all eat your words. You'll see. You'll all see.

 

[Spark]

I’d rather they pick Bancroft again over Marsh or play all four of Starc Haze Cummins and Pattinson.

Sometimes I wonder "could CW really do worse than the current selectors" and then I see stuff like this and I remember "yes, yes they really could"

 

[GoodAreasShane]

The Bancroft comment was odd but I honestly would probably prefer five frontline bowlers over Marsh at 6. That would work out much stronger with bowling and only slightly weaker in batting, Cummins Pattinson and Starc combined isn't a bad tail.

Certainly wouldn't go that way personally, but I have so little faith with MMarsh with the stick that I honestly believe it is a marginally better option

 

[StephenZA]

That’s just silly. Bancroft is a walking wicket. Marsh is a walking wicket but can bowl some decent lineage and length.

I don't know how deliberate that was for a Marsh brother...

 

[Spark]

The Bancroft comment was odd but I honestly would probably prefer five frontline bowlers over Marsh at 6. That would work out much stronger with bowling and only slightly weaker in batting, Cummins Pattinson and Starc combined isn't a bad tail.

Certainly wouldn't go that way personally, but I have so little faith with MMarsh with the stick that I honestly believe it is a marginally better option

On the other hand, it could be the exact opposite of this instead

 

[GoodAreasShane]

On the other hand, it could be the exact opposite of this instead

What are you even talking about?

I don't mind MMarsh the bowler tbh, yet you seem to be suggesting he is better than than some of the specialist fast bowlers in the squad, and that is obviously major BS

 

[Spark]

What are you even talking about?

I don't mind MMarsh the bowler tbh, yet you seem to be suggesting he is better than than some of the specialist fast bowlers in the squad, and that is obviously major BS

It would be only marginally stronger in bowling at yes, and it would significantly weaken the batting. Haven't there been enough examples of how scoring runs at 8 =/= scoring runs at 6/7 to dispense with this idea?

5 specialist batsmen, keeper, 3 quicks, spinner. Raffle the last spot between all-rounder and specialist batsman. Worked for 120 years, will work now.

 

[the big bambino]

Sometimes I wonder "could CW really do worse than the current selectors" and then I see stuff like this and I remember "yes, yes they really could"

Now now, does your post need to be dickish? I picked my team earlier and that is still the one I’d go with. The post you quoted represents alternatives to the likelihood of Marsh being picked, though not my actual choice. I think any alternative to Marsh would be preferable and the post quoted just an illustration as to how ridiculous Marsh’s continuous selection is.