Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Why? Cos I think a young guy with a good technique could become a test #3? Kmate.

Because he quite clearly doesn't have the consistency or temperament for #3. People say those two things can be learned, but that's only in the rare cases. He could definitely be a #5 batsman or even a #4 but #3? I'm betting very strongly on no, especially if he intends to become a genuine 3rd or 4th seamer. 4th ball of an important test match and watching Mitch Marsh walk out to the middle? I'd rather his brother and that's not meant as a compliment.

 

[Antihippy]

Nothing about mitch marsh suggest that he can be a test #3.

 

[Red]

Because he quite clearly doesn't have the consistency or temperament for #3. People say those two things can be learned, but that's only in the rare cases. He could definitely be a #5 batsman or even a #4 but #3? I'm betting very strongly on no, especially if he intends to become a genuine 3rd or 4th seamer. 4th ball of an important test match and watching Mitch Marsh walk out to the middle? I'd rather his brother and that's not meant as a compliment.

Seriously, what's the difference being a 4 or a 3 successfully apart from technique? MMarsh definitely has the technique to bat at #3. Consistency will come (he's only 23) and I'm pretty sure you're temperament continues to develop til you're about 30.

Marsh could play test cricket for 10+ years. He has a good technique already. He will learn his batting game a lot over the next 3 or 4 years. Seriously don't see why that doesn't all suggest he could end up a #3 by the time he's in his late 20s.

 

[Red]

Nothing about mitch marsh suggest that he can be a test #3.

Really? What about him suggests that he actually can't?

 

[Antihippy]

If he has the stomach to come in when the ball is hard and hooping, and is able to cash in afterwards. So far I haven't seen any of those qualities, but to be fair he's hardly in the position to prove it.

 

[Valer]

Your sample size there is terrible. Smtih is a leggie and is there to get wickets, not to block up and end. The other part-times have bowled a grand total of 27 overs and are conceding less than 5 runs an over anyway. Michael Clarke has a career economy rate of 2.91 so I am sure he can hold up an end and pretty confident that Voges could do the same.

I would say the current Australian attack does not that many overs rest. The captain probably feels that he has to bowl these all-rounders to justify their selection. I am sure the WI were delighted every time they saw Watson trundling in. Feel free to explain to me why having the frontline bowlers bowl an extra 2 overs each a day is going to kill their effectiveness. You only need part-timers to fill in 8 overs at that point.

Relying on Clarke to bowl your part time overs is a quick way to have no Michael Clarke on the team. If Clarke could bowl 10-15 overs without any back issues I'd drop Watson for the next test*. If Voges is as good as Clarke with the ball fine, I'm skeptical.

*Assuming you bowl 3 quicks.

In the past 3 years (30 matches) the only batsman to have an econ of <4.75rpo have been Quiney Ponting Clarke and Wade.

On the extra overs try doing say 24 x 50m sprints at 95%* of max heart rate on say 45s and tell me adding another 3-4 (sprints) doesn't matter. Bowling Watson at worst stalls the game. Bowling some of the other part timers gives the momentum back

*Warm up first if you don't want to injure yourself.

 

[Dan]

I reckon he could be a number three in a Watson-esque way. Guns at 4, 5 and 6 so he gets pushed to three as a not-terrible option and to keep the batsmen in their preferred spots.

No way he averages 50 there though, which realistically is what you want.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Seriously, what's the difference being a 4 or a 3 successfully apart from technique? MMarsh definitely has the technique to bat at #3. Consistency will come (he's only 23) and I'm pretty sure you're temperament continues to develop til you're about 30.

I don't know if his technique is that good. He doesn't movie his feet a lot and tends to stand and deliver, though I'm not really sure technique matters all that much if you have a good eye which clearly does. Maybe only in difficult circumstances in regards to pitch and weather conditions. In any case, the difference between 3 and 4 is pretty big. In most innings when you bat at 3 you'll be batting within the first 10 overs of the innings, you pad up and warm up as though you're opening, and half the time you basically are. #4 is only one wicket more but at the top level you generally don't lose two early wickets. Like I said, I think he could be a very good #5 batsman if he realises his potential. Any higher is (IMO) too high an expectation.

People say "consistency and temperament will come" but they don't come to many players, they usually only come to the genuinely transcendent ones, or to those who haven't got as much talent as others and rely on them to match those more talented. The players who've been the most talented since birth very rarely become the most consistent, can only think of Clarke and Ponting of my time watching Australian cricket where the child prodigy also became the most consistent and hard working batsman in the team.

 

[Red]

He stands up straight and drives really nicely in the V. Seems to have a good pull shot. Holds his body shape really well. Knows when to leave the ball.

At the moment there are a few deficiencies, but I reckon they can be ironed out.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If Watson can be an opener, Marsh can be a number 3. Don't think he'd be amazing at it, but I reckon with some work he could be a 40 average batsman there, which is useful.

 

[Dan]

I agree with dcye here; I think Marsh can be a great #6, a very good #5, but any higher and you're going to start get diminishing returns out of him. He tends to go hard at the ball in defence from what I've seen, which is something that is basically criminal when you're batting top 4.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah but Watson averaged 40+ as an opener for a couple of years and his technical issues are extremely glaring too.

 

[adub]

Caitlyn Jenner proves that your Uncle can become your Aunty, so sure strange **** could happen and MMarsh could become a test No. 3. but I reckon Caitlyn has more chance of being a success there.

 

[Dundalis]

What I'd like to see is Australia playing their 4 best bowlers (whom of course will all be quicks), and having Maxwell in the side as the spinner doing the bulk of that work, along with Smith and Clarke. It's preferable to me until Australia can develop a world class spinner. I think they could even get away with playing 3 quicks and Maxwell, opening the door to another all rounder with the batting depth that would provide. Maxwell's bowling has improved, and was impressive at the World Cup. The bowling is going to be carried by the pace attack regardless of who's providing the change of pace.

 

[Dan]

Maxwell could play the Moeen role if James Faulkner was in our top 7 batsmen, I guess. And if Haddin was a better batsman than he is now. And if Nathan Lyon didn't exist. And if Maxwell was a better spinner than he is right now.

1. Warner
2. Burns
3. Smith
4. Clarke
5. Voges
6. Nevill +
7. Faulkner
8. Maxwell
9. Johnson
10. Starc
11. Hazlewood

 

[Riggins]

That's what we need more of - dropping nathan lyon.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

What I'd like to see is Australia playing their 4 best bowlers (whom of course will all be quicks), and having Maxwell in the side as the spinner doing the bulk of that work, along with Smith and Clarke. It's preferable to me until Australia can develop a world class spinner. I think they could even get away with playing 3 quicks and Maxwell, opening the door to another all rounder with the batting depth that would provide. Maxwell's bowling has improved, and was impressive at the World Cup. The bowling is going to be carried by the pace attack regardless of who's providing the change of pace.

That's what we need more of - dropping nathan lyon.

Shane Warne and Stuart Macgill have royally stuffed the expectations of a generation or two of Australian fans when it comes to spin bowling.

 

[watson]

Mitch Marsh's bat does the talking (at No.3);

 

[Dan]

ODIs =/= Tests.

MMarsh at 3 was an idea I actually quite liked, but only in ODIs.

 

[Riggins]

Yeah but he's obviously super talented and he's still young as. I don't think it's unreasonable to think he could be a Test #3 in like 8-10 years even though it does seem unlikely at the moment.