Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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

*snip*

Surely a troll?

 

[Debris]

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.

It is 30 metres not 50. Done it, was fine. Could have done another 24. I did of course stagger it over the course of 6 and a half hours like the bowlers do. You are obviously prepared to have 20% of the overs in the day just be a holding pattern with much less chance of taking a wicket.

And having Watson bowl your part-time overs is a quick way to have no Watson on the team.

 

[Gob]

No clarke in the team>no watson in the team

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

No clarke in the team>no watson in the team

>: Greater than.

 

[Valer]

Nm. I don't really want to get into a pissing match over this. Suffice to say I disagree on what is a reasonable expectation on bowlers fitness with how hard current bowlers push themselves at max.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

Seriously, you've just described Shane Watson at 22, you realise?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Even if Marsh ends up being a proper top 6 batsman in Test cricket, he won't be suited to no. 3.

The best number three batsmen tend to be those who use the crease the best - it allows them to be more versatile, which is what you need at number 3. The bigger guys aren't like that - look at PIetersen for example. They are the guys who need to back themselves in and bat how they know. That philosophy is better suited to #4 or below.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Seriously, you've just described Shane Watson at 22, you realise?

Yeah, pretty much everything people say about Mitch Marsh now me, f00ler and Cribb were screaming from the rooftops about Watto in 2006. Kinda humorous I guess.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Since when did Sir Don's position become a human shield for batsmen in the Australian line up?


I get your point though.. Just amazing that a team can even afford to think of such a critical position in that manner..

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, pretty much everything people say about Mitch Marsh now me, f00ler and Cribb were screaming from the rooftops about Watto in 2006. Kinda humorous I guess.

Yup, it's true.

Those feature don't mean that he can't be a number three, but he seems to have "heavy feet" a bit like Watson. I want/prefer a light footed man at number three.

 

[honestbharani]

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

I assume this is your post Ashes - Harris, Rogers, Haddin retired - line up and I assume the Marshes have fallen off the radar, but Voges is rather old too... So why is he still in the side? And just out of curiosity, if his career doesn't pan out as the next M Hussey, who is likely to bat 5 then?

 

[weldone]

Australia's tail is such a huge huge plus that they could afford to play 5 bowlers in most conditions if they had a wicketkeeper who could bat better than Haddin.

 

[Antihippy]

The fact that our tail has to actually be good is an argument for having more batsmen, not less.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Even if Marsh ends up being a proper top 6 batsman in Test cricket, he won't be suited to no. 3.

The best number three batsmen tend to be those who use the crease the best - it allows them to be more versatile, which is what you need at number 3. The bigger guys aren't like that - look at PIetersen for example. They are the guys who need to back themselves in and bat how they know. That philosophy is better suited to #4 or below.

lol

surely you're not being serious

gave me a good laugh though

 

[Red]

Seriously, you've just described Shane Watson at 22, you realise?

Maybe superficially but they're not really similar batsmen. The biggest difference is that Marsh doesn't play across the front of his pad. There's differences there.

Yeah, pretty much everything people say about Mitch Marsh now me, f00ler and Cribb were screaming from the rooftops about Watto in 2006. Kinda humorous I guess.

So, your point is that people said stuff about Watson so Marsh is gonna be exactly the same?

 

[Dan]

Since when did Sir Don's position become a human shield for batsmen in the Australian line up?


I get your point though.. Just amazing that a team can even afford to think of such a critical position in that manner..

I assume this is your post Ashes - Harris, Rogers, Haddin retired - line up and I assume the Marshes have fallen off the radar, but Voges is rather old too... So why is he still in the side? And just out of curiosity, if his career doesn't pan out as the next M Hussey, who is likely to bat 5 then?

You have missed the point of my posts entirely.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

So, your point is that people said stuff about Watson so Marsh is gonna be exactly the same?

Didn't really have a point, was just a musing.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, pretty much everything people say about Mitch Marsh now me, f00ler and Cribb were screaming from the rooftops about Watto in 2006. Kinda humorous I guess.

Haha yep indeed. Watson had actually been batting 3 and 4 a lot for Tassie/Queensland and averaged almost 50 to go with all that too, a stark contrast to Marsh's efforts of batting 5/6 for WA and averaging sub-30. Watson had everything Marsh has going for him, plus some other stuff on top of that.

That's not to say Marsh will end up following the same career trajectory if he's moved up the order, but I for one have learned my lesson.

 

[Flem274*]

Even if Marsh ends up being a proper top 6 batsman in Test cricket, he won't be suited to no. 3.

The best number three batsmen tend to be those who use the crease the best - it allows them to be more versatile, which is what you need at number 3. The bigger guys aren't like that - look at PIetersen for example. They are the guys who need to back themselves in and bat how they know. That philosophy is better suited to #4 or below.

I like this. I haven't really heard it before when people discuss what they want in a #3 (usually ends up being a Dravid v Viv style argument) but I like it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, pretty much everything people say about Mitch Marsh now me, f00ler and Cribb were screaming from the rooftops about Watto in 2006. Kinda humorous I guess.

Amateurs, tbh.