Australian Test Selection Thread 2017 - 2018

[stephen]

I made this post elsewhere but I'll copy it here as well:

The fifth bowler is going to bowl around 20 overs in the course of a match. They're there to give the wicket-takers a break and maybe get a batsman out mistiming a pie.

So you pick the best batman who isn't going to go for 6+ an over. That's it. It doesn't matter if he's a spinner or an underarmer, so long as he's got a reasonable economy and can bat. Most important is that he can bat.

If M Marsh was bowling at his best and Maxwell was going for 5 runs per over, we can expect the bowling difference between them to be maybe 2rpo. If they bowl 25 overs in a test, the difference is 50 runs. For them to bowl 25 overs in a test means that we've probably bowled a team total of around 230 overs. If Lyon bowls 70 overs and the quicks bowl 45 overs each, that is a total of 205 overs. In the test just past, Anderson bowled 53 overs (for comparison's sake).

If they bat for 230 overs, that probably means that they've made at least 700 runs (at 3rpo) over the course of the match. We've probably lost if that's the case (230 overs is over half a full uninterrupted the test match).

But back to our all rounders. If Marsh bowls his 25 overs at 2rpo cheaper than Maxwell (which is quite generous - realistically the gap would be much smaller), we've given up 50 runs.

So the question is, do you think that Maxwell's batting is 50 runs better than Marsh's in a situation where we'll be bowling 230 overs or more?

If we bowl less overs - say 180 overs in total (20 more than this test) and each of our quicks bowls 40 overs and Lyon bowls 60 (not a huge workload) then we won't even need a part timer, or if we do they'll get 10 overs across the match.

So in a situation we're likely to win, is Maxwell's batting worth 20 more runs than Marsh's batting in total? Or maybe split the difference, do we think that Maxwell is likely to make 35 more runs across the course of a test match than Mitchell Marsh?

On current form and past performance I would say yes, Maxwell is far more likely to do better than Marsh, particularly if conditions favour Marsh's bowling (since we have three of the world's best fast bowlers who will be getting the ball ahead of him).

 

[stephen]

Like calling him a part time seamer is absurd. He'd make quite a few Test attacks as a bowler!

I agree but that's more an indictment of world fast bowling stocks than it is an endorsement of his skills.

Look I rate Marsh's bowling. It's better than his average of 37 suggests. It's just that I don't think it's needed. At least not without his batting being a lot better than it is. He's averaging 30 in FC cricket. Even now that he's "in form" he's only averaging low 40s in the shield this season. Hardly screaming "pick me".

If we were picking him as our third seamer and batting him at 8 I could understand that a lot more (if one of the big 3 were injured and Bird/Sayers weren't available either). But we're picking him to not bowl because Smith doesn't bowl part timers.

 

[stephen]

he's probably not even gonna get picked

Then we're one batsman short because Handscomb looked ridiculously out of touch this test.

 

[Spark]

You're arguing with a phantom who thinks MMarsh should be picked over Maxwell, because I don't think that and have said as such. I just think you're being completely dismissive of how useful a 5th bowler of MMarsh's quality - essentially an extra first-change seamer - would be on typical Australian pitches, which are the roadiest roads to ever road most of the time. MMarsh's bowling is better than giving the main bowlers a break and picking up the odd pole with a pie, he's a legitimate wicket-taking option, particularly if the batsman doesn't enjoy extra bounce and carry from a good length. A poor man's Hazlewood, basically.

 

[Red]

Mitch Marsh is a very good bowler, and once he sorts out a few facets of his batting (which he seems to be), he'll be a very good batsman as well. I've always been a fan.

I feel sorry for Maxwell, I really do, but it's clear the selectors only want seam bowling ARs in the test XI in Australian conditions. With Lyon bowling so well here, we dont need some dinky offies from our number six, but we do need someone capable of taking a workload and taking wickets. Mitch is a proper bowler.

Maxwell may only ever play tests on the subcontinent.

 

[stephen]

The problem though with that is where does M Marsh bat? He's not good enough to bat above 7. But neither is Paine. And frankly our batting needs strengthening, not our bowling.

Yes M Marsh is a decent bowler (probably about as good as Watto was) but he's a huge liability with the bat and can't fit into the team without costing us probably 50-60 runs over the course of the match (directly - exposing the tail sooner will cost more indirectly).

Even if Marsh is as good as Watto with the ball, how many overs did Watto get on average anyway? Never more than 15 per innings. Most of the time he'd get 10 overs an innings. I don't think it's worth sacrificing so much batting to bring a guy in who is only going to get 20-30 overs over the course of a test.

 

[Burgey]

Paine is good enough to bat seven imo

 

[morgieb]

Paine is good enough to bat seven imo

He said above 7, stephen doesn't think he can handle #6.

 

[Jarquis]

Why is economy the only thing that matters? Is it because it doesn’t suit the argument being made to try and work out the value of Marsh snicking off Malan?

 

[quincywagstaff]

The problem though with that is where does M Marsh bat? He's not good enough to bat above 7. But neither is Paine. And frankly our batting needs strengthening, not our bowling.

Yes M Marsh is a decent bowler (probably about as good as Watto was) but he's a huge liability with the bat and can't fit into the team without costing us probably 50-60 runs over the course of the match (directly - exposing the tail sooner will cost more indirectly).

Even if Marsh is as good as Watto with the ball, how many overs did Watto get on average anyway? Never more than 15 per innings. Most of the time he'd get 10 overs an innings. I don't think it's worth sacrificing so much batting to bring a guy in who is only going to get 20-30 overs over the course of a test.

I think we forget how good Watson was as a bowler at his peak. For a 21 Test period from 2009 to 2011 he took 42 wickets at 24.33 and three times took 5 in an innings. I can't see Marsh being as good as that but more like the 2012-15 Watson where he bowled semi-regularly and took the occasional wicket and kept things tight.

 

[the big bambino]

They absolutely do not need a part time seamer for anywhere. If our main 3 quicks can't take the wickets a 4th, crappier seamer who has only just gotten back from injury and hasn't taken any shield wickets yet isn't going to add anything to the squad.

And the 5th bowler is unlikely to get more than 10 overs per innings. He's literally there to give the main guys a break. Even if Marsh could bowl 2 rpo more economically than Maxwell (and that's a giant if) we're talking a grand total of 40 runs over the course of the match.

I get the impression they are picking him for more than that. I think they are picking him for cover. Could be we are making decisions with a priority on our fast bowler's fitness and they are all red zoning it at the moment. Since rotation is no longer an option we might have to look at selections in that context. Like don't enforce the FO in favourable bowling conditions as we've played 2 tests in a row with only 4 bowlers. Pick MM because he's more than useful if one of the main 3 breaks down. Yes his batting is iffy but he's tonned up and is playing at his home ground so the risk his batting presents is mitigated somewhat. Personally I'd pick Maxwell and have him and Smith tweak a few overs and favour strengthening the batting. Anyway we'll see. I'll feel that is selector's main concern if they pick MM and he bowls more than the obligatory 10 overs. If they don't pick him I'll wonder what the **** they're thinking.

 

[the big bambino]

but is Burns a smokey?

noticed this. very good.

 

[Spark]

I think we forget how good Watson was as a bowler at his peak. For a 21 Test period from 2009 to 2011 he took 42 wickets at 24.33 and three times took 5 in an innings. I can't see Marsh being as good as that but more like the 2012-15 Watson where he bowled semi-regularly and took the occasional wicket and kept things tight.

I expect that MMarsh, should he have as good a Test run, would take more wickets but also average more.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I get the impression they are picking him for more than that. I think they are picking him for cover. Could be we are making decisions with a priority on our fast bowler's fitness and they are all red zoning it at the moment. Since rotation is no longer an option we might have to look at selections in that context. Like don't enforce the FO in favourable bowling conditions as we've played 2 tests in a row with only 4 bowlers. Pick MM because he's more than useful if one of the main 3 breaks down. Yes his batting is iffy but he's tonned up and is playing at his home ground so the risk his batting presents is mitigated somewhat. Personally I'd pick Maxwell and have him and Smith tweak a few overs and favour strengthening the batting. Anyway we'll see. I'll feel that is selector's main concern if they pick MM and he bowls more than the obligatory 10 overs. If they don't pick him I'll wonder what the **** they're thinking.

Problem with that is that if one of the quicks go down you've only got 2 fast bowlers at the WACA

 

[marc71178]

I think we forget how good Watson was as a bowler at his peak. For a 21 Test period from 2009 to 2011 he took 42 wickets at 24.33 and three times took 5 in an innings. I can't see Marsh being as good as that but more like the 2012-15 Watson where he bowled semi-regularly and took the occasional wicket and kept things tight.

In all honesty that’s not that good a peak, 2 wickets per match?

 

[SeamUp]

As a 4th seamer that is perfectly reasonable.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In all honesty that’s not that good a peak, 2 wickets per match?

Bowling average of 24.33 isn't a good peak for a batting all-rounder? What are you smoking?

Wickets per match is irrelevant because it depends entirely on how much you bowl in a game

 

[Spark]

Bowling average of 24.33 isn't a good peak for a batting all-rounder? What are you smoking?

Wickets per match is irrelevant because it depends entirely on how much you bowl in a game

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant.I would say that it's extremely useful though, particularly when you consider that he tended to bowl at top order batsmen when wickets were badly needed from somewhere.

 

[Second Spitter]

S/R may be a more useful tool for a 4th seamer.

While I can't back it up with evidence, I would say MMarsh bowled less to the tail than other bowlers.

 

[Dan]

Wouldn't be surprised if the sports science is indicating that Starc, Cummins and Haze are all in the pale red (if not Barnaby Joyce crimson) zones re workloads, so see the breakdown as a higher possibility this match.

Obvs they don't want to rest someone -- they want to decide the series here -- but if Cummins goes down 15 overs into the match, it'd mean Starc/Hazlewood both end up completely wrecked by the end of the match. So you go to Melbourne at 2-1 with an attack drawn from Bird, Sayers, an undercooked Behrendorff, or Siddle.

Instead, you drop a guy making no runs for a guy who may also make no runs but can cover the bowlers if something goes wrong. If he gets injured because he's undercooked and he has to bowl stacks of overs, ehh, whatever. And, well, if he finally becomes the player he was always supposed to be it's one hell of a bonus.