Watson & Marsh

[tedsheppard]

Who should be selected for the 2nd Ashes Test? Should the experience of Shane Watson keep him in the team or the excitement of a new young player allow Mitch Marsh in the team. I personally think Watson should be the one picked, though many will disagree but I just want to see the general consensus. Also, comment who you think the selected team WILL be.

 

[Red]

For the second test I'd pick:

Rogers
Warner
Smith
Clarke
Voges
MMarsh
Nevill
Johnson
Starc
Lyon
Hazelwood

 

[Howe_zat]

I was surprised that Marsh wasn't picked for the first test after he outperformed Watson comfortably in the warmups. Watson must be considered an important part of the attack, and if that's the case he won't be dropped after one test unless there are injuries.

Given that Starc's pace never dropped and he batted fine despite his niggle I don't think there'll be any changes.

 

[Spark]

MMarsh was slightly unlucky to lose his spot in the first place tbh.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I was surprised that Marsh wasn't picked for the first test after he outperformed Watson comfortably in the warmups. Watson must be considered an important part of the attack, and if that's the case he won't be dropped after one test unless there are injuries.

Given that Starc's pace never dropped and he batted fine despite his niggle I don't think there'll be any changes.

The lack of bowling of Watson in the first innings is the main reason why I think he may not get a gig.

 

[duffer]

Can we set the default on polls to public?

 

[adub]

Vic is right I think. I supported Watson for the 1st Test on the basis that his bowling would be more steady and that had value for the side. But if Clarkeh isn't going to bowl him then it doesn't matter. Get Marsh who is in red hot form with the stick in and maybe he'll jag a wicket or two as well.

 

[Spikey]

The lack of bowling of Watson in the first innings is the main reason why I think he may not get a gig.

Talked about a bit in the match thread, but I think Lyon's performance was why Watson didn't bowl, but it seems like the threat of Lyon getting carted all over the park was why Watson got the nod in the first place

 

[91Jmay]

Could be interesting if we do get after Lyon at Lords then and force MM on to bowl. Would be a tactic I'd look to if I were Bayliss especially early on in game when pitch shouldn't help spinner as much as Cardiff.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Talked about a bit in the match thread, but I think Lyon's performance was why Watson didn't bowl, but it seems like the threat of Lyon getting carted all over the park was why Watson got the nod in the first place

I think he was still underbowled - considering how easily scoring came from the two Mitchs. Would have like him to bowl the other end to Hazlewood who was bringing about some good pressure.

But he can't play if he's only bowling four overs in the first two sessions.

 

[wpdavid]

I think he was still underbowled - considering how easily scoring came from the two Mitchs. Would have like him to bowl the other end to Hazlewood who was bringing about some good pressure.

But he can't play if he's only bowling four overs in the first two sessions.

Sign of changing times. IIRC he came on really early at Lord's two years ago and snatched a couple of wickets. It's easily forgotten in light of the eventual result, but an hour into the match he'd put his side well on top.

 

[Gob]

Watson is in there for his batting that his main job and he is not doing that. I cant see MMarsh setting the world on fire but he cant do any worse than Watto so get him in there. At least he is young and has plenty of room for improvement

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Not voted as I am English. Clearly I want Watson to play as he is a well known failure and won't change in much the same way the Aussies of the 90's were happy to see Hick and Ramprakash in our side.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not voted as I am English. Clearly I want Watson to play as he is a well known failure and won't change in much the same way the Aussies of the 90's were happy to see Hick and Ramprakash in our side.

Yup, sadly will be seen in the same ranks as a batsman.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Not voted as I am English. Clearly I want Watson to play as he is a well known failure and won't change in much the same way the Aussies of the 90's were happy to see Hick and Ramprakash in our side.

australia are the one nation ramps averaged 40+ against.

that 98/99 tour was infuriating where he kept getting to 50, looking like a million dollars then getting out.

 

[Zinzan]

For the second test I'd pick:

Rogers
Warner
Smith
Clarke
Voges
MMarsh
Nevill
Johnson
Starc
Lyon
Hazelwood

Yippers.

 

[Spark]

Watson didn't exactly make the case himself for more overs with his bowling tbf

 

[Spikey]

still, lyon got first chance on the first morning

 

[flibbertyjibber]

that 98/99 tour was infuriating where he kept getting to 50, looking like a million dollars then getting out.

Very Watson like.

He may have had a decent record against them but like Watson has an ok record against us he has never really hurt us in a match by scoring a huge ton.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Very Watson like.

He may have had a decent record against them but like Watson has an ok record against us he has never really hurt us in a match by scoring a huge ton.

I don't really see why it needs to be a "huge ton" to be a damaging innings, sort of an overrated concept IMO. Watson has played some pretty good, influential Ashes innings. Perth 2010/11 for example, made 90 odd in the second innings in a somewhat close game and Australia levelled the series. A few more if you include dead rubbers though understandable to ignore them.

On the subject of Ramprakash, looking at his record he only had one man of the match award in 50+ tests. Seems staggeringly low, though I guess he does have a shocking record. By comparison Watson has three, and he's not exactly the world's most influential test player. I wonder who has the worst record in that area from a prominent test nation.