Tag Archives: M Marsh

Denialism

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, , , , , ,

I’ve become weary of writing about the failings of David Warner and his dead weight on the team, but his comments in the press today can’t be ignored. He is living in denial.

He’s quoted as saying: ‘I’ve played a lot better than what I did last time [in 2019]. I’ve got in good positions, I’m looking to score, I’ve had a couple of unlucky dismissals and then dismissals where I’ve tried to negate the swing or the seam and it’s caught the outside edge of the bat.’

So that’s it. He’s been ‘unlucky’.

‘I’m looking to score,’ he says. Then SCORE! Please!

And playing better? Yes, his average of 25.13 so far this series does indeed surpass the 9.50 he recorded in the 2019 Ashes series, but it’s hardly good enough for Australia’s Test opener in one of the toughest series the team could wish to play. In a team of only eleven, Warner is the sixth highest run scorer. Even Mitchell Marsh has outscored Warner, and he’s played only four innings versus Warner’s eight. Warner’s average for the series is on a par with that of Carey (23.14), Starc (25.00) and Cummins (23.40), and he is supposed to be one of the team’s best players.

Warner isn’t the only Australia batter to underperform – Smith and Green are guilty, too – but Warner’s lack of runs stretches back several years and yet he keeps getting picked. One wonders if and how the selectors will take responsibility for choosing him and keeping Marcus Harris, who averaged 57.13 for Glamorgan this summer, on the bench.

Make Johnson a Selector

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, , ,

I couldn’t agree more with Mitchell Johnson in his selection of the playing XI for the Fourth Test; i.e.

M Harris

U Khawaja

M Labuchschagne

S Smith

T Head

M Marsh

A Carey

M Neser

M Starc

P Cummins

T Murphy

Johnson writes, “Put simply, Warner goes out because he’s out of form, Michael Neser comes in because he’s in form and Mitch Marsh retains his place for the same reason.

I would opt for Marcus Harris to open the batting with Usman Khawaja and Neser to replace Scott Boland, with Cam Green missing out despite declaring himself fit to play.”

How easy was that? The arguments for omitting Warner are too obvious to repeat (just see our last three or so posts). Neser has been on fire in England his summer, and while Hazlewood is a great bowler, Neser’s form with both bat and ball should not be ignored any longer. I’ve always been a Mitchell Marsh skeptic but Green hasn’t nailed it and Marsh played a blinder in the Third Test so why not turn him loose again? Green remains the future of the team, you would think, but some time out of the XI won’t hurt him and might even help.

Sure, Harris, Neser and Marsh may or may not fire in the Fourth Test, but they are likely to give Australia the best chance in a must-win game.

Anyone But Him

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, , , ,

Oh, for Pete’s sake. After Ricky Ponting, now Greg Chappell has joined the chorus of ‘experts’ backing David Warner despite the absence of any evidence to suggest he is capable of performing as Australia’s Test opener.

“I think with a champion – and I consider David a champion – you give a champion one game too many rather than one game too few,” Chappell is reported to have said.

He’s had one game too many already, Greg. More than one.

It’s not enough to say ‘we think he’ll come good’ (no he won’t).

It’s facile to say ‘he performs well when his back’s against the wall’ (no, he doesn’t).

It’s meaningless to say ‘he’s batting well in the nets’ (Tests aren’t played in the nets).

It’s true there is no like-for-like replacement for Warner. It’s also true that whoever is chosen to open the batting may indeed fail, whether it’s Marsh, Green, Head, Harris or Renshaw. I don’t care. Pick one of them. I don’t care which one. With Warner barely averaging 23 on a very good day if the pitch is flat, and failing to last a single over against Broad when there is any kind of lateral movement, it doesn’t matter who you pick. Any of the candidates has at least as good as chance as Warner and is likely as not to do better. Anyone but Warner.

If anyone is interested, a spot poll in the Fairfax press today produced the following results from readers:

Looking for Excuses?

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, ,

Look, I have tremendous respect for Ricky Ponting. His career speaks for itself and I think he is usually an incisive analyst of the game. But comments like those he made today recommending the selectors stick with David Warner are positively damaging.

An article on Cricket Australia’s website reads as follows:

“I’m probably more inclined to give David another opportunity and hope he can get through Stuart Broad and go on and make a big score,” Ponting said in an International Cricket Council podcast.

“When someone’s got you out 17 times, it does become as much a mental – or probably more of a mental – battle than it does a technical battle.

“But just thinking about the series, I’d be inclined to stick with David Warner.”

Seriously, how many more opportunities does Warner need? We’re reduced to ‘hoping’ now. Is it just me or is Ponting saying two diametrically opposed things at once here? He seems to be admitting Warner can’t hold his own against Broad but Ponting ‘hopes he can get through’ because he is ‘just thinking about the series’. What does that even mean?

We here at Aussie Cricket Lover have been harsh critics of both Mitchell Starc and Mitchell Marsh, both of whom have performed very well in this Ashes series. Contrary to our expectations, Starc has been reasonably accurate, and Marsh, well, enormous kudos to him. He appears to have embraced his inner Bison and decided it’s now or never, I’ll be a beast and if it doesn’t work, I’ll have no regrets. Maybe he’s decided the Bazball approach is the way to go. It’s only been one Test so far, but it worked at Headingley, even though Australia lost.

It’s wonderful to be proved wrong. It’s one of the best perks of being an armchair critic. But Warner’s form is terminal. For Ponting to be urging his retention in the team with no justification is downright irresponsible.

More Recalls Than a Takata Airbag

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, , ,

Seriously? Mitchell Marsh has earned a recall to the Test squad? Again?

Except it hasn’t been earned. They have handed it to him. And on what basis? Test selection is supposed to be justified by performance. There needs to be some logic and consistency to it. With Marsh, there isn’t.

Look, Marsh is one of the world’s best white ball batters. He is one heck of a slogger. Few players have his brute strength. If you’re playing T20, you want him on your team. He could (and absolutely should) tour the world playing in T20 tournaments and making lots of money.

But Marsh is NOT a Test cricketer.

He lacks the technique to play the red ball that moves through the air or off the seam, and his dismal Test record provides ample evidence of this. You can bet the ball will swing in England, so where’s the logic for selecting a batter who has played the grand total of THREE first-class (i.e. red ball) games in the past three and a half years (and only ONE in the past sixteen months). It’s a tremendous insult to those state cricketers who have toiled away in the Sheffield Shield, having been told by the selectors that if they put results on the board they would be considered for elevation to the Test team.

No doubt the selectors will point to Marsh’s recent white ball form to justify his inclusion, but how many times must we remind them the skill sets for Test cricket and T20 are very different? We’ve been here so many times before. George Bailey should know this better than most. He failed at Test cricket (5 Tests, average 26.14) after being picked on his excellent white ball form. So did Aaron Finch (5 Tests, average 27.80) and Glenn Maxwell (7 Tests, average 26.07). Marsh has already been gifted 32 Tests but his average languishes at 25.20. At one point he was rated the worst No. 6 in Test history. Recalling him to the Test squad makes no sense, especially as he has played almost no first-class cricket lately.

Oh, the selectors might say, but he made a century in the recent Shield match against Tasmania in March, when he made 108 not out. Well, sure, yes he did. So…..they have selected him on the strength of a single innings? Other players must post a couple of years of strong results in the Shield to even be considered for Test selection.

Oh, but, Australia must have him because it can’t rely too much on Cameron Green as the all-rounder.

Actually, that’s a fair point. But there are better options as the back-up for Green. Australia actually has an unusually good crop of good all-rounders at present. Michael Neser and Sean Abbott are both better bowlers than Marsh, and although they are bowling all-rounders, their first-class batting averages aren’t that different from Marsh’s Test average (Neser: 23.44, Abbot: 23.13). In the 2022-23 Shield, Neser took 40 wickets at 16.73 and made 357 runs at 32.45. Why is Marsh preferred to him?

Then there are the younger emerging all-rounders who the selectors could blood if for some reason they overlooked Neser and Abbott. Will Sutherland had a blowout year in the 2022-23 Shield (41 wickets at 19.93 and 467 runs at 29.19) and he’s only 23 years old! Why wouldn’t you take him to England as back-up? (FYI, Marsh will be 32 in October.)

And why is Marsh included as an all- rounder anyway when apparently he no longer bowls? He didn’t bowl a single ball in the recent 3-match ODI series against India, nor did he bowl in the single Sheffield Shield match he played in March. Are we to assume a guy who has hardly rolled his arm over for three years is the second-best all-rounder in the country? Again, it doesn’t stack up. Okay, his ability to bowl has been crimped by injury lately. Is he recovered? Do the selectors even know? And even if he is, his Test bowling record is pretty ordinary (42 wickets at 38.64) and definitely inferior to any of the abovementioned options.

By all accounts, Marsh is a very nice bloke. It’s lucky for him, because if I was another promising cricketer witnessing the special treatment he receives, I’d be seriously pissed off.

Marsh Recall Makes No Sense

2019 Ashes in Eng, , ,

And they had been doing so well. 

The Australian selectors have scarcely missed a trick during this Ashes series, especially with their savvy horses-for-courses approach to selecting fast bowlers, and their decision to prioritize accuracy over pace. Then they went and picked Mitchell Marsh for the Fifth Test at the Oval.

Oh dear. 

Despite coaches such as Langer insisting Marsh is ‘talented’, he has never proven that he is good enough to either bat or bowl at Test level. Selectors have given him far too many chances (a staggering 31 Test matches!) in the desperate hope that he will magically transform into a player far better than he actually is. Marsh was dropped after the Boxing Day Test against India in December 2018. In the seven Tests up to and including that match, he scored 225 runs at an average of 16.07 and took a measly six wickets. He went back to the Sheffield Shield, playing 7 matches in the 2018-19 season, in which he scored 467 runs at 35.92 and took 13 wickets at 40.46. Such numbers hardly demand national selection. He was then omitted from Cricket Australia’s central contract list for 2019-20. 

But now he’s back in the Test team at the expense of Travis Head. 

How did that happen?

Just two days ago, Justin Langer reminded us that Head is inexperienced and that Test cricket takes time to master. Fair enough. Who would disagree? It’s very true that Head has not impressed in this series. However, he is not the only one, and as he is only 25, surely one would expect Langer to give him more opportunities to improve. But no, soon after calling for more patience for young players, Langer has dumped Head. It’s inconsistent and hypocritical.

Moreover, the logic behind Marsh’s selection does not stand up to scrutiny for two big reasons.

Firstly, he has played virtually no red ball cricket lately and his few performances since being dropped last December simply do not justify a recall. Marsh played for Australia A in its recent 50-over series against county teams in England, when he posted four successive not-out scores – with a highest score of 53* – and took 5 wickets. This was okay but not earth-shattering, and was with a white ball anyway. Since arriving in England, he has played only TWO competitive red ball matches (one against England Lions, the other against Worcestershire), with a top score of 39* and taking only 2 wickets. How does this scream ‘pick me for the Test team’?

Secondly, the selectors say Marsh’s inclusion strengthens the bowling attack. Why is THAT necessary? The Australian squad includes no fewer than SIX fast bowlers, most of whom possess batting averages close to that of Marsh. Based on recent form, a number of them are in fact making more runs than Marsh. Heck, Michael Neser hasn’t even gotten a game on this tour, and he took 33 wickets in the 2018-19 Shield season while averaging 43.73 with the bat! The bowling attack has been the strongest performing part of the team throughout this Ashes series. Why does it need Marsh? Sure, the batting has been poor except for Smith and Labuschagne, but are the selectors really suggesting that a guy like Marsh – with a Test average of 25.39 and a first-class average of 32.12 – is good enough to bat at No. 6? He never has been, so what’s changed? Head has indeed been mediocre on this tour but with his first-class average of 39.20 and Test average of 42.70 after 12 matches, I would still rather back him than Marsh, especially if, as Langer says, the younger players need to grow into their positions. 

Trotted out to front the press, Tim Paine said Marsh has ‘worked his backside off’ and is fitter than he was. Oh goody. Everything will be fine, then. 

As the saying goes, ‘the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result’. 

Selectors Colour Blind on Finch

2018-19 India in Aus, , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the biggest criticisms of Australia’s Test selectors is that they are inconsistent in their selection criteria. They imply that performance in red ball cricket is of paramount importance, yet they have in recent years rolled the dice on untested youngsters (e.g. Ashton Agar) or on players who have done well in white ball cricket. (e.g. George Bailey).

The Test squad selected for the first two Tests of the 2018-19 Indian summer is a reasonably sound one. It faces an uphill battle to defeat India because there is so little batting talent in Australia to choose from, but at least it’s consistent in that most of the batsmen can justify their selection on the strength of their red ball cricket, if for no other reason that there is nobody better to take their place.

Khawaja? Yes, fine. Travis Head? Well….I suppose so. Just. He’s been unconvincing but has done just well enough to get another chance given his youth. Marcus Harris is not a ‘bolter’ as the media has said. He has averaged north of 40 for both of the past two completed Shield seasons and is averaging 86.40 so far this season. He deserves his shot, and 26 is a good age to have learned his craft and to hit the accelerator. I hope Matt Renshaw gets his act together because he has youth on his side and just seems to ooze potential from every pore, but Harris edged him out, fair and square. Peter Handscomb might not make the starting eleven on 6 December but he, too, has a good combination of track record and recent performance. Even the hellishly inconsistent Shaun Marsh deserves his position based on recent performances. His brother, Mitchell, more assuredly does not deserve his, but the selectors have made it clear Mitchell Marsh will be picked if he can more or less stand upright. Yes, he made 151 against Queensland at Allan Border Field recently but who hasn’t made a score like that on that wicket? It’s a road. Put me in on that wicket. I’ll make 150, too.

But I digress.

The glaring exception is Aaron Finch. Why on earth is he described by all and sundry as a ‘lock’ for the First Test? Finch is a nice bloke and an experienced hand, but there is no evidence (and I mean none) to suggest he is among Australia’s top six red ball batsmen. After 79 first-class matches, he averages 36.58 and has made a mere 7 centuries from 131 innings. In the 2017-18 Shield season, he played 8 matches but averaged only 35.28 with only a single century. His selection is being described by the coaches as justfied based on innings of 62, 49, 39 and 31 in the 2-Test series against Pakistan in the UAE. Not long ago, Glenn Maxwell was denied a Test spot because it was said he needed to make hundreds. Now, personally I think Maxwell is overrated and does not necessarily deserve to be in the Test team, but if that is the rule for selection, why on earth is Finch a ‘lock’? It makes no sense. He currently appears to be out of form, but Finch is primarily a white ball specialist who swings hard for the fences without moving his feet. C’mon, he is not a Test batsman. I hope very much to be proven wrong, but if he opens for Australia on 6 December, I suspect he will fail against what is the best Indian pace attack to visit these shores for a long time.

If one is honest and logical, there is no place for Finch.

If the selectors really mean what they say and wish to strike the proper balance between performance and potential in red ball cricket, and if they absolutely insist on retaining M Marsh, the top six should be:

M Harris
M Renshaw
U Khawaja
S Marsh
T Head or P Handscomb
M Marsh
T Paine
P Cummins
M Starc
N Lyon
J Hazlewood

Personally, I would jettison M Marsh and play both Head and Handscomb with four bowlers (after all, Head can bowl some part-time offies), but as I said, the selectors appear illogically committed to M Marsh.

Paine’s position deserves plenty of debate, but we’ll save that for another post.

Zombies Live!

2017-18 Ashes in Aus, , , , ,

The zombie cricketers are alive and kicking.

By zombies, I mean those players who refuse to die. They have tried and failed at Test cricket, then gone back to state cricket and performed well enough to at least come back into contention for a Test recall.

Tim Paine is perhaps the greatest zombie of them all, having been dead and buried until his shock recall for the Ashes. He fluffed a catch in Brisbane but also pulled off an excellent stumping and made a stylish 57 in the first innings in Adelaide. There would appear to be life in the old boy yet. At the very least, he has not embarrassed the selectors.

The other obvious zombie, of course, is Shaun Marsh, who not only won a recall for the Ashes but won player of the match in the 2nd Test in Adelaide with an excellent ton. Trevor Hohns and Team must be enormously relieved.

Elsewhere, discarded Test opener Joe Burns has lurched back into the selectors’ sights with 514 runs at 57.11 in his first ten Sheffield Shield innings this season, including scores of 70, 81, 103 and finally 202 not out against South Australia in Round Four.  But Cameron Bancroft is likely to get a few more games yet, so Burns will probably have to bide his time.

Perennial zombie Glenn Maxwell has cracked 590 runs at 73.75 so far this Shield season, with scores of 60, 64, 278 and 96. One would have to think Maxwell has his eye on the No. 5 Test slot currently occupied by the hopelessly out-of-form Peter Handscomb.  Will the selectors let Handscomb play out the series as they did with George Bailey four years ago? As it was with Bailey, they might if the team keeps winning.

And lastly there is Mitchell Marsh, arguably the most disappointing Test cricketer of the past half-decade. Finally sent back to WA after 21 Tests in which he averaged only 21.74 with the bat and took only 29 wickets at 37.48, Mitchell has scored 402 runs at 44.67 in the Shield this season, including scores of 95 and 141. The selectors took a lot of stick for persevering with Mitchell for so long, so one wonders how well he must do at state level – and for how long – before he gets another chance at Test cricket.

Feed them braaains….

 

Some Spine in the Middle Order

2017 Aus in India, , , , , , , ,

Mitchell Marsh has gone home injured from India, hounded by cruel but accurate headlines labelling him Australia’s worst ever No. 6. It’s not his fault – it’s the selectors who persist in filling the No. 6 slot with a so-called ‘all-rounder’ who bats a bit and bowls a bit but does neither well enough to help win a Test match for his team.

And now they’ve done it again.

Marcus Stoinis?

Really?

Why would you pick this guy for the Test team on the back of one (admittedly phenomenal) ODI innings against New Zealand? Like Hilton Cartwright and Moises Henriques before him, Stoinis bowls lollipop medium-pacers which India’s batsmen will chew up and spit out on their low, slow wickets. And he’s not a good enough batsman to play at No. 6 in the Test team. He simply isn’t (and neither was Mitchell Marsh). So why fly him to India? It makes no sense.

And if they don’t play Stoinis in the 3rd Test, will they play Usman Khawaja? A sensible short-term solution, perhaps, but Uzzy is not a No. 6 batsman. He’s an opener.

Oh, and by the way, Glenn Maxwell certainly isn’t the answer, either.  Substitute ‘off-spinners that don’t spin’ for ‘lollipop medium pacers’ in the paragraph above, and all the same arguments apply. Maxwell should not even be in the Test squad. He hasn’t earned it. He’s not good enough.

The Australian selectors seem to have forgotten how much better the team fared when it had a proper batsman at No. 6. Come back, Mike Hussey, we miss you. The obvious solution is to find a proper middle-order batsman.  Australia has done well in India with two decent seamers and two decent spinners. It doesn’t need a third seamer, or a third spinner. Even with Starc flying home, you could play Jackson Bird or if you must have more pace, fly Pat Cummins out to India. I don’t think it makes any difference.  Honestly, I think Bird will do fine. He lacks Starc’s threatening pace but he’s a lot more accurate.

When desperate after the series loss to South Africa, the selectors resorted to picking a couple of young batsmen who had (shock, horror,gasp) a good if somewhat short track record in the Sheffield Shield. Remember the Sheffield Shield? So far, Matt Renshaw and Peter Handscomb have done pretty well.  Both look likely to improve.

Why not stick with that approach? Australia needs a decent No. 6 batsman. There are two obvious candidates.

One is Kurtis Patterson, who bats at No. 4 for NSW. He will be 24 in May. He has played 39 first-class matches and has an average of 42.83 with 5 centuries. So far this season, he’s scored 621 runs at 47.77, with one ton and six half-centuries.

The other is Jake Lehmann, who bats at No. 5 for South Australia. The 24-year old Lehmann has played 25 first-class matches and has an average of 46.41 with 5 centuries.  So far this season, he’s made 646 runs at 49.69.

I reckon either Patterson or Jake Lehmann would be worthwhile selections. They both resemble Renshaw and Handscomb: young, and with a decent track record. The selectors are on to a good strategy. They should stick with it and abandon this catastrophic policy of picking a mediocre player to bat at No. 6.

Looking for Rock Bottom

2016-17 S Africa in Aus, , , , , , , , , ,

Most professional sporting teams experience fluctuations in form. A team doing badly will more often than not improve at some point. A strong team will eventually do less well. Rankings go up and rankings go down. After Australia was bowled out for 85 on the first day of the Second Test against South Africa in Hobart (after losing 10-86 in the first innings of the First Test in Perth), one might legitimately ask if the team is nearing rock bottom; i.e. approaching a nadir after which positive change might occur, even if it is by accident.

Not likely. I suspect rock bottom will not be found until after the tour of India next February. Until then, it’s going to be very ugly.

One of the worst Australian Test teams of recent memory has managed to lose the series against South Africa within the first hour in Hobart, losing 5-17.

Next, the world’s No. 1 Test team – Pakistan – will visit Australia for three Tests. Pakistan has good pace bowlers, good spinners and good batsmen (which, er, is why they are No. 1). It seems unlikely an Australian team this lacking in heart and skill will be any match for them. Then, unfortunately, India in February 2017 is simply a bridge too far. Beating India in India is like climbing Everest in a bikini and even a strong Australian team – which we do not have – would struggle. A result other than 4-0 to India seems inconceivable.

So there is a real chance that Australia’s string of consecutive Test losses – which will reach 5 when it loses the Second Test  against the Proteas in Hobart – could extend to as many as 13 (!) if Australia also loses the Third Test against South Africa (which seems likely) and plays a similar quality of cricket against Pakistan.

Only then can we start to talk about the team hitting rock bottom.

Only three players really can justify their positions in the team at present: Warner, Smith and Starc (four if you want to add Hazlewood). As for the rest, if you replaced any or all of them with peers currently playing Shield cricket (Kurtis Patterson or Peter Handscomb  are candidates for the middle order, but there are others), you could not do any worse. Trouble is, the selectors could not replace so many players in one go as if would be a sign of panic. As it is, only the fans are panicking.

Joe Burns and Usman Khawaja, for example, are both out of their depth. When they have made runs in the past, it has usually been against average (NZ) or weak (West Indies) teams or on flat pitches where the ball comes straight on to the bat. Neither has displayed any competence against the swinging or spinning ball. Same goes for Adam Voges, whose first-ball duck in Hobart helps to confirm suspicions that age is catching up with him. The selectors have (correctly) dumped Mitchell Marsh and might be persuaded to get rid of Voges, but having only just reinstated Burns and Khawaja, are unlikely to axe them again so soon. We are, therefore, probably stuck with both of them even if Voges is dropped.

As we and others have said, the Aussies can hit but they can’t bat (see Hitting vs Batting, and the Invisible Man). The Australians’ complete and utter absence of skill against the swinging, seaming or spinning ball over the past five years or so suggests there is no quick fix. The coaching must be called into question. The turnaround will take a long time.

Darren Lehmann’s blokey she’ll-be-right attitude is wearing thin, and his insistence on ‘playing our natural game’ betrays an alarming lack of awareness of the problem. The Australians’ ‘natural game’ does not work in the Test arena and unless Lehmann acknowledges this, nothing will change. It is only five years since Australia was all out for 47 against South Africa in Cape Town, just over a year since it was dismissed for 60 by England in Nottingham, only three months since it folded for 106 against Sri Lanka in Galle, and only a week or so since it lost 10-86 against South Africa in Perth. Now today it has been bowled out for 85. Lessons are not being learned. Basic Test batting skills are not being acquired. Lehmann’s honeymoon has been over for a while and he desperately needs to turn things around. However, the more time goes on, the worse the batting seems to get. Will he be sacked after the series loss to Pakistan or will Cricket Australia wait until the India series is lost?

It is ironic that Lehmann’s team may well face Pakistan after six successive Test losses (assuming they lose the Third Test to South Africa). Lehmann’s predecessor, Mickey Arthur, was sacked by Cricket Australia in 2013 after four consecutive Test losses, and guess who Arthur coaches now? Yup, Pakistan.