Tag Archives: M Marsh

Soft in the Middle

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

 

As just about everybody except the selectors agrees, Mitchell Marsh does not deserve his place in the Test team, and now Adam Voges is struggling for runs. I don’t know if Father Time has finally caught up with Adam Voges or whether he’s about to make a big score, but one way or another, it seems likely that one or possibly two middle order batting slots will soon be opening up.

Selector Mark Waugh has indicated new squad member Callum Ferguson of South Australia may play in the Second Test against South Africa in Hobart. Either selectors have changed their mind about guaranteeing the dismal M Marsh a last chance, or they know something about Voges’ hamstring that we don’t. Either way, the middle order has been so poor for so long that long-suffering Aussie fans would be happy to see a new face in there just on the slim chance he might make a few runs.

The table below summarizes the first-class careers of a few promising contenders. (Cameron Bancroft is included not because he’s a middle order player but because he’s a contender for Joe Burns’ spot as opener if Burns blows his latest chance. )

First class stats
CareerMatInnsRunsAve100s50s
Bailey, G121215779139.751939
Bancroft, C4479279237.2279
Ferguson, C101185672040.231535
Handscomb, P6099363938.71824
Maddinson, N58102361438.04817
Patterson, K3256217142.56513
White, C152256916740.562045

Given the lack of middle order runs lately, Ferguson’s call-up is not illogical. Despite his career average of 40.23, he averaged 52.25 across 19 innings in 2014-15, and 53.11 in an injury-shortened 2015-16 season of 10 innings. In the first two games of 2016-17, he made 101 against WA followed by a third-ball duck against Tasmania, so make of that what you will. I have always been a little suspicious of Ferguson, wondering if his average is flattered by playing so often on the bowling green of the Adelaide Oval. But given the alternatives, he is frankly as good a choice as any.

Sheffield ShieldMatInnsRunsAve
2015-16
Bailey, G91776147.56
Bancroft, C101773245.75
Ferguson, C51047853.11
Handscomb, P111978443.56
Maddinson, N101748830.5
Patterson, K91773752.64
White, C5933842.25
2016-17*
Bailey, G2425986.33
Bancroft, C246516.25
Ferguson, C2210150.5
Handscomb, P2314849.33
Maddinson, N1211658
Patterson, K2422255.5
White, C2317487

*Only two games played so far in 2016-17

George Bailey (34) and Cameron White (33) have made careers out of performing well when no Test spots were available and poorly when the selectors were on the hunt. Bailey eventually managed to play five Tests but was about the only player who underperformed in a 5-0 whitewash of England, and was dropped. White has never managed to be in the right place at the right time. Both men are getting too old to interest the selectors.

Of the younger players, Nic Maddinson (25 next month) has been touted as a future Test player since his first class debut six years ago, but has never managed to string together enough good scores. He had a mediocre season last year but has this year with 116 and 0 against WA. Still not battering down the selectors’ door.

Peter Handscomb (25) is under close scrutiny but needs a big year in the 2016-17 Shield. He is going to be fighting off Kurtis Patterson (23), who debuted back in 2011 but is only recently starting to make some big runs. Patterson, who bats at No. 4 for NSW, averaged 52.64 in 2015-16 and has shot out of the blocks this year with scores of 111, 38, 60 and 13.

If Ferguson plays and either Mitchell Marsh or Voges disappears before the end of the summer, and if the selectors abandon their foolish insistence on an all-rounder and decide to play six batsmen instead, my money would be on Kurtis Patterson. Test selection is all about being in the right place at the right time.

Waugh’s Comments Alarming

2016-17 S Africa in Aus

It was astonishing to hear selector Mark Waugh declare that Mitchell Marsh has been guaranteed a spot in the starting eleven for the Second Test against South Africa in Hobart.

Rod Marsh has been getting a lot of stick for allegedly poor selections, but reading Waugh’s comments, one can’t help but feel it is he (i.e. Waugh) who has pressed hardest for Mitchell Marsh’s selection.

Waugh is quoted as saying “As a selector, you pick these guys because you think they are the best players.” Honestly, Mark, on what basis was this assessment made? One of the best players? Mitchell Marsh bats at No. 6 in the Australian Test team, but has a first-class batting average of only 29.83. How does this make him ‘one of the best’?

In 108 first-class innings, he has scored 4 centuries. Waugh said “I think he is capable of getting a hundred.” Again, Mark, what is the basis for your faith? The numbers simply don’t support your assessment, and never have.

Waugh went on to say “he is capable of getting five wickets. He is what I would call a genuine allrounder.” Mitchell Marsh has taken a five-wicket haul only once in 87 first-class innings. For Waugh to make statements like this, he needs to produce evidence, and there is none.

Waugh clearly adores Mitchell Marsh, but his reasons for including him in the Test team border on the delusional. I don’t blame Marsh at all – after all, if you’re offered a Test berth you are going to take it, aren’t you? But I do blame selectors whose stated reasons for their picks are simply untrue and cannot be backed up. Waugh & Co need to stop pretending Marsh will suddenly bloom into the Test-class all-rounder they would like him to be, and concede that he is nowhere close to meeting the high standards they set for him.

Only three, possibly four, members of the current Test team are playing well enough to justify their inclusion so Mitchell Marsh should by no means be considered the sole source of the team’s problems. He is, however, the weakest player in the team by a considerable margin and must be replaced by a genuine batsman immediately. The only selection that would make the current situation worse would be to replace him with the utterly inadequate Moises Henriques.

 

If Not Mitchell…?

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

Okay, a few minutes after my last post in which I lambasted the selectors’ inattention to Mitchell Marsh’s failings, Rod Marsh has said the 25-year old all-rounder is on notice.

The public acknowledgement of Mitchell Marsh’s poor performances is a big step forward. It’s difficult to know how much patience the selectors will continue to show Marsh, but reading between the lines, one would think if he doesn’t make a big score in the three Tests against South Africa, he may be left out of the side to play Pakistan.

So who – if anybody – would be considered for the all-rounder slot?

The trouble is the selectors have for years insisted on picking an all-rounder even if no suitable player was available. A Test all-rounder should be competitive at international level as either a batsman or bowler (preferably both, of course, but players who excel at both are like hen’s teeth). The players selected for Australia in recent years have not been particularly outstanding in either discipline. And really, this was obvious before they were picked.

Australia is full of solid, handy all-rounders who represent their states with some success and for long periods of time, but who are not good enough for Test cricket (Dan Christian is a good example). Shane Watson may have justified selection early in his career, but not for the last two or three years of it. The selectors tried the likes of John Hastings (1 Test), Moises Henriques (4), Glenn Maxwell (3), Ashton Agar (2), James Faulkner (1), Steven O’Keefe (3) and Jon Holland (2), but none have nailed the spot.

There is not a single player capable of batting in the top 6 in the Test team while also bowling well enough to be the fourth or fifth bowler. Watson was not good enough, neither are Mitchell Marsh or Henriques.

For me, the most sensible option on pitches in Australia and outside the sub-continent would be to pick James Faulkner (182 first-class wickets at 24.36 and 2,397 runs at 31.96) and have him bat at No. 8. The selectors have tended to consider Faulkner only for the short form of the game, but he spends so much time travelling with the ODI and T20 teams that he has little chance to play red ball cricket. Of all the all-rounders tried so far, he is the most promising and deserves more opportunity.

On the sub-continent, beginning with the Australian tour of India next February, it would make sense to play (at least) two spinners. In this case, the first choice should be Steven O’Keefe (207 wickets at 23.84 and 1,844 runs at 29.74). O’Keefe was sent home from Sri Lanka recently with a hamstring injury and has since missed the Matador Cup with a broken finger but I would think his selection for India is a lock. Breathing down O’Keefe’s neck is the promising Adam Zampa.

The obvious result of all this is that the selectors would still need to find a batsman to bat at No. 6.

The Doughnut

2016-17 S Africa in Aus,

Mitchell Marsh and Peter Nevill are responsible for the Australian Test team’s doughnut: together they have cooked up a big hole in the middle of the batting order.

Neither batsman is performing to an acceptable standard. This is becoming an increasingly serious problem that neither the selectors nor the media seem to be talking enough about.

This year, we have two good teams coming to play: South Africa and Pakistan. Facing New Zealand (a good team) and the West Indies (um, not such a good team) last summer, Australia was able to stagger through carrying Marsh and Nevill, but against better teams it is unlikely to be so easy.

For a start, it’s time to acknowledge that the attempt to install Mitchell Marsh as Australia’s Test all-rounder has failed.

When he made his Test debut two years at the age of 23, Marsh was considered a batting all-rounder. He has now played 18 Tests, but in 29 Test innings has averaged only 24.00 and scored over 50 only twice. For a guy batting at No. 6, this is woeful. More to the point, when he bats he just doesn’t look like getting runs.

I am all for giving promising young players a chance to develop, but this experiment is not working. Marsh is more of a bash-&-crash merchant; he lacks the technique for Test cricket, and like his predecessor Shane Watson is better suited for the short form of the game (Marsh averages 37.45 in ODIs and 29.21 in Twenty20 cricket).

Marsh has, however, proven more useful with the ball than the selectors probably expected. His 27 wickets in 18 Tests at 36.33 is far from earth-shattering but there’s no denying he has a knack for picking up the odd useful wicket when coming on as first or second change. But his skills with the ball would only be pertinent if he batted at No. 8 and was considered a bowling all-rounder. If he remains in the Test team at all, that’s where he should play.

Marsh’s poor form with bat is even more worrying now that Peter Nevill’s form with the bat has deteriorated beyond recognition. When he made his Test debut, Nevill was averaging over 40 in first-class cricket and looked like the perfect replacement for Brad Haddin. Since then, he has averaged a measly 20.88 in 19 Test innings. Frankly, he looks utterly lost when facing Test-quality bowling attacks.

As Nevill is the better ‘keeper, it seems unlikely the Test selectors will revert to Matthew Wade again anytime soon, but it’s worth remembering that Wade averaged 34.61 with the bat in his 12 Tests. If Nevill can’t make some runs this summer, one wonders when the selectors will consider comprising on wicketkeeping prowess in order to get a few more runs on the board. And no single young ‘keeper-batsman is currently bashing down their door, although if players like 24-year old Sam Whiteman from WA (first-class average of 35.98) have a good 2016-17 Sheffield Shield, who knows?

Currently, if the Australian top order underperforms, the team does not have batsmen at No. 6 and No. 7 who are good enough to display the temperament and technique to help the team post a competitive score.

The selectors are happy to chop and change opening batsmen every two or three Tests, but Marsh and Nevill seem to get picked automatically despite prolonged inadequate returns. It’s an inconsistency that deserves closer scrutiny.

Who should they pick instead? That’s a topic for another post.

 

Post-NZ Tweaking

2015 NZ in Aus, , , , , , ,

Demote M Marsh, Promote Nevill

Mitchell Marsh is not a No. 6 Test batsman. This was made abundantly clear during the 2015 Ashes series, when he looked all at sea. He lacks technique, and has yet to prove he can graft an innings on anything other than a hard Aussie pitch. You need a proper batsman at No. 6. Mitchell Marsh is not that; he’s a reasonably talented slugger. It was well worth giving him a try as the batting all-rounder and I can’t fault the selectors for that, but after three Tests against New Zealand, it’s time to face facts. Although Marsh barely had a chance to bat in the first two games, he again struggled in the 3rd Test against the moving ball. His defenders might say he wasn’t the only one to struggle but it’s more about how he looks at the crease when under pressure; uncomfortable and short on technique.

Darren Lehmann has once again raised the possibility of promoting Peter Nevill to No. 6. This is a very good idea. Although regarding himself as a batting all-rounder, Mitchell Marsh is only justifying his selection at present as a zippy first-change medium-fast bowler. Dropping him to No. 7 would take some of the pressure off him and might help lead to an improvement in his batting average. Moreover, the numbers make sense; Mitchell Marsh’s first-class batting average of 31.00 (55 matches) doesn’t measure up to Nevill’s 41.01 (65 matches). Nevill should bat higher.

Sids on Borrowed Time

In the 3rd Test against NZ, Peter Siddle reminded the selectors why they had overlooked him for much of the previous year. The Adelaide Oval was supposed to be the place where Siddle would shine, taking wickets on a flattish pitch with his accurate line and length. It didn’t happen. This is not necessarily Siddle’s fault; after all, the pitch did not resemble Adelaide pitches of the past due to the introduction of the pink ball and the decision to leave more grass on it than usual. But Siddle looked very average to me. The selectors left him out for months due to their preference for faster bowlers, and sure enough, with his pace below 130 kph much of the time, Siddle simply did not look threatening. He was fortunate to achieve his (richly deserved) 200-wicket milestone in NZ’s first innings but did not look like taking a wicket in the second innings (and indeed did not).

With James Pattinson coming into the team to replace the injured Mitchell Starc for the West Indies series, Siddle looks likely to hold his place for a while, but it’s due more to good fortune than form. After his prolonged injury problems, Jackson Bird is back in form with 18 wickets from his first four Sheffield Shield matches this season, and will surely attract some attention from selectors. Even the evergreen Dougie Bollinger is taking wickets for NSW (12 of them in his first two Shield games), but at 34 he faces an uphill battle for Test selection.

If Pattinson performs and remains injury-free (two big ‘ifs’ there), I would expect to see Siddle dropped when Starc returns from injury.

Shaun Marsh Shouldn’t Stay

Shaun Marsh’s innings of 49 in the second innings in Adelaide, which helped Australia defeat New Zealand, probably won’t help him keep his place in the team. Although assisted by two benign pitches, Usman Khajawa batted superbly in the first two Tests against New Zealand and should slot back in when he returns from injury. I remain a big Shaun Marsh skeptic. If one more commentator tells me Marsh is ‘very talented’, my head will explode. The stats just don’t back it up. Marsh’s first-class average of 38.35 after 114 matches is mediocre. Moreover, it is Marsh’s repeated failure of nerve that should be cause for concern. True, his second innings performance in Adelaide probably rescued his team, but he is renowned for failing in pressure situations. The amateurish way in which he ran himself out for 2 in the first innings in Adelaide suggests nothing much has changed. This guy has been playing first-class cricket for fifteen years – if he hasn’t discovered a way to manage his nerves and get through tough scrapes, he is hardly likely to do so now.

 

Fountain of Youth

2015 Ashes, , ,

At 23, Mitchell Marsh is 10.3 years younger than the man he is likely to replace in the Second Test, Shane Watson.

Peter Nevill, meanwhile, at 29 years and 275 days, is 8 years younger than Brad Haddin, whom he will replace at Lord’s.

This means the median age of the Australian eleven will fall by 15% from 33.7 to 28.7, and the number of players aged 30 or more will fall from 6 to 4.

Dad’s Army no more? At the very least, the Australians are reducing the number of excuses they can use if they lose at Lord’s.