- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Daniel Brettig. Russell Jackson. Shane Warne. Darren Lehmann. Byron Coverdale. Andrew Ramsey. Stuart Clark. Ian Chappell. What do these people have in common?
They’re all good commentators of the game of cricket. All entertaining to read. And all seem to have no problem with Mitchell Marsh being number six for the first Test in India.
I don’t get it. I respect all these men, I do. Some of them are my favourite writers of all time.
But I simply don’t understand the attitudes ranging from casual acceptance to fanatical enthusiasm (Lehmann) about the prospect of Mitchell’s return to the Test fold.
Some are upset about Khawaja being dropped; there’s differing opinions on Renshaw versus Shaun Marsh; some a very hot against the possibility Hazlewood might be dropped. But the idea of Mitchell’s return… barely a sweat is raised.
When did this happen? A man who averages 30 with the bat at first class level is going to be our Test number six again after a disastrous stint last time and our leading cricket writers don’t seem to care?
The only exception I can find is The Roar’s Ronan O’Connell, who at least had a good hard look at the issue – saying we need Mitchell Marsh because of concerns over Lyon.
This was the case in 2009 when Mitchell Johnson’s wayward bowling saw Phil Hughes dropped to make way for Shane Watson, ushering in a period of success for Watto, failure for Australia, and a perennially unfulfilled career for Hughes, but that’s another story.
But at least Watson averaged over 40 with the bat at first class level. Has Australia ever had a successful Test side with a number six who averaged 30? I can’t think of one. Maybe in the late 50s with Ken Mackay? At least he had Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson down the order.
Mitchell Marsh has lots of talent. He might improve. But he has played nineteen Tests already. That is a very long apprenticeship. During which, he’s never looked at home as a Test batsman. Or a Test strike bowler. He has looked at home as a change bowler and a fielder. But that’s about it.
His first class figures don’t indicate someone who is a sleeping-giant-of-the-game-waiting-to-be-woken up either – like say Shane Watson, who you were forever hoping would duplicate his first class form at international level. Mitchell averages thirty runs per first class innings; yes four centuries, but a lot of failures.
Okay, so you figure, maybe he’s more an Andy Flintoff type player? He’s got a decent bowling average.
But Marsh averages less than two wickets a game. And those stats are remarkably stagnant. There’s no obvious upward improvement that say Steve Waugh had, or Travis Head is having. Also, there’s no consistent ability-to-pull-out-something-special-in-big games or presence that made Flintoff and Ian Botham such handy bits and pieces players.
We lost four games on the trot with Mitchell Marsh. They dumped him, lost another one, then turned around and won four in a row with a six batsmen-one-keeper-four specialists method – you couldn’t really call Hilton Cartwright an all rounder. And now we want to change it again.
Why? Because it’s really hot to bowl in India? Because Steve Waugh took ages to establish himself and Mitchell Marsh is just like him even though Mitchell Marsh is nothing like Steve Waugh? Because “horses for courses” even though Australia have lost five Tests in a row in India with Mitchell Marsh? Because Darren Lehmann can’t bear to admit he mad a mistake, not once, but nineteen times?
I don’t know what’s so scary about playing specialists. Six batsmen to give you a total, four bowlers to do the job of getting them out. Yes, it’s a lot of work but they do have part timers. If they don’t trust Nathan Lyon, then don’t pick him – play O’Keefe and go with Bird. It’s no use having a fifth bowling option if you’re defending 200.
Pick a specialist, they don’t do their job, you dump them. You need a number six who can bowl, if it’s that important, try showing some faith in Maxwell’s bowling, or Cartwright’s, or Travis Head, whose batting just gets better and better.
I don’t want to be mean. I’m sure Mitchell Marsh is a nice guy. I get that Darren Lehmann is infatuated with his ability on some level.
What I really struggle to understand is the cricket media’s calm acceptance of it.
Am I just missing the articles? If I am I apologise. But, Ronan O’Connell apart, I can’t find any.
I actually think Marsh might have a decent Test or two in India. He’s certainly over due for a handy score. He might even do as well as say Shane Watson did in 2008 – maybe a few fifties and some wickets and the selectors will go “vindicated!” as Australia loses. Because we will lose without a proper number six.
That won’t be the main reason. I feel that’ll be Matthew Wade. You can’t play India in India with a spin-heavy attack and a shoddy keeper, but it’ll make a contribution.
Number sixes need to score big runs and regularly; they need to stop collapses; they need to turn games around. That is more important than giving bowlers a rest. If Nathan Lyon gets caned, having Mitchell Marsh to help out with overs isn’t going to win us games.
I could be wrong. I hope I’m wrong. But mostly I’m angry. Because Australia bounced back this summer after hitting rock bottom. We unearthed two potential champs in Renshaw and Handscomb and the attack of Bird-Lyon-Starc-Hazlewood really clicked. Khawaja flowered.
But instead we’re talking about dumping some of our best performing players in Khawaja, Bird, and Renshaw so the selectors can show off their “horses for courses” genius and Lehmann can show his love for Mitchell Marsh.
It’s madness. It’s frustrating. I just wish there was a bit more talk about it, that’s all.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.