The loss of James Pattinson for the rest of the Ashes tour is no doubt a big one for the Australian team.
However, it presents an opportunity to breathe life and hope into this series that is turning out to be a clean sweep by the England side as most Australian fans feared, provided a shrewd and savvy replacement is made.
The conventional replacement for Pattinson would to bring in Pat Cummins from the Australia A tour. The problem with this is that Australia doesn’t need another fast bowler to turn this series around, especially if he is just going to carry the drinks for three Tests.
If Australia has any hope of turning this series around it must inject its most talented batsman available into the line-up. And while Shaun Marsh is considered by many fans as a wasted talent who hasn’t got what it takes at the Test level, I would argue that if you ask any ex-Test cricketer, most would say that Marsh is the most talented batsmen outside the current Ashes squad.
Marsh is the only batsman available that is a proven century scorer at Test level. Sure, he has been out of form in recent seasons and doesn’t have a mountain of first-class runs under his belt, but from all accounts has been due to personal reasons and a serious back injury.
The same excuses cannot be said for the plethora of batsmen in the current squad who are pretty much playing to their ability and still not scoring enough runs.
The other common argument against Marsh is that he is around 30 years old and has reached his peak, which is a completely bogus argument. This is the prime age of a batsman and not so long ago was the entry age to the Australian side with a good five or so years ahead.
Sure, there is a risk in selecting Marsh, but it cannot get any worse and high rewards are at stake if he plays to his ability as he very well could turn the Ashes on its head if he does so.
All it takes is for him to be put in the right environment to get the best out of his performances, and what better occasion than the Ashes on the line.
Further, Darren Lehmann’s guidance, and to a lesser extent Michael Clarke’s support, should provide a great platform for him to re-enter the Test arena.
Given the current plight, perhaps there couldn’t be a better time to make such a bold move and have England at least start second guessing themselves and Australia to find a chink in their armour.
For what it’s worth, the Australian XI that would have England most concerned heading into Old Trafford would be: Rogers, Marsh, Kawajha, Clarke, Watson, Smith/Hughes, Haddin, Agar, Starc, Siddle and Harris.
There are enough deft changes in this side to produce a much more competitive performance in the third Test. And if Marsh is considered too risky a move, the next best side would be to seriously consider playing five specialist bowlers and shift Hughes to opener.
These are not times the Australian side has the luxury to wait around and force Marsh to score a high volume of runs in first-class cricket for two years before re-considering him in the Test arena again.
It’s time the selectors turn a negative into a positive, recognise his rare talent and do whatever it takes to get the most out of his talent before it’s too late.
Our resources, or lack thereof, give us no room to hesitate and waste our best talent available anymore, otherwise we will continue on a journey of disappointing series results in the future.
Ramesh Somasunderam
Guest
I think batsmen ad bowlers should be picked on form not just reputation or past performances. This is my candid view. Warner is a classic example who has been picked based on his reputation and past performances. This is not acceptable in my view.
Tim
Guest
Hmmm... I guess he's not in the squad because of his performance in his last test series - 17 runs from 6 innings at a mighty average of 2.8. Statistically the worst batting performance in a test series in history barring only Ken Rutherford with 12 runs at 1.7 - but at least Rutherford was playing away from home on debut against Marshall, Holding and Garner- no such excuses for Marsh. Of course, since being dropped his 2012/13 shield form has to be taken into consideration - but he only managed to average 19. Yes, he did manage a century on his test debut and looked pretty good doing so - only to follow it up with four ducks and two other scores under 5 in his only other 10 test innings. Seems mentally a bit frail to me - maybe he can rediscover his form in the pressure cooker atmosphere of an ashes test - but I don't think even an England supporter would want us to pick him - they don't want the tests to be any shorter !!
DingoGray
Roar Guru
DH you always have a way of making people laugh. Here's the thing. Shaun Marsh is a wasted talent! The claim Shaun Marsh most talented batsman should have "potential" along with it. As yes Marsh has shown his potential on occasions however not at any stage in his career has he shown any level of consistency in the long format of the game. Marsh is not in the squad because of poor Domestic form. Recently guys like Khawja, Smith & Hughes have performed consistently and earned places on the Ashes squad. We can't go and pick Shaun Marsh on potential. He needs to perform on a consistent basis and he will then get opportunities. Until that consistency comes along Shaun Marsh 'the potentially" talented batsmen remains a wasted talent.
Charlie
Guest
Sean Marsh just isn’t good enough. He averages 35 in FC cricket after 77 matches (140 innings), with only 7 centuries in that time. He might be good enough to play the shorter forms of the game, but one of the major reasons that Aus is struggling IMO is that players are picked for the test team on good one-day or T20 form, and that is a mistake. He finished the Shield season with 152 runs from 8 innings at an average of 19. Take out his 84 and it’s 68 runs from 7 innings. He should never be allowed anywhere near the test team.
JGK
Roar Guru
Today's game: SE Marsh b Abbott 5
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
"Marsh is the only batsman available that is a proven century scorer at Test level." - one Test century from 11 innings for me, and I think many others, does not constitute a "... proven century scorer at Test level." Marsh has 1 Test century and 1 Test fifty and they came in his first and second Test match innings, v SL in SL. IMO, a significant part of the Australian squads problem is too many players selected on perceived 'potential' rather than prolonged performance, so completely disagree that Marsh should even be considered. If you really wanted to bring a 'proven' Test century scorer into the squad then Simon Katich with 10 centuries and 25 fifties from 99 Tests would be the way to go. Although, re-introducing Warner, 3 centuries and 7 fifties from 34 innings, is the more likely, and still a more proven option than Marsh.
Rob G
Guest
Marsh is very much like Mitchell Pearce. Lives off the name of his famous father yet time after time has shows he isn't good enough for the highest level. Luckily for him, he sits on the Clarke side of the team divide so is always a shot. Luckily for us Clarke isn't a selector any more.