Whilst the dropping of George Bailey hasn’t come as a huge surprise to many, the recalling of Shaun Marsh after a two year absence from test cricket and the selection of the uncapped Alex Doolan is.
What is even more perplexing is that both have been performing unremarkably at shield level, with Doolan having scored 391 runs at 39 and Marsh and even more miserly 248 runs at 31.
The most unlucky of players to have missed out include Marcus North, who has scored 593 runs at 98 and Phil Hughes, who continues to be overlooked by the Australian selectors despite 549 runs at 61 this season.
The selectors have overlooked Marsh’s modest first-class form – and unsuccessful record in his last extended run in the Test side – to choose him ahead of the incumbent Bailey and prolific Hughes, North, Cameron White and Tom Cooper, all of whom have averaged over 50 this shield season.
Batting at number three in Australia’s 4-0 home series win over India two summers ago, Marsh made 17 runs at 2.83, which were the worse figures by any batsman in any four-test match series.
He suffered a crisis of confidence that was not helped by ongoing soft tissue injuries.
The 30-year-old’s career average is languishing at 35 but the selectors appear to believe Marsh’s good form in one-day cricket – where he averages 40 and is coming off consecutive half centuries – will translate to Tests if the reserve batsman is required to play in South Africa.
However, this statement by chairman of selectors John Inverarity could be seen as unjustifiable as George Bailey has demonstrated that prolific ODI form counts for nothing when it comes to the longer form. (George Bailey averaged 75 in all ODI’s in 2013 but averaged 26 during the recent Ashes series)
Whilst White, North and Cooper should all feel hard done by after missing out, the player who may feel the effects most is Phil Hughes.
Ever since his incredible debut series against South Africa in 2009, Hughes has been dropped from the national side a total of five times. During this time, the selectors have shown no faith in Hughes after just one or two failures.
Commissioned after the last home Ashes misadventure, the Argus review said it was “critical that superior performance is rewarded” and “players must earn their positions in the time-honoured way of making runs”
Clearly the selectors are not abiding by this statement, as it seems like Phil Hughes simply cannot do enough to impress the Australian selectors. Phil Hughes’ performances last season justify this point.
He made a steady return to the Australia side in late 2012, averaging 46 against Sri Lanka. After struggling in India where pretty much every Australia batsman struggled, he played second fiddle to Ashton Agar in Trent Bridge where he made a mature and well-compiled 81* not out in that record breaking 10th wicket, 163 run partnership.
A harsh LBW, (where more than half the ball was shown to have pitched outside leg) and an unlucky caught behind decision later (no hotspot was shown), he was dropped from the side once again.
Whilst not being overly prolific in the recent ODI series, he unluckily found himself also out of the ODI side earlier this year as David Warner returned.
For a young player, the treatment that Phil Hughes has received from the selectors throughout his career, especially of late, would not have done his confidence any good.
His test career stats of 1535 runs at 33 after 26 tests, though nothing to write home about are very decent for a 25 year old.
Those numbers are actually almost identical to Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh after they played 26 tests. Both went on to be two of Australia’s most prolific run scorers in history.
Though Phil Hughes may not be in the same group as Ponting and Waugh, there is no way he will be given a chance to be as prolific as the two if the selectors don’t show faith in him.
He may not have the most beautiful cover drive or forward defence, but surely Hughes’ shield form has earned him a long stay in the national side.
BBJ
Guest
Hughes has flawed technique and it gets continually exposed at Test level. Hughes is not the first player who could not take his game to the next level. You only need look at Marsh in the one dayers. He has good technique and plays shots all over the ground. If he clicks he will dominate at Test level. Marsh over Hughes is a no brainer for mine. Watson is under pressure. Haddin concealed the fragility of our batting.
JGK
Roar Guru
I don't disagree. But after an Ashes whitewash I am willing to give them a chance to prove that they are geniuses.
a punter
Guest
JGK, I agree with Chris's analysis, The selection of Marsh has no rational justification whatsoever.
JGK
Roar Guru
I guess my point was I was burnt by criticising the selectors for picking Johnson so I am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt for now re Marsh. As it is, I don't think Marsh will play a match.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
lols
Brett McKay
Expert
Perhaps he got an LBW referral wrong in the backyard that afternoon?
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Thanks Brett. Watto looked right grumpy during the ABs. Apart from the aforementioned seating arrangements it could have been Invers comments maybe?
Brett McKay
Expert
He would eligible to play for Australia, James. Playing for an Associate nation doesn't rule you out of playing for a 'full member' nation which you also qualify for. That's also why Boyd Rankin could play for England after playing so many ODIs for Ireland..
jammel
Guest
Punter - I'd be pretty sure if Wade had been given the opportunities that Watson's been given he'd have scored more runs, at a greater average, with more hundreds in there. It's pretty clear. I.e. Wade has a semblance of an idea of how to build an innings...
Brett McKay
Expert
Pope, Invers mentioned on Monday that Watson dropping to 6 has long been on the table: "It could be that the batting order is rearranged. No.6 is a real option, but with Shane Watson, we're very keen for him to do plenty of bowling, so Michael and Darren may consider that he drops down the list, but that's yet to be decided. That's always been an option, nothing's changed there."
langou
Roar Guru
Wouldn't have a clue why they have picked Marsh as I haven't watched any of the shield the last couple of years as opposed to the selectors who regularly watch first class cricket.
Punter
Guest
Wade more technically correct than Watson? You are kidding yourself.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
I have no issues with Phil Hughes being left out. He's had 26 Tests to get it right and clearly hasn't otherwise he would be there. I do however have an issue with the selectors picking someone who's failed in Test cricket and since failing in Test Cricket has averaged little over 20 ever since! There was numerous of other options other than Phil Hughes and selectors choose not to use any of them. As it's been pointed out else where, Australia's demo derby on England is not a true reflecton of the current status and I'm sure RSA will highlight this.
Brendon the 1st
Guest
Ridiculous comment, even if we didn't agree with all the previous selections, we knew why they were happening, MJ could be destructive, Smith was in very good form, Haddin was needed to fill a leadership void and Rogers has averaged 50 since when Noah played cricket. Please explain the Shaun Marsh decision.
Brett McKay
Expert
not until he's 32 - the ECB are pushing the residential qual out to 7 years...
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
While the "Myth of Shaun Marsh" most certainly ignores his actual first class form the "Cult of Hughes" all but ignores Hughes actual performances at Test level since his outstanding debut series against SAf. Hughes has been selected before on excellent Shield form and has been found wanting multiple times therefore he should be required to do more than just score lots more Shield runs. He needs to clearly show that the faults exposed at Test level have been clearly dealt with.
Brendon the 1st
Guest
Has he ever played more than five tests in a row?
Brendon the 1st
Guest
You have to look at how and when though, quoting one number is misleading.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
To suggests the Hughes hasn't been given multiple series in a row batting in the same position to cement a spot in the Australian team is quite simply contrary to the facts. He played the last 3 Tests of the 2010/11 Ashes series followed by a 3 Test series v Sri Lanka, a 2 Test series against South Africa and a 2 Test series against New Zealand all as an opener. His averages for these series were: v Eng. 16.16 v SL 40.40 v SAf 29.25 v NZ 10.25 His average for these 19 innings in 10 consecutive Tests was 24.05. If that doesn't constitute a bite, what does?
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
But Johnson, while he's been rather erratic at times, has a history that has included demolishing teams before, he's won the ICC's top Cricketer of the year title or whatever it's called in the past and been one of the top players in the world. He had some injuries, had some time away from the game, has been more settled with his family and came back bowling really quick and looking like the menace who was destroying batting lineups a few years ago. On top of that, lots of other quicks who were in and around the Australian team were falling by the wayside with injuries leaving the selectors with Johnson as the best healthy option to pick. Meanwhile Marsh was once picked for the test side despite never having the first class record to justify that. He started with one good innings and after that basically failed to make double figures at all. Was dropped and told to go back to first class cricket and score runs, which he totally failed to do to the point of not being certain of his place in the WA side even, and then got picked again. On top of that, Khawaja is really the only one of the real contenders to play for Australia who hasn't had a really good shield season this year, so there were plenty of batsmen batting well and in good form to pick, yet Marsh, despite not being one of them, is the one picked. So not really a lot of similarities between the Johnson and Marsh selections.