I’ve very deliberately held off from airing my thoughts on the South African squad thus far, preferring instead to let it sit for a few days and see if I can work out where the Australian selectors are coming from.
There’s no doubt the selection of Western Australian batsman Shaun Marsh has garnered both the most surprise, and the lion’s share of the adverse reaction.
Marsh had admitted surprise himself, for what it’s worth, saying after the announcement that he was a touch shocked to get the phone call from NSP Chairman John Inverarity on Sunday night.
“I’m very excited about it. If I do get an opportunity hopefully I can have a lot of fun out there it is great to be a part of it again,” Marsh said in Perth on Monday.
“Fourteen months ago I wasn’t even getting picked in the WA side. It was disappointing; I had some injuries and some poor form too being dropped from the Test team, hopefully that is all behind me now.”
Hopefully indeed, Shaun.
Certainly, most of the angst smashed through keyboards has been in relation to Marsh being preferred to Phillip Hughes.
Not too many tears have been shed for George Bailey – not even from George himself – though I’ll happily admit to thinking not even making the tour squad seems harsh on Bailey, even if he didn’t play a Test.
In sitting back on this topic for a few days, I’ve been trying to look beyond the raw numbers, and that was partly motivated by a tweet on Monday from senior cricket writer for The Age, Greg Baum, replying to some punters:
@gcowan86 @Tom_underscore If only figs counted, a computer would select team. Selectors’ job is to identify and back class. Not easy.
— Greg Baum (@GregBaum) January 20, 2014
And he is course, correct. So many comments – sooo many comments – have been made in these and many other online forums, and indeed, on social media, referring just to the raw numbers.
And don’t get me wrong, the raw numbers paint a pretty clear picture. Phillip Hughes has had an excellent Sheffield Shield season. Shaun Marsh has struggled since he was dropped from the Test side two summers ago.
But selecting a cricket side – as many of you would know – is not just as simple as looking at stats, as Greg Baum was alluding. Stats give a good overall picture, but selecting cricket teams often involves more intangible measures, like technique, and temperament.
For fans of NCIS, you can throw some Leroy Jethro Gibbs “gut” in here, too. And probably guesswork, if I’m honest.
And so, ignoring the numbers, I can kind of see where the selectors are coming from for South Africa.
Alex Doolan has a very upright, a very classical technique, with a high backlift and not too much movement around the crease before the ball arrives. He’s got all the shots straight and square of the wicket, and he does just seem to have time.
I’d say the same about Marsh. He’s quite good technically, and when he’s ‘on’ there aren’t too many better looking left-handers in Australia.
Like Doolan, he doesn’t move around the crease too much, and gets into position to play his shots quite early.
Contrast this to Bailey and Hughes. Both of them, but particularly Hughes, are a bit fidgety around the crease, and have vulnerabilities playing outside off early in an innings.
On the fast, bouncy decks against the best bowling attack in the world, that’s not quite what you’d be wanting to send into battle.
Doolan was always going to go to South Africa. Given he was next in line during the Ashes, and just like Bailey coming into the Ashes, it does seem like he was always going to be picked at some point.
So as much as I’d still like to believe Cameron White was in the frame, the last batting spot quite obviously came down to Bailey, Hughes, or Marsh.
And I think they’ve picked correctly of those three.
I’ll say it again, anyone who has ever had to select a side would know that there is more to form than just the numbers. “He’s hitting them well in the nets,” or “he’s batting well, just not getting the rewards” are pretty much cricketing clichés these days, yet every batsman and every selector in the country has uttered them at some stage in their cricketing lives.
And it’s true. Sometimes, batsmen are hitting the ball very well for no reward.
I can’t really comment on Marsh’s last two years overall, but certainly over the last six weeks or so that I’ve seen more of him, from a purely bat-on-ball perspective, he is, as Inverarity said on Monday, “striking the ball very well” at the moment.
Bailey and Hughes aren’t. Bailey has continued to look scratchy in his two one-day innings in the last fortnight, and his Test form has been well documented.
The Adelaide Strikers are trying to dress it up as being “rested”, but Hughes had been in horrible touch in six of his seven Big Bash innings, and was rightly dropped for Wednesday night’s game.
Again, from that purely bat-on-ball perspective, neither Bailey or Hughes have looked particularly good of late, and nothing like being ready to face the likes of Vernon Philander and Dale Steyn.
Some batting order flexibility has also come into the equation, evidently, with both Doolan and Marsh being viewed as options for both No.6 and No.3, should Darren Lehmann and Michael Clarke decide the time has come for Shane Watson to move down to No.6.
Bailey will never be a Test No.3, and the same can said of White.
And despite using him at No.6 at Trent Bridge in July, Hughes is now viewed as being “best suited to a top order position”.
The mere detail that the new batsmen are now quite likely to bat in the top order anyway is probably another topic for another day.
So if this is how the selectors came to their final decisions, I can probably live with it. I wouldn’t have gone that way myself, but I can see why they’ve gone the way they did.
That said, I’m quite expecting responses to come back at this quoting yet more stats, to which I’ll say again, there’s very little argument.
Regardless, and even though I’m still as shocked at the South African tour squad as anyone, I can see some method in the evident selection madness.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Adam Gilchrist had a very high backlift. It was a treat to watch.
casper
Guest
from what I recall of Marsh, he doesn't move his feet enough & plays away from his body too often to succee against a good attack. that's now academic as he's injured but I think the selectors missed the opportunity to bllod a younger batsmn such as Lynn/Burns who both have excellent techniques & just need experience to play the long innings consistently. We've done our younger players a disservice by scheduling big bash for 2 months & no shield games to push their test credentials. I think Joe Burns might be one of those 10 year state performers (stuart law/martin love/brad hodge) & lets hope he doesn't suffer the same fate & be left out of test contention for too long because we need mid-20's players for balance. I recall robbie kerr was Qld's form opener for 2 years & then got a test cap when he was struggling, never got over it & faded from the scene. almost happened to matt hayden but he went back to shield ricket & fixed up the technical weaknesses that were exposed first up.
Bayman
Guest
Jack, Given the team was picked before Finch's latest ODI hundred my guess would be that it won't help him get selected. However, I'm sure the selectors were pleased to see it - and I'm sure Finch was pleased to get it. Further, he batted with a degree of maturity previously lacking in his play so I've no doubt that more of that sort of performance will help him achieve higher honours one day - and I reckon that maturity is what the selectors want from him because they already knew he could hit the ball.
Bayman
Guest
Jack, If you want to know why Marsh is not measuring up to your expectations go and ask him - it's not my f***ing problem!
Armchair expert
Guest
Boycott was unavailable, so Tony Greig apparently telegrammed every county captain to ask who was the next hardest batsman to get out, they all said Steele, Greig then twisted the selectors arms to get him selected, from what I've seen on youtube he played the short balls as good as anyone I've seen.
One-eyed Jack
Guest
I wonder if those pushing his two 50+ scores as the reason for his selection will talk about his 15... has his 'form' disappeared as seems to the pattern over his career? And if we are using the most recent ODI/t20 form as a key selection criteria, why isn't Finch getting a ticket to SA? I know his red ball form is rubbish, but thats not relevant these days apparently. He looks good, he is smashing the ball and has made runs in his last few short form innings. What more could the selectors want?
One-eyed Jack
Guest
Why haven't his results improved then? He was rubbish in the early Shield games this season. Where was his improved lifestyle and clear head then? He is still getting picked on potential at 30. The selectors are wishing and hoping that he plays better in the test team than he has in any of the 13 years he has been playing first class cricket. Maybe their gamble will come off. Personally, I think the world's top ranked pace attack will have no trouble helping him revert to mean. In his defence, he did look all class today in Perth, and the ball was coming off the bat beautifully. It was one of the most excellent 15's of all time.
One-eyed Jack
Guest
JP not looking too good in Perth, is he. Will be interesting to see how Marsh goes, since his most recent ODI innings are a key to his selection.
JGK
Roar Guru
It's looking more and more like Patto was the dud selection for the Saf tour, not Marsh.
Buk
Guest
You have dug quite deep here, Brett to get inside the selector's heads, and your comment "And so, ignoring the numbers, I can kind of see where the selectors are coming from for South Africa." is perhaps the most telling. I find it amazing the numbers are being ignored. However there is some historical backing for ignoring numbers. I read an article on English cricket and how they reacted to Lillee/Thomson back in the 70's. I think the Pom selectors and/or the captain asked around all the counties, "who is the best player in England of pace bowling, after Boycott" ? (not sure if it was county coaches, players, or umpires who were asked). Anyway, the answer came back "David Steele", and so was birthed a brief but effective test career; Steele's county average was a modest 32.5,but in his brief test career, his average was 42 (against the two most fearsome pace attacks in the world at the time - Australia and the WI).
One-eyed Jack
Guest
Number of posts is the selectors criteria for the quality of the article. Number of posts looks nice to the eye and is a great indicator of class.
One-eyed Jack
Guest
AB was pretty clear that he thought it was a bullsh@t selection. What do you expect Lyon to say? The selectors are always looking for reasons to cut him at the drop of a hat.
One-eyed Jack
Guest
They want to put him in, so even mediocre performances are being trumpeted as the new coming of JC, despite there being better performing batsmen across all three forms. He truly is the chosen one. It must be a bit depressing for all the young up-and-comers who are putting runs on the board, that the main selection criteria are to look pretty, have limited talent (if he had real talent, his record would not be so poor) and, most importantly, good connections.
Buk
Guest
Every team me and my pub mates have picked, has never lost a test match. So we rate as Invincibles in terms of team selectors; please don't cloud the issue with minor details like our team selections never having taken the field, or always selecting Eddie Gilbert on principle.
One-eyed Jack
Guest
Assuming their thoughts are in accordance with your reverse-engineered justification. It could have been 'lets just go with my mate's son', but we will never know.
Bayman
Guest
Nick, On the subject of Bailey, Marsh and their ODI form. Timing is everything - in life as it is in cricket. Don't forget, since GB's fantastic ODI form he's had some less than stellar Test form - and now he's being judged on that, not what happened in India. He is, after all, still in the mix for the ODI team.
Bayman
Guest
Sheek, Thanks for the endorsement..........but I was never an umpire, ex or otherwise. My interest is history, pure and simple, and cricket history includes, and involves, umpires so over the journey I've met several and count some as my friends. However, the last time I umpired was when it was my turn during a high school match. Naturally, with my side batting all the appeals were turned down!!!
Bayman
Guest
Jameswm, What's up son? Bang your head getting out of bed today? Let me be very clear that I have no great bias towards Shaun Marsh - or any other player currently running around in first-class cricket in this country. I do, however, have some favourites based more on their personality than their playing ability - and SM is not on my list! What I do find slightly annoying are those who think that the statistics are everything. This guy is averaging more than that guy so we must pick him. I don't think so. I will just about guarantee you that Darren Lehmann, for example, does not need a stats sheet to tell him who is the better player between Mr A and Mr B. Consequently, the stats sheet will definitely NOT be the first thing he looks at. Nor, I suspect, do the selectors go to the stats first before deciding who will be in the team. In fact, the selection of Shaun Marsh proves it. Nor do I think, as you playfully suggested, that 'how nicely a player hits the ball' is the be all and end all of cricket selection. It can, however, give a clue to whether a batsman can play off his legs, drive through the off-side, move his feet, will flash outside off. A story, just for you..... Michael Vaughan was coming through at Yorkshire when Lehmann was playing there. In the nets MV was magnificent. All the shots, both sides of the wicket, great defence. Lehmann was watching and spoke to him afterwards to the effect, "Michael, you were sensational in the nets today. Unfortunately, out in the middle you don't play any of those shots - just a nudge here and a nudge there. You're never going to make it unless you take that net form out to the middle and score runs". MV then told me that Lehmann then added another piece of advice, "And remember, Michael, most spinners can't bowl and they never have a fieldsman in the carpark!" So there's 'looking good' and there's 'playing good' - and they're not necessarily the same thing. The thing is, Lehmann did not need MV's stats to know he could play, because the stats suggested he was very limited, but he had to find a way to free up his mind. History shows Vaughan went on to captain England and win the Ashes for his country. So he clearly listened to the advice and told this story against himself to highlight that sometimes the game requires more than just an ability to hold a stick. You state that, "if someone has that much talent and they don’t score runs, something else is wrong". I agree entirely and this was definitely the case with Marsh and most people involved in cricket knew what that problem was. This was where Langer was so crucial to Marsh's new found attitude. Langer was going to shake his hand, wish him well and flick him immediately unless Marsh changed his attitude and his lifestyle - immediately. That Marsh made the necessary changes to his life is a credit to him but, really, he had no choice if he wanted to continue with first-class cricket. All things considered, I don't much care if Marsh is in the team or not but I'm happy to see a guy get another chance when I know the guy can actually play and has made the appropriate effort. Will he be successful? Who knows? I hope he is because while George Bailey (for example) is one of the truly great guys in Australian cricket he is not a better player than Shaun Marsh - and I don't give a stuff what the stats say. In fact, I reckon I would have loved GB to have nailed down that Test spot (because I've been a bit of a fan for sometime) but he did not. Lehmann doesn't get everything right but he gets most things right and he's a guy who follows his 'gut' instinct. He definitely would not have been concerned with Marsh's 17 @ stuff-all against India because he knows the history. It doesn't mean Marsh won't fail again, or succeed wildly - a la Johnson this series, but the selectors and the coach have seen enough, and know enough, to think the gamble is worth it. And, like it or not, it's got absolutely nothing to do with the stats. PS I wasn't suggesting that you said 'only look at the stats' - that was my comment to those who think stats are the most important thing. Because history, and this selection in particular, prove they are not.
jameswm
Guest
What point is there taking a kid for experience whilst the Shield is on in earnest back home?
jameswm
Guest
Don't re-write what I said Bayman. I said you look at stats first. I didn't say you don't look at anything else. And I stand by that. I don't care how good a batsman looks, or how well the net bowlers say he plays them. If he doesn't score runs, how can you pick him? How long do you ignore an absence of runs? I'm not talking about junior cricket. Cricketers haven't developed mentally (pr physically by then). However, surely they have by 30. I think most people who know their way around cricket know that not everyone who looks nice and hits the ball cleanly will make it. Test cricket is littered with successful gritty types, who aren't pretty watch. How many runs did SWaugh, Border and Gavaskar score? Or Boycott? You're saying how nicely a guy hits the ball is MORE important than how many runs he scores. I disagree, at that level anyway. I just don't get where this line of yours comes from: "The point is, if stats are the first thing a selector looks at, and the only thing he considers". Where did the second part come from? Not from me. That is in no way paraphrasing what I said. Just maybe, if someone has that much talent and they don't score runs, something else is wrong. Marsh isn't a little 12yo competing against more physically mature guys. He's a big boy. You seem to think that because players you know say Marsh has serious batting talent that he'll make it in tests one day. Maybe you know his dad. But don't you find a touch of arrogance in someone who thinks they know more than the results are saying? How long have you been saying this? How long has Marsh been disappointing you? Over an extended period Marsh has failed to score red ball runs. And to be honest, he doesn't stand out in ODIs either. I've never got the man-love for him and until now, the results have backed MY opinion of his game. If you want to back someone who looks the good but their results haven't backed it up yet, why not go for a younger guy who hasn't consistently failed to prove his worth?