John Inverarity and Co. deserve an apology

Pom in Oz Your comments are the best so far. Selectors had no choice but to pick MJ because every other fast bowler was injured; no genius selectors choice. Thank Heavens JH is retiring. In my opinion he has been woeful.: picking Marsh instead of Hughes was blatant favouritism of Western Australia. Marsh has a pathetic test record and one century is no proof he is of test standard. JH's alleged comment to Brad Hodge when he was 30 that "you will never play for Australia again" was indicative of his biggest blunder. I ask readers to have a look at Hodge's record - it speaks for itself.

I agree Aransan. But it takes two to debate. I was merely expressing an opinion based on information available, rather than generalisations and feelings. But I take your point lad and call this little stoush at an end..at least from my point of view..

Bearfax, I think it is time to give it a rest. Your gentlemanly contributions are appreciated.

...as the cell door slams in your face.

Please excuse my court experience here but I hereby rest my case.

Why do I need to supply reasons to justify his selection, didn't Marsh give you 192 of those? As for Tour selection... a century (particularly one of that calibre) generally buys you how many Tests? Would 2 be a fair amount? So you could say he's done enough to justify not only his selection for the First Test, but for the whole series as well. Even if he wasn't selected again for the whole tour.

Marsh was selected for the tour and then remarkably after being declared injured, and replaced, was brought back again because of Watson's injury. By the way I've never heard that happening in the past. given they had Hughes there as a replacement esp for opening and No 3. His century may well pave the way for further tests. As for your claims of justification, rather than excuses, please supply facts regarding why you would select Marsh ahead of Hughes. Or for that matter Maddinson, Silk or Lynn all with better performances. Please I'm fascinated.

Marsh wasn't selected for 3, 4, or 10 Tests. His selection was for one Test, which he scored a crucial 148 and a 44. That selection surely is a success. Particularly as we won the Test and set up a 1 nil lead in a 3 Test series. Now I could go through quite a reasonable rationale as to why he could be selected (previous run of important innings at Test level, displayed talent and technique, good form in the ODI series this summer, lack of FC cricket for any Aussies immediately before the series), I don't think it happened via tea leaves, but whatever the reason performance is the ultimate measure (and I don't know how you measure it without hindsight).

DC I respect what you are trying to say. Its always wise after the event as they say. But we are looking at this from significantly different perspectives. You are feeling the selectors are justified because Marsh scored a century. You are also feeling that they must have some 'unknown' knowledge that justified their position which the rest of us mere mortals are not privy too. This 'knowledge' somehow outranks obvious logic and suggests that selections should be made by feelings rather than stats.. But lets consider this, with these primarily same selectors as in the past. They were the same basic group who chose the team that went to India and were flogged. Ergo a bunch of all rounders without a solid batting group. Now I dont blame them for losing in India. The very best teams have been doing that for years. But it was the way they lost and the selection bungles we have all seen and predicted would happen. Then there has been the selection of and at times retention of 30 something batsmen, when there were younger and better performed batsmen waiting in the wings and still waiting in the wings. None of these 30 something batsmen managed averages in tests over 35 and most under 30. Now I am not here criticising the selectors completely. Their selections of bowlers, Haddin, Rogers and sticking with Warner and Smith has been spot on. And other than Haddin I agreed with their choices at the time. Haddin always had the skill and the averages but I thought he may have been past his prime. I was wrong and I'll admit that one. But the caveat is that he always was a good test w/k-batsmen. The factor concerning me was age and a serious form drop for a while. But now we get to the batsmen other than Clarke, Rogers, Smith and Warner (by the way while others were speaking out against Smith and Warner I was consistently of the belief that they would make it). Watson as I have said is there as an all rounder and in my mind despite a 35-6 batting average, he is in my mind worthy because he is also a fine bowler. But he's not a stand alone batsman or bowler in tests, and if he was I would drop him. But then our problem is with the one or maybe two remaining batting positions. The problem has been that these selectors have continuously promoted 30 something batsmen who havent the consistent performances to justify the promotion. Like you they become enamoured by one or two good innings, one day performances and usually are favoured, or media promoted older batsmen. They did it with Quiney, Cowan, Bailey, North, Marsh (in the past). They even tried a few young all rounders like Maxwell and Henriques. In every instance many of us disagreed with the selections and the results showed we were justified. Meanwhile sitting in the wings were young better performed batsmen like Khawaja, Maddinson, Silk, Lynn, Burns, Cosgrove...even Doolan who I consider should be about 6th in line for that position. Fortunately Doolan gets a chance, but then from nowhere, but after one fairly good T20 performance comes Marsh. Why? He had done nothing in the past two years to justify that selection other than being favoured for some reason now, and when last selected as well. He started with a bang last time then failed. He's started with a bang this time and chances are the fall will happen again (not definitely but statistically likely). The fact that he scored a century in one innings does not justify the selection. It merely clouds the issue which will no doubt the resolved one way or the other in the next half dozen tests which his century looks as if it has earned him. Test teams are selected from the cream of your FC ranks. Its therefore no surprise that the India team has their six batsmen at FC level, averaging between 45-61, England 43-52, South Africa 40-51 at FC level. The top four teams consistently select in that manner. But Australia's team at the moment has one batsmen with a FC average of 36 and another 38, something only the lesser international teams rely on because they have no one better. Now you'll argue that Doolan and Marsh helped Australia win the first test and rightfully so. But not one of these lower FC batsmen they have promoted before has been a consistent performer for the team. They may have a golden innings, but its followed by a succession of failures. You can cope with that if the batsman is young and developing but not if they are at the peak of their career. Australia is winning at present primarily because of the rise of Warner and Smith, the Indian summer of Haddin and the quite remarkable bowling of Johnson, supported by a solid bowling group. Clarke is going through a slow period, Rogers is solid and Watson has done some good things. But its all to do with the long term and having players who are consistently there. I congratulate Marsh on his effort but its one test, one innings and we've seen these one innings performances before especially from Marsh followed by nothing. Will we see that again? I hope you're right and he succeeds. I wouldnt bet on it though.

Ok so let's just clarify/define the point in question in this particular post as "was the selection of Marsh a good one for Test 1 against South Africa". Now in the pre-game consideration you would have considered FC averages above all else Bearfax, yes? The selectors on the other hand obviously preferred other factors. Risky? Possibly, but so is any selection decision (too risky? I would think it was mitigated by the fact he has performed in Tests before, but that is a value judgement). Contentious? Most definitely. But was it a good one? I would argue the best objective measure for that is did the player perform? It's probably fair enough to say he set up a foundation to rescue that first innings, when it was most difficult to bat, when there was huge pressure on him. When far more accomplished FC averaged players were being seen off. He scored more than a third of the innings total, which was nearly 200 runs clear of the opposing first innings score. I would say he performed.

And some more good points Aransan. What you are effectively saying about Marsh is that its far too early to determine if he will make a good test player and his test average statistically is irrelevant at this stage. A good test century is fine but it must be supported by consistent scoring. Secondly injuries are causing Watson problems as they are Clarke. But Marsh is only 2 years younger than Watson and also is apparently seriously prone to injury so the statement about injury applies to both. Certainly Watson does not bowl as often as we would like but in the recent series against England it was noted several times that it was his tight bowling at one end that assisted Johnson and company to maintain the pressure. He certainly is an all rounder. If he was not, I would, as I've said before, not retain him as a batsman only. A 35-36 average is not good enough for tests as a batsman only. And the issue about FC average is surely the first and main factor that should determine selection. Check the batsmen in safe positions in the side and their first class averages. Clarke...48, Rogers...49, Warner...47, Smith..45. Even Haddin is averaging 40. Its no accident that those batsmen have the best first class averages in cricket at the moment and are now established test players. It goes with the territory. Meanwhile Doolan s average is 38 and Marsh...36.

Never, the team for the Sydney Test vs Sri Lanka was the dopiest I've ever seen. 4 Fast bowlers 1 Spinner Unbelievable Mighty Jonners' comment that he wasn't an allrounder probably cost him test spot vs India.

DC what is most important surely is CONSISTENCY. An individual top score is fine but unless its accompanied by consistently good scoring, its just a flash in the pan. Surely that's what people were complaining about with Hughes. Some great performances in tests, but lack of consistency. I understand the selectors decision to drop him in that case. First class averages though are the best guide to potential (name another if you can) and usually becomes reflected in test scoring. Doesnt always apply such as with Hughes averaging 46 at FC level but 33 in tests and Watson at 43 at FC level but 36 in tests. But check most test players and their averages are usually within a few runs of FC averages. Rarely but sometimes their test average exceeds their FC average such as with Clarke. But generally test averages are less on average than FC averages. Given Marsh's 36 FC average, it suggests a final test average in the low 30s...but of course that's in the majority of cases but not all. He may surprise and become one of those batsmen who goes against the usual trend. I dont think so but I'm open to the possibility.

So is placing more value on 148 runs in a Test or more value on FC average a case of using cold hard facts for evaluating success of selection Bearfax?

lol @ cricket (cricketer?) whisperer. Gold :)

Marsh's average jumps around quite a bit with each succeeding innings because of the small number of tests that he has played, so he needs to have played more tests before we can get a better idea of what his long term test average might be. The same is not true for Watson, we have a very good idea of what his long term average is and it certainly doesn't measure up as a batsman. He is an all rounder but has only taken 68 wickets in 51 tests admittedly at a reasonable average for an all rounder of 31.83. Watson is certainly a quality bowler but hasn't been able to bowl the number of overs that we expect from an all rounder and from a quantity point of view I don't believe he qualifies as an all rounder in tests. I further believe that age and injuries are catching up with him in the test arena however think that he still has much to offer in the shorter forms of the game as a genuine all rounder. I think your references to FC statistics are more along the lines of how did Marsh get selected for SAf in the first place and your point is well taken. But Marsh was selected and he has performed as well as can be expected. I don't think we do just go on statistics in judging players, if that had been the case Marsh would have even been dropped from FC cricket some time ago. Batsmen can be negatively evaluated if they keep on getting out in the same manner and both Hughes and Watson have come under scrutiny from that point of view. A disadvantage for Watson is that he likes batting at 3 in tests but that is not a good spot for an all rounder and would automatically limit him as far as bowling many overs. That limitation would not apply in the shorter forms of the game.

Your point is valid Aransan and if Marsh had played an equal number of test innings or at least comparable, I would have judged them on that criteria. But just as I opposed others for judging Khawaja's test performances on just 9 test, the same applied to Marsh after only 8 tests. The number of innings is far to small to make an effective comparison. Therefore I chose what both these batsmen have faced in Shield cricket as the comparison because they have faced bowling on an equal footing over a lengthy period of time. Watson averages 43.65 at FC level as opposed to Marsh who is averaging 35.91. That's a big difference. And even though Marsh has scored two centuries in 8 teats his average is still on 37.92 only a little above Watson on 36.33. And you cant use injuries as an excuse because Watson is notorious for the injuries he has suffered over the years as well. They are on the same ball park. And I agree there is a big difference between FC and test. Its much harder. Yet Watson has not only maintained a reasonable average, he has also been one of Australia' key bowlers. he's an all rounder and therefore his batting isnt expected to be top class. That excuse doesnt apply to Marsh

DC we all have biases. Its normal. That's why I ignore my personal preferences and rely on non emotional factors. In reality I love watching Marsh playing and if I based my preference on style he would be one of the first selected for me. That's why I dont allow myself to be influenced by what I feel, but rather what the cold hard facts tell me. I had to learn that lesson over many decades to make effective judgement calls not as a stock broker but as a parole officer. Such a role teaches you to deal with facts not values or emotional reactions.

Watson may score a century every 11 FC innings, but he has 4 centuries from 92 completed test innings or one in 23. There is a big difference between FC cricket and test cricket.

Marsh has scored 2 centuries in 13 test innings, or one in 6.5 and has a batting average of 37.92. Admittedly he hasn't had many chances in tests and it is possible that the small numbers have tilted the statistics in his favour. We can't keep holding his FC stats against him if he continues to perform at the higher level and I hope he is given more chances in tests to get a better guide as to his likely future performances. He looked good in this test and came into bat when the team was under great pressure in the first innings. By the way, two incredible catches by Doolan and an excellent one by Smith in the Saf second innings.