Doolan's ton should cement Test spot

Don, dont presume to read into my comments any thing more than what I honestly think. I wasnt being snide, I was being frank. Geoff Marsh had a test average of 33, one of the worst test averages for a long term and experienced test batsman in Australia's post war history. Shaun Marsh also an experienced batsman aged 31 has a test average slightly less than his father. Mitch Marsh is an entirely different matter and will probably star for Australia in future. Results/outcomes will confirm those statements. I've always maintained those positions and will continue to do so. Its an opinion yes, but its based on results..

SOK has basically averaged mid-20s with the ball in shield cricket every season for the last 5 years at a time when no other slow bowler in the country has managed to average under about 38. You can't put that down to just picking up lucky wickets as people try to slog him. Past form or current form, you can't fault SOK. Recent form - he was the top wicket taker in the SS last season, and long term - he's been averaging mid-20s basically every season since he entered first class cricket in a competition where there are few slow bowlers averaging under 40 and those that do only just do! Nobody can know if he'll succeed or not at test level, but considering his record every season for several seasons now has been head and shoulders above every other spinner in the country, yet there are so many people out there happy to say all these bowlers who average 40+ or even 50+ in SS cricket are somehow superior bowlers.

Tasmania had a really slow start (only 79 after 20 overs) before they started going for it. That's what cost them the game. Hopes bowled his entire 10 overs straight from the start during that period. So while the bowlers who combined for the 10 overs at the other end during that time were as economical, they all had the chance to come back and have their figures ruined later in the innings when Tasmania were smashing everything everywhere, while Hopes didn't have that joy but had to stick with figures from those first 20 overs only. So probably not too much can be read into his figures except that as captain he made sure he got through all his overs early rather than allow himself to get smashed around later in the innings.

You just don't need the snide comments about the other Marshes. That's when I stop reading what you say because it's clear you have little idea.

Don I never indicated that I was an expert. My conclusions are entirely based on results, and results at different stages of a career. The pattern becomes obvious. As for Mitch Marsh, his figures as a 21 year old show he has outstanding potential and could be the first in his family to be a worthy test star. But his results show that. A bowling average of 26 is outstanding for a 21 year old. 28 for his batting is OK but he needs to continue to concentrate on his batting innings. There are several young first class batsmen his age who are ahead of him. But he has the potential to be an outstanding all rounder based on his early figures. Joel, my assessments are based on year to year results. That's why I can suggest Mitch Marsh, Silk, Maddinson will be test players even though none of them have yet reached a 40 batting average. Not to be expected at that age. However by the time of reaching 25 years it would be expected that a future test player would at least be in excess of that average. Such batsmen in that mix are Hughes, Maxwell, Khawaja, Lynn, Burns, Cosgrove. Carters is 24 and on the rise and has dispensed with wicketkeeping, so his present 36 average should be in the 40s within the next year. But year by year averages can be too short to tell you much because as with Smith for example he had a couple of low averages in his early years and one of two outstanding years. But on the whole averages balance out, even though batsmen will have poor, good and outstanding years. In Doolan's case he had one good Shield season '12-'13, but the following season of 11 Shield innings he averaged 35.7, less than his overall average. The issue with Doolan is that we can expect the occasional outstanding innings. Perhaps a few in a row. But overall his history suggests he will be inconsistent and be out regularly for less than 30, as he was in 7 of his 11 Shield innings. If he was 24, this would be OK as he would still be developing. But as you point out at 29 he is in his best years, and yet his average is less than many of the young up and coming batsmen.

Your concession that you don't have a strong understanding of style and strengths and weaknesses is informative. Mitch's strength will be FC cricket. As a batsman, he is very correct. As Kim Hughes, a wonderful batting coach and one of Australia's most technically able batsmen ever, points out, Mitch has a great future in the longest form because of his ability to play both flat bat shots and straight bat shots. More importantly, according to Hughes, is Mitch's ability to play equally well on back or front foot. The outstanding players are back foot players.

Long term averages only tell a portion of the story. You would be better served looking at averages year on year to get a much clearer picture of player development and form. For example, those players you mention averaging over 45, I would suggest you look at their batting records in the first two years of their international career. Each of them has increased their overall average with more experience. In David Warner's case (and this is off the top of my head, so not exact figures) I believe his average has increased by almost 10 in the last two seasons. S.Marsh suffers from not being able to deal with nerves, which is why he either makes a big score, or gets out for almost nothing (recent history, century, duck, duck...duck..). He's good to watch but highly unreliable and Watson-esque in his ability to get injured. At the start of last summer when Bailey was selected, I told everyone that would listen that he was Australia's next great failure in test matches. Enough said. You are right about Mitch Marsh. Lots of media, still remains to be seen if he can succeed BUT he does have the technique, and the talent to do well as long as he can keep his head straight.

Yes Joel I am sure he is trying to make every post a winner and recently he has been doing OK. But I copped similar comments regarding Shaun Marsh (they said he was getting over his bad period too) and Bailey ( following his magic ODI period) and Cowan ( he brings a steadiness to the top of the order). I am no rocket scientists or brain surgeon. In fact I dont have a particularly good understanding of styles and strengths and weaknesses in cricket. What I am presenting here is not about me, but about what is available to everyone. And that is results and long term averages, and being old enough to see how development (in very simple terms ) works. The system, if we were to call it that, is based purely on age, development and averages or results on average at different ages. And consistently the method proves quite accurate. Others probably know a huge amount more about cricket. I'm very average in that respect and bow to others knowledge. All I am saying is that, based on age, development and averages (results) there is a consistency in how a batsman in particular will perform at test level. For example, I think Mitch Marsh is a very talented young cricketer and probably will be an Australian test star in future. But he's 21 and the media and certain people are pushing for him to be in the Australian test side probably at 6. My gut feeling tells me he may do some fine things, might even score a century, but generally he'll struggle badly because he has not yet got the experience at first class level. As I've suggested before he is a fine one day player. But that's baseball type cricket...not test cricket. Though his bowling is quite impressive, he's averaging 28.9 with the bat. Even Henriques with 32.55 and Faulkner with 31.17 have better batting averages, but would you have them as a No 6. Watson is No 6 because he averages 43.56 at first class level. Maxwell has 41.64. Problem as I see it is that too often we dont look at the long term both of individual players and players in general and their performances. We get captivated by a few outstanding scores that are then promoted by the media, especially if they are pushing for someone, and bingo, you have a Quiney in the test team. Check the top test batsmen's averages in the Australian team (Clarke, Warner, Smith, Rogers). Not one under 45 and that's why they are in the team.

Normally I respect a lot of the comments you make Bearfax, but on this one i'm astounded at how short sighted your views are on Doolan. By his own admission, he didn't really get his act together until the last few years. Since then he has buckled down and worked really hard to develop what is a very natural talent. His batting style is very correct, his shots are pleasant to watch and his defensive game is a solid as anybody in the game. It is common knowledge that a player is at his batting peak between 27 and 34 as a general rule, and Doolan is good enough to play for Australia for the form he is in at the moment, so let him have his five years while players like Silk develop into real test players.

Ronan it seems to me that you take a liking to certain underachievers and stick by them through thick and thin. Doolan seems to be your latest champion of the under dog. You may respond by saying that I also have my favourites, and to an extent I do but they are always based on performance/results not whether they look good in style or have an occasional fine score or season. Even your suggestion that Doolan is only 28 testifies to this favour. The fellow is only weeks short of 29. And suggesting he's only had five years of first class cricket like Mitch Marsh. The point is he's had 7-8 years more experience in cricket generally than Mitch. It reminds me of your interest in Bailey, Cowan, Shaun Marsh etc, all fine Shield players but all obviously short of what is needed for test cricket...consistency. I will stick my neck out on this one again like I did on Cowan, Bailey, Shaun Marsh, Ferguson. Christian etc. I am almost certain he wont make it. Doesnt mean I oopose his chance...let him play a few tests., I say. But when I defended batsmen like Warner, Smith, Hughes, Khawaja, Maddinson. Silk even Rogers, even before a few of them finally achieved success, it was based on their age and relationship to performance. You could see the talent shining through with Smith and Warner when they were struggling and that it was only developmental issues involved. Hughes and Khawaja are on the same journey, still young but having solid backgrounds and averages even despite poor periods. Maddinson and Silk, like Mitch Marsh are kids with years of development ahead of them, yet some already of starting the old dismissal issues like they did with Warner, and Smith. The problem with those you are championing Ronan is that they are past or near past their developmental stage. What you see with them is what you are most likely going to get in the 30s Doolan has done some nice things recently and may have had a good 12-13 Sheild season, but he had an average 13-14 Shield season and at almost 29 he still has an average of 37.6. Now he may be a late bloomer, but past late bloomers like Hayden, Rogers and Hussey already had very solid first class averages when they made it in test cricket, and both Hussey and Hayden were about at Doolans age when they 'made it'. I commend your loyalty Ronan but I'm more a pragmatist than that. If they aint got the numbers by age 29, they aint going to make it (unless they secrete the player amongst a solid batting side like they did with Geoff Marsh who only averaged in tests 33 but 39 in first class cricket) Results Ronan. Results are everything Ronan.