Australian cricket history was made in Dubai yesterday with Mitch Marsh debuting in the baggy green.
His arrival on the scene produced for the first time in Australian cricket a father (Geoff) and two sons (Mitch and elder brother Shaun) had all played Test cricket. They joined the Hadlees from New Zealand and the Armanaths from India as the only families to achieve the feat.
The youngest Marsh equipped himself well, returning figures of 11-4-18-0 as Pakistan batted its way to 4-218 at stumps.
FULL PAKISTAN VS AUSTRALIA SCORECARD
Marsh made the tour party as a result of yet another injury to Shane Watson who is sidelined with a calf complaint.
What Marsh’s arrival on the scene means to the former Test vice-captain will be one of the sub-plots over the next few weeks in the Emirates.
Alas for Watson, injury has been a near constant companion throughout his international career which started in the one-day arena in March 2002.
He debuted at Test level on January 2005.
Since then he has managed 52 matches out of a possible 107 Tests over the period.
Of the three forms of the game, it has been the Test arena which is Watson’s least successful.
Renowned as a power-hitter in the abbreviated forms of the sport – he possesses a career-strike rate of 90 in ODIs and 146 in T20s. But he has seldom approached his batting at Test level with anywhere the same mental approach.
While bedecked in creams he has a strike rate of 53, a mark less than Justin Langer’s – a man who was often pigeon-holed as a grafter.
Watson’s approach and mindset at Test level has often been diametrically opposed to the that which he displays in the limited-overs forms.
During his Test career, Watson has batted everywhere from one to seven in the order.
Nowadays he sees himself as an opener but even if he was fit he would not be occupying that position, with David Warner and Chris Rogers ensconced at the top of the order.
Watson’s last Test was in Cape Town in March – ironically returning to the side having missed the opening matches of the series with a calf strain – where he batted at number six in the first innings and at four in the second.
During the five-Test home Ashes series that preceded the South African tour Watson batted exclusively at number three.
However his injury in South Africa saw him lose that position to rookie Alex Doolan.
The Tasmanian returned an average of 31 from the three Tests – not a stellar performance but his maiden series was against an attack that boasted Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel and Vernon Philander.
He remains the incumbent on the back of a century in the warm-up match against Pakistan A heading into the current Test.
If Doolan performs in the current series it will close the door on Watson for the first-drop position heading into the four-Test home series against India this summer.
Unless something goes awry ahead of the Gabba Test next month Michael Clarke and Steve Smith will be batting at numbers four and five respectively.
That leaves the number six all-rounder position – currently occupied by Marsh – as perhaps Watson’s best chance of forcing his way back into the side.
The selectors in recent times – including current coach Darren Lehmann – have said that for Watson to be selected he has to be able to bowl.
With the litany of injuries and the advancing of the years one wonders just how much bowling Watson has left in him.
He has always been seen as a genuine all-rounder although his output with the ball has been reasonably thin throughout his Test career, with an average of just 15 overs per match.
In recent times when he has bowled he has been used more of a stopper than a wicket-taker.
Twenty-two year-old Marsh, who has had his own problems with back injuries in recent seasons, is capable of bowling at genuine pace. He can tickle the 140km/h mark.
In his 38-match first class career, he has captured 56 wickets at 26.9, a fair record given he was restricted by injury to just batting in several of those games.
Marsh has been on the selectors’ radar for quite some time, however his growth in the game has been stunted not only by injury but by off-field alcohol related incidents.
Things seem to have turned around significantly of late, with Clarke extolling Marsh’s newfound maturity and even going so far as to say he believed he possessed the requisites to be a future skipper.
As a batsman he is a clean striker of the ball in the mould of all-rounders of yesteryear like Ian Botham, Imran Khan and Kapil Dev.
Currently his batting in long-form ranks is the weaker suit, although he does boast a first class best of 211.
Marsh is seen as being very much a work in progress and given his age he certainly has time on his side.
The same cannot be said of Watson. He is in his 34th year.
Despite obvious talent the powerfully built right-hander has failed to truly deliver with the bat with his 97 Test innings producing an average of just 36.2.
His inability to convert solid starts into sizeable hundreds has been a definite Achilles heel – of the 26 times he has passed 50 at Test level, only four times has he gone on to post a century.
There is every prospect that Watson may have played his last Test and his future could be limited to short-form cricket.
Should that be the case, his Test career will be forever viewed as one that fell well short of its potential.
Bearfax
Guest
Steve if there is a 'cancer' I really dont think its in the selection of Shane Watson. In himself he is easily our best all rounder at the moment. But he is on the wane and I understand the selectors in seeking a long term substitute, whether that be Mitch Marsh, Henriques or Faulkner, all having shown significant potential. The cancer if you are using that term is in using two all rounders, both without significant batting averages, filling two of the six batting positions or alternatively haphazardly choosing 30 something batsmen without good batting averages, and not having the confidence to choose young well performed batsmen. Batsmen like Hughes, Khawaja, Maxwell, should have been persevered with. Players like Lynn and Burns should have been selected some time ago. That to me is the tragedy in Australia's selection processes in the past few years. They didnt until now it seems learn the lesson despite the success of Smith and Warner. Lets hope they chose from that talented group in future and cease these multiple all rounder experiments and 30 something under-performing bats experiements.
Steve
Guest
I truly believed before this India home series they could only be sane to pick one of either Mitch Marsh or Shane Watson, but to have chosen both proves that the cancer named Shane Watson is terminal and will never be removed. When on song our specialist bowling attack is well capable of rolling teams for well under 200 without assistance, why then choose two all rounders, putting Watson at three is a huge liability to the team, you could even say with Johnson we have three allrounders, Watson would have to be drinking buddies with all the selectors
Peter
Guest
And let it never be forgotten that Haddin was responsible for the errant cricket ball with Pidge's name on it.
Don Freo
Guest
Of couse it is impressive. You might want centuries but then we are talking about Greg Chappell, AB, Clakkers, Haydos or JL. That's over 30 times he has made an above average score. Do you apply a different standard to Watson because the press and the public are convinced he is a superstar? We accept it of Warner, Finch, Smith, Bailey, Marsh, Cowan, Ferguson, Khawaja...but, if you dislike Watto, you dislike Watto.
Ball'n'all
Guest
For you it might be impressive. But it is not for a international standard top six batman who thinks he should be opening the batting.
Ball'n'all
Guest
I agree with this. Flintoff was good, but McGrath rolling his ankle on the morning of the second test was the real problem. After savaging the English in the first test, with ohh-ah missing it was still a closely fought, epic test series.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It basically comes down to someone taking the opportunity. If a player is out because of injury, then the basic thought is that when they are fit again and show in matches at the lower level that they are playing well again, they will return. However, whenever you miss a game because of injury, it gives someone else a chance. If they take that chance and do really well, then it can be hard to drop them. If you are one of the big stars of the team, in your prime and would be first picked if healthy, then that almost doesn't matter, but if you are an okay player, who's done some good things, but never been truly consistent, has constantly been in and out with injuries and is into your mid-30s, then you may struggle to find your way back. If Watson gets back healthy, scores lots of runs for NSW and takes a few nice wickets along the way, and simultaneously, anyone they've picked to replace him fails with their opportunity, then Watson will be straight back in. But it's really in Marsh's hands now. If he can make some big scores in these two tests then it may well be very hard for Watson to force his way back into the side. But if Marsh really doesn't offer much in the matches he's only selected for because of Watson's injury, and Watson shows some form for NSW, then Watson will be straight back in.
broken-hearted toy
Guest
I'm not sure that he has fallen short of his potential.
Shouts Chen
Guest
That was a good reason why Watson doesn't want to play cricket anymore. He has struggled with his running skills.
Don Freo
Guest
That's not what Craig is saying. By the way, I have no problem with his wording...some others have misunderstood it. I've made no comment about that. My comment is about the players. Enough on that. It is silly semantics that miss Craig's point...which was a good one to discuss.
ak
Roar Guru
I have been saying this for a long time. However most people are more focussed on discussing whether George Bailey deserves to be in the tests. And each time they say that Watson deserves one more chance.
Monday's Expet
Guest
Just to stick my oar in Don, I'd suggest that Craig's use of either/or is the correct one and saved him a hell of a lot of typing as opposed to writing "Miller as a bowler and his batting as a bonus, and Kallis for his batting and his bowling as a bonus..." etc.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I think we can say from the 89 ashes onwards he made a bucket load of runs. That series alone was massive.
Don Freo
Guest
That's not the point of Craig's comment...otherwise it is a pointless comment.
The Bush
Roar Guru
That's the whole point Don, you only pick players if they would make it one skill OR the other - if they happen to be very handy at the other skill then so be it. There are very few players in history that could have been picked on EITHER skill (note that either is different to or).
Rellum
Roar Guru
The problem with all-rounders is how the selectors use the term. They state so and so is being selected as the "All-Rounder" in the team now or talk about who will be the two "all-rounders" in the touring squad. This shift in language is only a few years old and indicates they are not going to pick 6 guys who just bat. They are going to pick at least one guy who does both, no matter how average they are at both as this notion that the team needs 5 bowlers is now deeply ingrained at CA.
Simoc
Guest
I prefer Glen Maxwell as the all rounder at this stage but it will be interesting to see if Marsh can stay injury free for a period. Doubtful with his record and with Watson you can guarantee the next injury isn't to far away. Watsons test record isn't good enough but at this stage he is the incumbent if the selectors stick to the formula.
Joel
Roar Rookie
If you look at his year by year stats (which is where the data came from) it still includes the period where he was dropped.. ironically, replaced by Mark Waugh... it wasn't until his 8th season playing for aus that he really got consistent and made a bucket load of runs. It was only from '93 onwards that he was consistently successful as a batsman. My ultimate point is that making test players takes time and exposure. As fans we kinda just expect that someone makes it in the team and they are going to perform from day 1, average over 50 with the bat or under 20 with the ball and it's just not realistic. Some of the best players we have ever had for this country failed on their first attempt at international cricket, Steve Waugh is just a good example of that. Shane Warne is another. Matthew Hayden.. you get the picture
jammel
Guest
I don't think it is necessarily as simple as saying that the all rounder obsession was caused by Flintoff's performances in 2005. That's certainly a factor. But of a similar importance is the rise of T20 cricket. There are now a lot more batsmen/part time bowlers or bowlers/hitters around the traps. They do well in T20s or even 50 over limited over stuff. And then people call for them to feature in Tests. Also, there's a culture around Australia of wanting to "dominate" a la Hayden/Symonds/Gilchrist. Nothing wrong with that - but we don't have lengthy lists of such players now (e.g. Hayden/Symonds/Gilchrist/Warne/McGrath/SWaugh/MWaugh/Ponting/BLee, etc.). This culture seems to value hitters (who are often all rounders) above specialist batsmen. I think if we were just trying to produce a Flintoff since 2005 we would have got over it by now. The problem is that other factors are still there - leading to the obsession with having all rounders at six - e.g. Watson, Maxwell, Henriques, McDonald, MMarsh, Faulkner, etc.
Don Freo
Guest
Good term for Watto and Mitch Marsh with their injuries..."illrounders".