Selectors, all we are saying is give youth a chance

There isn't that attitude. Will you stop making things up? Smith has just been made skipper and he's on his second go in the test team aged 26, Warner is 28, Marsh is only just 23. Phil Hughes had played 23 tests or so before his untimely demise. I'd say they are mixing it up.

Yeah I am sure he will score his customary first up ton and everyone will be saying he is the messiah blah blah blah. Then as always will make a pair in the following two tests.

So according to you Hussey and Rogers should have been discarded by selectors even though they were both by far the best batsmen in the shield at the time they were first selected.

Very good analysis, Damo- I agree.

I can't wait for him to prove you horribly wrong. Hopefully.

Casper I think you've been a little too busy with the Hird defence efforts and walked in a little late here and missed some context. Ed Cowan has played twice as many Tests as Shaun Marsh and has a worse Test average. That's exactly the point. Whether you agree with Shaun Marsh being selected or not, it's not all that logical to go around claiming "he's the selectors favourite and is constantly getting picked because he's a Marsh, if only these other players were Marsh's too they'd get a go", when essentially he's only been picked twice as a non-incumbent. He's only had one Test series where's he's not made a serious contribution. I'm all for people having their opinion, but just develop it with a bit of perspective.

Yes I follow state cricket, especially WA and I have to say that there are at least 3 better performed batsmen just in the WA team than S. Marsh. they are Voges, Klinger and Bancroft. Of those the first two have been great players who haven't quite made it and probably won't now because of age (though I am a big voges fan). And Bancroft needs another year to develop before being blooded although he will be a big chance to be Warners opening partner. Outside of WA I have these batsmen in front of S.Marsh: Cowan, Khawaja, Lynn, Burns, Silk, Cooper, Ferguson, Carters, Handscomb, Maddinson and Stoinis. Surely out of these batsmen and the three WA batsmen I mentioned the selectors couldve found another alternative.

Because Marsh isnt good enough. simples.

Sorry to say SFL but if I was umpiring your argument with Dalgety, Dalgety wins hands down! It was a crushing innings win.

Damo. You failed to mention that Carter's 198 was compiled in around nine hours over three rain-affected days. The majority of his runs were scored when the Bulls had their full pace attack. He batted most of the last day on a crumbling pitch that was turning almost square and against a very promising leggie in Cameron Boyce and offie Brimlecomb who kept it tight. It was a herculean performance and one the selectorts are certain to have noted in their little black book.

Surely lambasting the elder Marsh for his decade long under performance has little to do with his baby brother performing at the moment. I think the article raises a valid point that going with a serial underachiever is par for the course but flawed in approach by the selectors. Ed Cowan must be wondering how he'd go if his old man played test cricket with Rod Marsh. Get Burns and Maddinson in this side before they get old and conservative. I'm with shortfineleg, DC you are obviously a Marsh booster so where' S the evidence to keep him in.

Surely Kawaja, Burns or Ferguson are ahead of these two oldtimers on the pecking order. Was Voges churning out runs five years ago...when he needed to be. Cowan was tried and dumped, rather unfairly I thought. but dumped all the same.

TCL. Have to agree with you over Silk. Started his FC career on fire but has gone off the boil this year..only decent score was in the high nineties a couple of weeks ago. He has shown some very recent form with a couple of fifties in the tour match...so he could be turning the corner. Just when you get your red ball form right along comes the white ball hit 'n' giggle stuff. to halt your momentum.

What happened to the "good enough, young enough" edict? You know, the one that everyone supported when Rogers was selected.

I agree with parts of this article, but not the whole thing. I think once a player hits 32 they should be disregarded by the selectors, but at the same time should selectors be seriously looking at players under 23? Look at Glenn McGrath, Mark Waugh & Mike Hussey, all were over 25 when selected in the test team and went on to thrive in international cricket, most likely due to years of experience on the first class scene. On the other hand, Pat Cummins, James Pattinson and, our new captain, Steve Smith all arrived on the international scene in their late teens to early twenties and struggled to cope with either injuries and/or form hindering their development as test players. Selectors shouldn't feel the need to rush players into the test team, give them a few years of first class cricket, they'll be all the better for it

My preference would be Burns followed by Kahwaja

Bancroft has only come good this season and still only averages 32 or something. he's only 22, give him time to develop

Ha Ha! I believe you, Dalgety! Just be kind to your pets!

Thanks SFL that was a great way to brighten up me arvo with a laugh.

I underestimated you. You are world class pathetic, Dalgety. You're a big mouth, and I called for it. And you have nothing. In your curtain-rattling world someone can't quote facts, because they are 'unbalanced'. Facts are facts. Wishing them away, or shooting the messenger of them is well ... you know.