The Shaun Marsh selection farce

I think Voges, Klinger, or Bancroft would be better WA-based selections than S.Marsh, he will probably be forgotten by the Ashes after an largely anonymous Windies tour.

Marsh is a much better player than his numbers indicate. It is fair to say he has under performed for a guy of his talent but he is going ok now and clearly has the class to make big runs against good attacks. I remember Micky Arthur's saying the Marsh was one of the most naturally gifted players he has ever seen Anyway, Watson's and Haddin's continued selections are more a mystery to me...

Smith's first class average is 51!

Yes they did struggle but I still feel Khawaja plays spin bowling worse than what they did. Even Joe Root had Khawaja in trouble.

Um, yeah, it is an accepted fact. Repeated patterns of behaviour are what law enforcement agencies bank on. In the world of recruitment, behavioural interviewing techniques rely heavily on them. You're right to say that's what Shrinks work on breaking with their clients. It's notable that they are spectacularly unsuccessful though, hence the repeat business and the low number of unemployed shrinks. Are we possibly in accord that SEM needs a shrink to break his patterns? You could be onto something. He has the visible skills and "class" but seems to lack the mental application to make consistently good decisions. Let's hope he's turned a corner. It would be good for the team. Somehow I think those pesky stats and deep seated behavioural responses will sink his ship though.

That is certainly not an accepted fact in psychology. All psychologists would reject that. Psychs work with clients to amend historical patterns and develop new pathways of response. Sounded good, though.

I'm genuinely surprised nobody hasn't mentioned Ugly Aussies sledging or playing for Phil Hughes. Surely this article has sub plots. It can't all be about Shaun Marsh :P

I really like the symmetry that Shaun Marsh has nearly achieved with his age and his first class record. Any year now and they'll be identical.

Don, history is a reliable predictor of future behaviour. That's an accepted fact in the world of statistics and psychology. That's what makes his ten year first class record to date relevant. His recent scores are at the top end of his normal distribution curve. Therefore we can brace for a return and predict with alarming confidence that there is a very strong probability that he will falter again, and again, and again. His history from my recollection doesn't even offer a statistical trend that his scores above the average are a trend. They are merely random variation. I'm sure Bearfax would back me on this, Bear, are you there Bear? I admire that you stick fat with your boy though Don. Loyalty is an admirable trait. At least SE Marsh looks pretty when he fails, unlike Maxwell who just looks bizarre!

Lol Kev!

It wasn't as concise as the five or so sentences I'd originally intended Don! I'm also not sweating on the one eye others have on the Dockers, there'll be a bit of a reckoning this year.

Dalgety, that's the most concise and erudite explanation ever forwarded to explain Shaun's position in selection. I agree exactly. BTW, Dal, there's a Dockers article in AFL and I haven't read a comment from you yet.

Dean Jones was another. 52 tests, 3671 runs @ 46.55.

And don't forget he was virtually an alcoholic 18 months ago. Got caught 2 or 3 times getting sloshed a night or 2 before games. Langer has changed the man. He is now 31, perhaps matured, cricket finally is the priority, and that amazing talent, just might yet get shown for what it is because of that

Really though the initial point was it was a myth that he got one Test at a time, you disputed that by saying he got three Tests at a time (!). Letting that little thorn go (as the "myth" status was more important than mathematics), I would argue that the first two sets of those were so close together as to make the disruption fairly minimal, particularly as he was around the squad during that time. So I think any whinges about disruptive selection policies are based, for the substantial part, on a myth. As to your second point. "Deserve" can't really be at the forefront of the selectors thinking, particularly when they are primarily concerned with picking a team that will win (and for most selections it's winning the very next Test only). And they aren't picking a Shield all-stars team they're picking a Test team. They're using a number of different dimension to do so, prioritised at varying levels for varying teams and missions. Certainly (and probably sensibly if they are picking for the next Test) not really having consistency across a 10 year span as high in that priority list. Now Khawaja and Marsh are interesting cases in point. Khawaja's technique is solid and has yielded plenty of first class runs, Marsh you could safely argue, has been more than a little profligate with his estimable talent (and possibly with a caveat that injury disrupted his continuity, but let's complicate the argument with this). Khawaja's first class resume has put him up for discussion frequently I'd say and he was selected when form and opportunity collided, because of what he potentially offered the team not because he "deserved" it. With Marsh they (what's the multi-collective noun for they?) probably see someone who they can forgive previous wasted years if he has current form, due to what they likely see as the mouth watering prospect his talent may offer if harnessed properly (I'd also argue they'd have a clearer insight into his talent than you may, given how your hackles tend to stand and full mast and all). Now how have they performed at Test level? Khawaja hasn't really looked comfortable at international level (YET) and his lack of properly big scores backs this up I'd say. Marsh, however, has scored big hundreds in the Test area (whilst others have faltered around him) and did this from the get go. Khawaja has sputtered along, while Marsh has soared close to the sun, but also wallowed in the soggy swampy mire. But once Marsh gets going it's often a mystery at how he gets out. So this is probably pretty tantalising for those concerned with putting together a team. Talent doesn't go away in a hurry and if married with maturity, a once wayward flake can all of a sudden turn into a consistent match winner (Harris, Martyn, du Plessis to name a few).

For me the changes need to be made in the bowling department. My test squad of 12 would be David Warner Shaun Marsh Joe Burns Michael Clarke (Fitness pending obviously) Steve Smith Mitch Marsh Brad Haddin (Take your pick after he retires) Mitchell Johnson Ryan Harris Patrick Cummins Adam Zampa James Pattinson Rotation of the quicks.

Of who Martyn? Try Clarke Hussey Smith just to name a few.

Except, he won't be "axed". That's sounds like a judgement based on failure. He may "miss selection" but be top of the list when a spot becomes available. Missing selection is not a problem. His time will come. His form was impressive in only 2 of his 4 innings. In one of his successful innings he was dropped before he got to double figures. Let's not magnify his performance just because of a desire to cast him as more worthy than Marsh. Burns certainly did not average in the 40s and, according Tom, every man and his dog could have done that.

The difference is in the treatment. Marsh is parachuted into the team as soon he is half fit despite a decade long career averaging mid-thirties. Contrast with Usman who, despite being a superior bat demonstrably has only actually played five of his nine tests selected in his own right. The other four he was an injury replacement (once for Ponting and thrice for Marsh). Marsh did not deserve to be an incumbent at all. As the "next batsman" Khawaja was selected for Sri Lanka and declared on at 13* while Marsh as paternity replacement for Ponting got to face 300+ balls and crack a ton. The only reason to swap their order of preference after two tests is if you are looking for an excuse to do so. Khawaja had outscored Marsh in the lead in Shield and tour games. An injury replacement can just drop out, ask Stuart Law with his one and only test innings of 54* The selectors clearly look for reasons to select Marsh.

I think it was maybe too too rash bringing him back straight into that series, incumbent or no. He was seriously underdone, with no real prep to speak of, but such is life and he's stuck with that now unless he gets more of a chance to overshadow it with quality performances. But anyone can have a barren series of innings, plenty of some of the most proven batsmen have had horror trots, doesn't mean they can't bat, in fact it can either make or break you.