When Shane Watson edged out Mitch Marsh for the all-rounder spot in the first Ashes Test, it was widely believed to be the veteran’s bowling which won him that battle.
Watson was seen by many cricket followers, and perhaps the selectors too, as being more effective with the ball, not just because of his far greater experience but a perception that he was more accurate and skilful.
Marsh, meanwhile, was derided by numerous cricket pundits, who portrayed him as a trundler with next to no chance of being incisive opposed to Test batsmen.
It was Marsh’s impossible-to-overlook touch with the blade that saw him earn a spot in the Australian side for the second Test at the expense of Watson, who had failed again with the bat at Cardiff.
Just over a week later and it is the 23-year-old’s bowling which has come to the fore and seemingly made him a lock for the rest of the Ashes.
First, he collected match figures of 3-31 at Lord’s, with all of his wickets being top six batsmen and two of them well-set players.
Then he backed that up by taking 4-41 from 15 overs in Australia’s tour match against Derby, including three dismissals of top-six batsmen. It remains to be seen whether he will be taken seriously as a bowler from now on.
Even his successes with the ball have been talked down by his detractors. When he snared a five-for in the opening match of the World Cup against England it was painted by some as a fluky performance which had more to do with England’s ineptitude than Marsh’s competence.
When he got the key wicket of Alastair Cook for 96 in the first innings at Lord’s, after earlier dislodging Ben Stokes for 87, there were snide remarks that the English skipper would be embarrassed to be dismissed by Marsh.
Many people clearly didn’t believe that Marsh’s bowling was close to the level required from a Test all-rounder. Maybe they had been fooled by Marsh’s Test record to that point.
Prior to Lord’s he had to his name figures of 1-164 from his four Tests. It’s easy to see how that would be interpreted as a significant failure.
What was overlooked was that he had bowled on four absolute roads, including two pitches in the UAE which are as benign as any I’ve seen at Test level. Granted, he had not proved penetrative to that point and would have to get used to operating on lifeless surfaces.
Yet he had impressed me with one aspect of his bowling I previously had not viewed as a strength – his capacity for stemming the run rate.
Despite the batting paradises on which he had operated, Marsh had conceded just 2.68 runs per over. In the seven innings he had bowled against Pakistan and India, only once had he given up three runs per over or more.
This is the kind of holding role which Australia require of their fifth bowler. Their frontline quicks offer them sufficient strike power so the all-rounder’s main task is to build pressure while they rest.
It is a job which Watson has done time and again but one which I was not sure Marsh could fulfill when he debuted in Tests.
Being from Perth, I had seen a lot of Marsh playing for Western Australia, with whom he had made a name for himself as an impact bowler.
His strike rate with the ball in Sheffield Shield cricket is 49. That is a figure which any specialist quick would be glad to own, particularly when coupled with an average of 27.
Marsh was a bowler that WA turned to when they needed a breakthrough, not when they required the run rate to be choked.
Part of the reason that Marsh had proved such an impactful bowler in the Shield was that he hurried batsmen and earned sharp lift.
Many of his critics seem not to have seen much, if any, of Marsh’s efforts in the Shield. They classify him as a medium pacer. He is not.
So far in his international career Marsh largely has bowled well within himself due to a patent lack of confidence in his body, which has betrayed him regularly in recent years.
When he is fit and letting himself go, Marsh is as swift as Ben Stokes – consistently in the high 130s and touching 146/147km/h.
At Lord’s we saw some evidence that he is finally regaining faith in his fragile chassis and taking off the hand brake. He pushed his pace up to 143km/h, the fastest we have seen from him in Tests, but I think he still has more left in the tank.
As he grows into his body and his place in the side, we’ll very likely see even more speed and similarly pivotal spells from Marsh. It’s folly to underestimate his bowling.
Don Freo
Guest
You don't seem to be reading the comment. You seem to think because he didn't play Shield last year that he didn't achieve anything. Consider why he didn't play Shield. Look at his scores playing for Australia. He has an average of above 50 in his last year and a half. Imagine being dropped by Aussie selectors because, despite his outstanding form, they looked at his early form and said, " Geez TWAS said his his average was low once. We'd better not pick him."
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
They are relevant. Quality batsmen need sustained success. Looking at statistics for one small period in isolation can make a number of batsmen look very good. They're ability to sustain it is what makes them good. Now I'm not saying Marsh will be unable to sustain it, but he hasn't yet, so it's just on him to prove he can.
CoverPoint
Guest
Spot on Showbags! He needs to perform as a batsman otherwise he is a bits and pieces player.
Don Freo
Guest
But it was not initially a pre-disposition. It is now. His skill and performance caught my attention when he was a young fella so I was then DISPOSED to pay attention. What drives my appreciation is, in fact, a POST-DISPOSITION. As a result, because of the enjoyment his flair and success gave me, I am NOW pre-disposed to look at every affirmative aspect of his play. His failures are just quirks I can easily forgive because I know what is around the corner. Thankfully, for all of you, the affirmative aspects of his play are erupting like a tsunami of joy into the Australian consciousness.
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
I don't know, Don. You'd have to direct that question to our esteemed Bear. However, I would have thought that your predisposition to Shaun's perceived achievements was blinding you to reality...
Don Freo
Guest
Well no wonder I couldn't follow that reference. That is only a connection that could be made by those who are predisposed to believe their own script about Shaun. How am I ever going to make that connection? It is not associated with reality.
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
Oh Don! Cicadas lay dormant for years at a time before emerging from the ground. The analogy is that S Marsh does sweet fa for several seasons, has a little purple patch and then disappears into obscurity again...
Don Freo
Guest
You say this a few times. What is this cicada reference? Is it an insult? A witticism? A comment? What do you mean?
JohnB
Guest
TWAS, I take your point, but to me the number of wickets you take is paramount and if you don't/can't bowl enough to take more wickets than that, you can't be a front line bowler. If he bowled more he'd take more wickets ... - well, not necessarily at all. Maybe he couldn't sustain his pace for more than a few overs. Maybe he has a licence to attack for only a few overs. Maybe he gets a bowl more when conditions suit. Maybe, since he's a change bowler, batsmen treat him more as an opportunity to score runs than they would if he was bowling more. All, some or none of those may apply to him, I don't really know, but you really can't make an extrapolation like that. Let's see him bowl and bat more in competitive games (ie Tests and Shield games, and not tour games against second string teams or A games on absolute featherbeds) and see how he goes before getting over-excited. Let's hope we can all then be in Don Freo's camp.
Bearfax
Guest
Yep that's him Don. 'The Cicada'.
Bearfax
Guest
I was hoping it was your preference so we could start another debate. Damn.
Don Freo
Guest
Work it out. 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 2 years ago...he was not the player he is now. That's what fitness and maturity allows. However, a career average takes into account performances that have no relevance to his performances now. Nevertheless, people who have declared a set against him will always trot out a career average because it suits them. Since he has been fit and back in the fold, he has an average of over 50. 2 recent centuries and a double century in rearguard circumstances in this past season. You'll acknowledge he didn't play Shield last year but not acknowledge his efforts playing for Australia. He is in form, reliable and outstanding...but you can call him a failure if you want.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
1 comment ago you were saying 5 years ago. When is it? I only refer to 13/14 solely because he played a single innings in 14/15.
Don Freo
Guest
That was 2 years ago. He is not that player any more.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
No, they include statistics like the last full shield season he played - 2013/2014.
CW
Guest
Read wrong stat. Settle down Don. Not all that many from 108 matches is it.
The Bush
Roar Guru
TWAS, I believe Ronan put up his combined FC stats, so Shield, Tests and other FC matches (including tour games). I'm not gonna trawl through and find it, just pointing out that he's been on a good upward trajectory for a while.
Don Freo
Guest
He has14 centuries and 30 fifties. You are talking about Shaun Marsh?
Don Freo
Guest
Excitement over him is overdue, not premature. The stats that blur his current performances come from 4 and 5 years ago as he was making the transition from junior to senior status. (Remember how long it took Steve Waugh to get a Test century. Remember Shane Warne's first stint as a Test cricketer. Bob Simpson played for years before he nailed a Test century (it was a triple). Marsh's arrival is worthy of excitement. Claiming him as the best cricketer ever is premature. The best all rounder around...premature. Excitement is not premature. This is exciting.
CW
Guest
You mean my reply to one of our English friends misguided opinion that Watson should return to the team?