Shane Watson urges selectors to stick by the players

Ryan Harris was the biggest individual loss but a team's more than individuals. The collective loss of all that experience at once, without people to stay and guide the young players through it, and lessen the pressure on them as they settle in, will have an effect. The upshot is we're going to go to Bangladesh with only one in our Top 7, Steve Smith, having any decent amount of international experience, and only one experienced bowler in Lyon, maybe two if they play Siddle. Voges is basically there as a specialist vice captain, because he's captained WA before. Who else could you trust to run the team for a day if Smith was sick or injured?

And tells the next player up against the wall that you've got two matches or you are out. Really nutty behaviour.

Yes.. the selectors should never have selected Harris for that last tour. He was gone

None of the players who retired not named Ryan Harris was a huge loss. All the rest were old and injury prone and only diminishing returns could be expected for them. The worst thing is the timing and instability in the team. But that again is the selectors fault.

Along with the 130 players who retired and the 60 more who are injured? We can only change so many things all at once ...

Well, to be fair, Don, that's a pretty specific skill which only comes in handy when A) we're playing one out ten possible opposition teams, B) we're looking for quick runs, and C) Steyn is actually the one bowling.

Don, I'm not advocating that they ought to have dropped Marsh after two bad Tests and replaced him with Watto; rather the opposite. I'm saying that once they made the decision to select Marsh over Watson, they had to stick with him. They couldn't really go back to Watto very easily once they'd dropped him. This is why I'm saying - with the benefit of hindsight, naturally - that I think they dropped Watto too soon. I'm saying that because Watto made 49 runs in his one Test at an average of 24, and Mitch Marsh made 45 in his three at an average of 12.

FC hasn't. How many tests do you think he has played?

Yes his team mates didn't do what he did. But despite that they outperformed him in the tests. Hence my point about scores against second rate sides to be taken with a grain of salt. If Marsh's batting has improved so much, why has his FC average only improved by a single run in 12 months and his test average decreased?

I am not defensive. I am attacking. Putting down Mitch Marsh has been your constant theme for 2 years. The reference to 2nd rate sides is an example. His team mates didn't do what he did. When he plays and scores you denigrate it as not counting because you don't like the opposition...yet you say he has to be scoring runs to be impressive. There is no sense to your argument.

Many of them were against 2nd tier county sides as noted, or county sides in what amounts to a nothing fixture (for both sides) with sometimes line ups below what you would face in county games, or the equivalent, Sheffield Shield. His average of 50 is mostly due to a 211 in a match vs India A and big scores against county sides. Why are you so defensive? I'm not even criticizing his play, merely noting he is yet to prove himself at the top level. You seem to take anybody not agreeing that Marsh is the great white hope as criticizing. If Marsh is already the great batsman that you proclaim him to be, and is only getting better, how do you explain that his test average after being in the high 30s at the start of the year is now down to 28? Whilst his FC average has moved from 30, to 31. If what you were saying was correct, and that his early career not focusing on batting was deflating his average, wouldn't his test average be above it, as he is only 11 months into his test career - where you claim he has been batting his best in that period - rather than 3 runs below his FC average, similar to most batsmen? I've got nothing against Marsh, but until I seem him consistently perform at Sheffield Shield level, or test level, I won't consider him a quality test batting option. Currently he scores an FC century every 20 innings. He needs to improve that. That's about half as frequently as Watson did so he needs to start moving in that direction.

Why do you think he only played one Shield game last year? He was scoring double centuries or centuries for Australia. Forgot to mention them? Any explanation for his 45 average on tour...his 50 average for the last 2 years?

I said incorrectly said 8 innings because I was referring to the the last series.It should be 5. My error. I love how you accuse me of agenda yet you can never acknowledge any flaw in Marsh, or any other West Australian for that matter. I noted his FC average was low and his results on his last test series were low. If the latter maintained, the former would also maintain. I then noted that if he improved the latter, the former would also improve to. Your comments are the shallow and weightless ones. You only see one possible outcome and ignore any evidence that suggests otherwise. One huge factor in Marsh's FC average over a short period is the quality of opposition. Scoring big against 2nd division County teams in what amount to somewhat meaningless fixtures (the result does not count to any series or competition) does not make a great test batsman in isolation. You can only score runs against the team you play against, but that's why I said it's meaningless in isolation, may support a view, but doesn't hold up an argument on it's own. Look how that converted. Marsh certainly outperformed Watson in the tour games. In 2 innings Watson scored 49 runs. An average of 24.5. In 5 innings Marsh scored a total of 48 runs. An average of 12. How is that so? I think likely because results against lower county sides in nothing fixtures aren't indicative of test capability. How Marsh continues to perform at Sheffield Shield level will be more so. In 2013/2014 Marsh scored 493 runs in 15 innings at an average of 37.92. In 2014/2015 he only played one innings and scored 2*. Certainly players tend to improve their averages. But Mitch Marsh in Sheffield Shield, what is considered the breeding ground for Australian cricketers, is still yet to post a season averaging 40, which is considered the benchmark of a decent batsman. He may very well be on an upward trajectory (His 13/14 average was almost double the previous year) but he has not proven to be there yet at all.

Oh dear...this is like talking to Bearfax. Young players begin careers with low averages because they struggle with flair, nerves, lack of experience...then mathematics takes over. Now he is becoming more experienced, those factors are less inhibiting. He has averaged over 50 in FC cricket since 2014. Why would you say "last 8 innings?" Was his 80 in the Windies 9 innings ago? 5 innings ago was a not out. Was that a failure too? Your comments are shallow and weightless because you are running an agenda.

No Don. But I'm going to say with an FC average of 30 and poor returns in his last 8 test innings, nothing suggests he is, or will be an excellent batsmen. Unless you pick out isolated cases. But again, his average is 30 because they are clearly too isolated. We need him to do it more consistently. If he does that his average will increase, which negates the whole argument.

Yet you are advocating dropping Mitch Marsh after two tests where he failed with the bat. How is that consistent?

Neither did his senior leaders. If you are going to write off a young player on 4 innings when his senior leaders failed up to 7 times, there's something wrong. I suppose you'll plump for Joe Burns, regardless of his failures, because he is not called Marsh.

No-one's denying his good FC performances have happened, Don. But whichever way you spin it, he didn't bat well in the Ashes.

Try looking at his last 2 years. Scared of what you'll see?

I watched the last 4 tests.