Marsh, Pattinson and O'Keefe in Australian squad for Adelaide

Personally, I'd have gone with the following XI: Burns Warner Cowan Smith Voges MMarsh Nevill Starc Siddle Hazlewood Lyon But I would have been happy with Klinger in for Khawaja or Patto for Siddle. SMarsh? I don't think he is Test class. While he is definitely a better bat than Watson, and I certainly hope he makes plenty of runs, I do think there are a number of more deserving candidates. I'd go Cowan ahead of Klinger or Maxwell just because of the solidity he provides - a good foundation courtesy of Burns/Khawaja/Warner has been the key to our big totals so far this summer. Great also to see SOK in and around the Test XI. I'd like to see more of him in the national teams when the opportunity arises.

Okay Don, so just the averages then from times you'd prefer to look at and which happen to support your argument. Even though it was an exact quote of what Rod Marsh said and he was talking about their FC averages, not snippets of average. Fair enough. I sound like Ryan OC? I think you mean Rod Marsh sounds like Ryan OC.

I've never said, "form is temporary". That is a cliche that says nothing. No selector would bother with irrelevant stats. How Marsh, Smith or Warner play now bears no resemblance to the starts of their careers. At the start of Smith's career his batting was considered a bonus. Davy Warner was excluded for Daniel Dawson (that wicketkeeper/opener) for every FC game for NSW because they thought Earner was not a serious FC contender.. Imagine the current selection panel taking that into account.

Why wouldn't a selector look over a career? They should be wanting to look at continuous improvement, steady and predictable performance, common modes of dismissal etc. That's how you get a clearer picture of likely performance at the next level. If you look at a guy who has never consistently performed better than the next guy, why would you pick him? You've said yourself Don that form is temporary, so you have to look at a much larger sample to work out consistency when form is so fleeting. Shaun Marsh has consistently averaged just over 30 for the majority of his first class career. One good season in a row does not mean he'll get better this time around, it just means that he's in form and he'll go back to averaging 30 again in no time.

That's the whole point. He wouldn't be talking about career averages. He'd be talking about recent average that indicates form. Last season, for instance. Why would a selector look back over a career? He wants to look at now. You sound like Ryan OC.

Oh yeah, Rod also had this to say on not picking Klinger back then: "Have you looked at Michael Klinger's batting average in first-class cricket? It's not as good as the other boys (in contention for the Test squad)" First class averages: M. Klinger: 39.71 S. Marsh: 38.50 So you can see why maybe we're all a little confused about the selection policy Don.

Rod Marsh had this to say on Joe Burns' selection for the first test: "He's got more runs than the other contenders, it's pretty simple. He averages more than the other contenders..." So it turns out they do consider averages. That's Rod Marsh saying that, not me. They also consider the weight of runs. You say he makes runs. So do others, in fact others make more. I can see you'll argue this until you're blue in the face Don. You have your single point of view, you enjoy that.

They don't say "averages count". They do say "make runs". He does.

Don chill out, I just thought it was a funny thing to say. You seem to lose all sense of humor or ability to see other's points of view when the word "Marsh" comes up. For the record, as stated elsewhere, I was ok with Marsh getting picked ahead of Burns for the West Indies Tour. I thought he did ok there as well, however no matter how much you cherry pick, remove bad performances and only leave the good, abuse those with other points of view, or send baskets of mini muffins to Rod Marsh and Mark Waugh, there is still a fair chance that Marsh will end this latest stint continuing on his middling way, mid 30's average. I believe others could do better, or that there are better strategic selections for the good of the team going forward. The selectors obviously differ (they were pretty good mini muffins after all), and that's ok. Also, as stated elsewhere I wish him well. Now that he is in I hope he succeeds, I just don't expect it. Don, in most other areas you make reasonable comments, acknowledge others views and display a sound knowledge of the game. Once I even detected a sense humour. I look forward to further discussions in the future. But there is no need to goo the attack, most people here love cricket just like you. And if Marsh hits a hundred in Adelaide you get to say "I told you so". And that's always something to look forward to.

Yes, 2nd innings dismissal was not his fault, that's for sure. Guiding his team home, yada yada, you're obviously a committed Marsh and WA fan and good on you for it. I was talking however about his suitability to fill the current spot in the Australian team. I'm not anti-Marsh but he's almost becoming Watsonian in the number chances he's getting. What I am is pro picking the best available for the job and in my apparently limited understanding of the game, that's not Marsh, S. I'm obviously not the only one who thinks so. And if he gets in and makes runs and does what he's picked for then bloody ripper. It's just that someone else may have been picked and done the same thing who was probably more deserving. The selectors keep saying to go an make runs, averages count, and by those measures he's just not there right now.

I watch every ball of Warriors games if they are on the website and if not, listen to every ball of WA games on Sport FM. Marsh's guidance to Bosisto was terrific. Great leadership. His dismissal, off Quiney's hip into the air, was freakishly unlucky. I'd be quite happy for him to play that first innings every time. His second innings was controlled, committed to his partner's innings and leading a team of kids home to safety. For you to question the performance of a captain who guided his team to safety is a fairly loud exclamation of the limitations in your understanding of the game. Still, if you pick a target, no matter what he does will be not good enough if you are committed to denigration. Thankfully, the cricket authorities see what actually happened.

He was 64 when he got out as I'm sure you could look up for yourself. 6 less than Klinger got, 10 more than Agar got. Yes he got out to Ahmed who did get some others as you mention. It's the manner in which he went about things I'm talking about. As opposed to Klinger who looked the more impressive of the two. Have you been to a Shield game lately Don? Care to comment on something you actually saw rather than pluck a number from a sheet? If you'd rather take that path, let's look at Marsh's commanding 33 in the second innings before getting out again to Ahmed. You know, while Will Bosisto made a good, slow 100 to bat Victoria out of the game and even Whiteman managed a lazy 50 to keep them out. Bobby Quiney actually outscored Marsh in the game so by your scorecard based reckoning he should be rushed immediately back into the team to improve on his glorious 9 runs in the baggy green! He's managed an average of 34.5 in the 3 Shield games so far, 11 against NZ in a CA XI while Khawaja and Burns peeled of centuries. Hardly commanding a position is he? He did of course make a monstrous score at North Sydney oval against the CA XI so there's that, but we're not picking the ODI squad. Much like Watson, I think he's a specialist who keeps getting picked in all forms. Anyway they're wheeling me back to my room now so I'll leave that brainless mess for you to deal with.

Do we get to remove the worst ten innings of every batsman and recalculate their averages? Players would love that.

That's right. He got dropped for that. You take his Indian series out, the rest of his career gives a Tubby Taylor, Michael Slater, Bob Simpson, Bill Lawry average. This should get the mathematicians out.

7 ducks in 15 matches for a top 6 batsman is no ones version of doing well.

He has only failed once ( in that Indian series). The other times he has lost his place due to injury or because the incumbent has returned from injury. They keep picking him BECAUSE he has done well when selected. After all, he has only played 15.

Why continue picking a player that has consistently failed at test level? Rogers came back and succeeded on his second attempt after a very short first attempt in tests, Voges is making the most of his first opportunity. Marsh has been tried and failed on a few different occasions now...

Marsh is the next in line for a full time spot. 32 is young. Why pension players off before their careers end? Voges, Harris and Rogers have demonstrated that powerfully. Marsh is in excellent form and did well when last filling in in the Windies. You pick him because he deserves it. He should be rewarded for form. Why pick a young bloke because he's younger? Why not pick an older bloke because he is older? Youth seems to be a random criterion.

Don, if there are 40 other players that would perform at test level, then why pick Shaun Marsh again? We know that he'll only get two matches before Khawaja comes back, so don't you think it would be an ideal opportunity to blood a new young player and give them a taste of the top level? Think about it.. young guy comes in, knows he's only got two games so there's no fear or anger or disappointment when he doesn't get picked again after that game etc. and we get to have a look at the future stars of our sport. Don't you think that's a better idea? If they wanted to try and bring Marsh back in for a potential full time spot in the team then the argument is different, but picking him in these circumstances makes no sense whatsoever.

So now you are criticizing him even when he gets runs? That speaks volumes for your objectivity...or lack thereof. The old, "Yeah...but..welĺ....awe, I just don't like him..."