The futility of looking for logic where there is none

Many, many angry words have been thumped through keyboards and touchscreens about the Australian cricket team selectors over the last few days. When it comes to the career of Shaun Marsh, there typically are no other words to use.

But fear not, this is not going to add to that eternally growing pile of angry words. Well, not in the typical way, at least.

You see, I’ve just about given up being annoyed by the deeds of Marsh. Much like the career of Shane Watson, expecting the best only leads to an inevitable extension of a constant state of frustration.

Marsh could bat superbly in Adelaide next week. Excellent, I genuinely hope he does. However, I genuinely hope to win Lotto, too. Success in either endeavour will come as a pleasant surprise.

I wouldn’t have picked Marsh, and I’ve been saying who I think would be better options all week. But I’m hardly Robinson Crusoe there, am I. And I do hope he does well next week, I really do.

Experience, and 16 first-class centuries in 16 seasons tells me not to hold my breath, though.

And experience is also telling me that trying to find logic in the announcements of the Australian selectors is something that you shouldn’t spend too much time on these days, either.

On news of Marsh’s inclusion, I went back to a column I wrote in January 2014, when Marsh and Alex Doolan were named in the squad to tour South Africa ahead of Phillip Hughes and incumbent number six George Bailey two summers ago.

I even wrote the words, “I wouldn’t have gone that way myself” back then, too, before adding, “but I can see why they’ve gone the way they did”.

At the time, the inclusion of Doolan and Marsh did actually make some sense. I could see the reasoning.

This time around, though, I’ve got nothing.

So many more arguments can be made why not to pick Marsh, or who would be a better option than Marsh, that there’s just no point in trying to find any sense.

And the selectors aren’t providing any, anyway.

In the statement announcing the team on Wednesday, chairman of selectors Rod Marsh said the following:

“Shaun was unlucky to miss out on the squad for the first two Tests and since then has scored consistently in Sheffield Shield, so we believe he deserves this opportunity.”

There are numerous parts of that statement that deserve to be pulled apart and disproven, but I’m not going to get into that today. Indeed, if you happen to follow me on Twitter, you’ll have seen my thoughts on the “unlucky to miss out on the squad for the first two Tests” part of the statement anyway.

Australian coach Darren Lehmann initially echoed this train of thought, confirming “it was touch and go between ‘Uzzy’ [Khawaja] and Shaun for the first two Tests”, before going to onto cite a completely different line of justification again.

“…And he played really well last summer for us. He got 99 in Melbourne, and he got a couple of fifties in Sydney. And we thought he played quite well in the West Indies when he got his chance as well.

“He got some runs in Melbourne [last week versus Victoria], which is really pleasing to see, so he gets first crack.”

Lehmann later mentioned Marsh’s decent Matador Cup form, which was indeed quite solid, but it was quite clear that his Sheffield Shield returns weren’t the deciding factor in the decision.

And that’s a good thing, because there are probably half a dozen batsmen around the country who might have had good reason to be aggrieved.

This, of course, is the frustrating thing for those of us nowhere near the selection table. All kinds of logical and subjective reasoning can be found for any player to be selected, but in recent times it seems a rare event to actually see any of that reasoning applied.

The confusing and even contradictory statements from selectors really don’t help things either.

Will Marsh bat at three or down at five with Steven Smith and Adam Voges shuffling up or down accordingly? Marsh has batted at three for Western Australia for most if not all summer, yet Smith said immediately after play in Perth, “I think there’s a good chance I’ll be batting three in Adelaide.”

Who knows?

Who knows if Peter Siddle will play in Adelaide, or if James Pattinson gets the nod?

Siddle bowled very well in the last Ashes Test in England, has been in reasonable form for Victoria, and even has a bit of recent success with the pink Kookaburra. He was able to get a bit of movement with the older ball late in the afternoon session of the Prime Minister’s XI clash with New Zealand in October, and took three Queensland wickets amidst their second inning collapse on the evening of Day 3 in Melbourne a week later.

Pattinson took three top order wickets in that same innings, and has had his workload managed by Cricket Australia since his return this season. It’s hard to imagine him being brought into the squad and not playing.

Is Stephen O’Keefe any chance of playing? Despite having quite a good record with the pink ball at the Adelaide Oval – 18 wickets at 18.2 – the reasoning around O’Keefe was that he was named in the squad that didn’t go to Bangladesh in October.

Stats and form? Meh, details. Recent would be tourist is good enough.

Heck, if reasonable form last summer is good enough – despite moderate returns since – then being a recent tourist is as good and as logical a reason as any.