Pattinson in, Marsh survives for Hobart Test match

I suppose you'll count his innings today as another test in which he didn't score a 50.

Games are won by scoring runs, not how good the batting looks. If you are not scoring runs over a number of innings, how can you be considered to be batting well?

You are obviously not watching games...just reading scorebooks. Perhaps a copy of "Cricket for Dummies" should be on your Christmas list.

No I mention tests because we select batsmen primarily to play in tests, not tour matches. His test average has declined in the last year. Why's that? Because he's not scoring runs in tests. There has been no successes as in the tests he has played since his debut 2 test series, he has not scored more than 50. If he was batting well, he would have in one or two cases, in which case you could say, perhaps what was required of him to do when he came in affected his batting. He has not. There have still been a number of innings where all he needed to do was not get out. He didn't manage that.

You trot out the same numbers while ignoring others. His match situations have usually demanded he chase quick runs. There were failures when he came in to replace Watson in England but the whole team did that. The truth is, he has not had a lot of test innings. He doesn't get to cash in on the roads because match situations demand he takes risks to score briskly. Two recent innings he has had to dig in and steady the ship and he did that. You mention tests only because it suits your numbers. I have given you other impressive numbers that you ignore because it doesn't suit you. I see your anti-Marsh comments as dumb sledges. Just look at Khawaja. 2 big innings and his average goes from 25 to 40. That is the same with Marsh. His last year has him averaging between 40 and 50. You only cite his career average because, although irrelevant, you think it makes him look worse. Your argument is hateful rubbish.

Where am I being proven wrong? 1 half century in 18 test innings at an average of 23 is proving that he cannot score consistently. He can score consistently against teams thrown together for meaningless tour games, but that does not win test matches. How do you ignore his performance with the bat in the 8 tests since he scored 87?

So if you have declared someone is no good, but they prove you wtong with good performances, you just wipe them off? He only played one Shield innings last year. He can do very little more than perform when the chance is there. He's done that...consistently. You have no idea about his opposition. They were picked for a reason. Other Aussies didn't score when he did. You say he didn't score condistently. He did.

Well it's not consistent performances that's the good reason, that's for sure...

3 of those were against bowling attacks below Sheffield Shield standard. But again none of these are test returns. They really don't help win test matches.

Never defending...just advocating...with good reason.

3 centuries and a double in the last season. He's doing well.

The figures from his entire career indicate what I have said all along. He's a bowler who can bat a bit, not a batsman who can bowl a bit. I think he may be more suitable as a 3rd seamer/number 8 option actually in the long term if he does not improve his returns with the willow.

Mitch Marsh played in the Ashes? He was so underwhelming I didn't even notice (although the figures indicate he bowled reasonably well).

Don, you're the only one embarrassing yourself with your illogical defense of anything WA.

The cackling hyenas. TWAS, RedKev and QW. Embarrassing themselves.

You are wrong for looking for a negative in the context of positices. You are wrong in your overall way of being. What a wet blanket.

Wrong Marsh Kev.

Or the India series in which he averaged under 3 when coming in at first drop early nearly every innings? We creamed India because Clarke at third drop piled on the runs, before he hit the crease we were invariably in trouble.

Just to confirm Don, was Marsh not required to perform with the bat during the Ashes series which we lost because of our woeful batting?

Not really that strange. All rounder who has not passed 50 with the bat in his last 6 tests, and only once in 10 tests. Doesn't have a record of consistently scoring well at FC level across his career either.