For the last few days I’ve been painstakingly obsessing with the readily available bowling and batting statistics of Australia’s T20 squad. This was in part due to a recent article on The Roar discussing the benefits of all-rounders versus conventional batsman/bowlers.
While I am not ready to publish an article with my findings, there were some interesting questions raised.
Some of these included:
Are wickets something worth measuring statistically in an overall rating given that no team will ever likely be bowled out in a T20 game?
What is the sweet spot between average strike rate and balls faced?
Is there significant benefit to playing specialists over all-rounders?
I’m not sure that I have a conclusive answer on any of them. However, one thing is increasingly clear. In T20 cricket, just like ODI and Tests, specialists are king. Frontline bowlers and batsmen having a much greater impact then several all-rounders.
So how does that relate to Mitchell Marsh? Surely I must know that he’s an all-rounder famous for his power hitting right? Wouldn’t a player like that be better suited coming in at number six to accelerate the run rate?
But that’s the dirty secret about Marsh as a T20 player. His numbers seem to indicate that he is far closer to a traditional batsman than many would suspect. He averages a strike rate of 120 while facing 18 balls an innings.
These numbers compare favourably to batsmen like Steve Smith (123 strike rate, 16.8 balls faced) and Jaques Kallis (112, 22.9) and even current opening batsman Shane Watson (138, 19) and Aaron Finch (133, 22) or David Warner (143 21), who’s accelerated strike rate can be attributed to more time spent batting during the power play.
So why should Marsh open when guys like Warner and Finch have better records? Because as a batsman Marsh can be a slow starter, but the longer he bats the more boundaries he hits. Opening the batting with Marsh allows him to get his eye in while guys like Usman Khawaja and whoever replaces Steve Smith at number three (Travis Head, Chris Lynn, Nic Maddinson etc) quickly accelerate the total.
Then Marsh’s power hitting can be at its most effective during the first ten overs. Plus as a fit tall guy with easy power, Marsh is unlikely to tire as quickly as some of the other options.
Lancey5times
Guest
I guess you have proved that numbers can be made to look whatever way you like. This is absurd. In a format where it is imperative to be able to go from ball one (particularly as an opener with the ball hard and the power play enforced) you suggest that Marsh should open because he starts slow? The balls faced numbers made me laugh as well. He has a below average strike rate and faces 18 balls per innings at number 7 when the ball is older and there are less fielders in catching positions. Imagine how he would go against the better of the bowling. The type the 'batsman' often face. All you article has done is highlight how unsuitable Mitch is to T20 cricket. I'm sure he is extremely grateful for your support :)
VivGilchrist
Guest
Outdated and irrelevant.
Praveen
Guest
Khawaja and Warner as openers for me
My2cents
Guest
Seems like this article became outdated when Australia changed the batting order and pushed Watson to no 6. For Finch.
My2cents
Guest
Thanks for the comment i know I have personally said some things about Marsh not being a test standard cricketer, that I still fully believe. I personally am not a fan of potential as a reason to solely pick a player. However marsh has proven statistics in limited overs cricket that are worth considering. Especially in T20 where is is close to elite as a batsman and a bowler. One of the reasons I think marsh is a good fit at opener is because I believe that teams tend to waste wickets by not getting down to the end of the batting order. just look at how many balls Neville and Faulkner have faced this tournament. Australia could use a shaky big hitting opener if it allows them to bat deeper.
Chui
Guest
Don't give Rod Marsh ideas.
Train Without A Terminus
Guest
If we are playing hypotheticals then I'd like to see Maxwell given a crack at #3 or #1. He's definitely got the hand eye co-ordination and if he could get his obession with switch hitting out of his system, he's technically sound.
Jwedlake
Guest
Geez James. We must both be watching different world t20 games or living on different planets. Either that or you been watching cricket with your eyes shut.
Bearfax
Guest
Mitch Marsh does seem to have a better shorter form batting skill so far than his longer form performances. But I dont think he is yet reliable enough to risk so high up the list. Maybe in a few years when he has developed his game and range of batting shots he may well be an opening option in this form of the game. But at this stage his batting options are too limited and therefore it becomes easier to contain him, especially early in his innings. Mitch needs to work on his range of batting shots, just like most young batsmen do. In five years or so James, what you see in the kid, may bear fruit as an opener
Niranjan Deodhar
Roar Pro
Openers are generally technically sound batsmen or at least have excellent hand eye co-ordination like Sehwag, Gayle, but, to be honest, in the case of Marsh, he seems neither technically sound nor a player who has excellent hand eye co-ordination. Moreover, with players like Warner, Finch and Khawaja doing really well at the top, I don't think Australia should fancy Marsh to open the batting. Also, from my perspective, Australia should use Marsh as a bowling option more than a batting one as their bowling looks depleted off-late while they still possess a good batting strength.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Or you could argue his tendency to be a slow starter makes him less suitable for the shortest form of the game where the ability to hit big from the start is essential.
Swampy
Guest
Haha - that made me laugh
jarijari
Guest
Well played James, but I'm not with you on this, particularly in the World T20. If anyone should step up I reckon it would be Jimmy Faulkner, the indispensable first-picked player in any short-form team. And looking ahead, Moises Henriques (blue cap, both green and gold caps), is definitely a superior batsman to Mitch (who is the better bowler) and may well come into the side next season. But I'd go with Khawaja and Warner as openers after Watto steps down, and then bring in Chris Lynn or Faulkner at three, ahead of Maxwell, Smith and Henriques. I watched Moises batting with Smithy in a one-dayer at Sydney's Drummoyne Oval early in the season and he was outstanding. Mitch is a fine all-rounder who must be in the squad, but not sure that he's a starter. Anyway, you've set up a nice discussion. I reckon Faulkner can bat anywhere, bowl anywhere and be your key man. As a short-form player he's as good as Kapil Dev and, if you think that's silly, check the Indian legend's one-day figures.