Mitch Marsh wins ODI man-of-the match awards more often than Virat Kohli or AB de Villiers. His career stats to date are far better than those of legendary all-rounders Jacques Kallis, Andrew Symonds, Shane Watson and Andrew Flintoff.
Marsh is on track to become one of the true superstars of the ODI format. Yet, bizarrely, few cricket pundits or fans offer him the respect he deserves after a stunning start to his ODI career.
Many cricket followers are falling over themselves to shower praise on fellow gifted youngsters like South African quick Kagiso Rabada, England all-rounder Ben Stokes and Bangladesh paceman Mustafizur Rahman.
Meanwhile, Marsh is flying under the radar, comparatively, despite putting up jaw-dropping numbers in the 50-over format. Indulge me, for a moment, while I swamp you with facts and figures.
After 37 matches, Marsh is averaging 39 with the bat and 31 with the ball – incredible returns for a 24-year-old who made his ODI debut at just 19 years of age.
Marsh’s career record is particularly impressive when you compare it against those of other prominent all-rounders, past and present.
To date, he has comfortably outperformed some of the format’s all-time great all-rounders, including South Africa’s Kallis, England’s Flintoff and Australian legends Symonds and Watson.
Averages after 37 ODIs
Mitch Marsh – Batting average 39, bowling average 31
Ben Stokes – Batting 21, bowling 36
Moeen Ali – Batting 26, bowling 40
Shane Watson – Batting 29, bowling 45
Andrew Symonds – Batting 30, bowling 28
Jacques Kallis – Batting 40, bowling 48
Andrew Flintoff – Batting 23, bowling 32
None of those players came close to equaling what Marsh has done in his first 37 games. Of course, averages do not tell the full story. What is really important is a player’s ability to have an impact on a match.
In this regard, Marsh has been phenomenal, winning an incredible six man-of-the-match awards already in his brief ODI career.
To highlight just how astounding that number is, compare Marsh’s strike rate of winning a MOM award every 6.2 games against the career rates of the format’s two best players – Kohli (one MOM every 8.2 games) and de Villiers (8.3 games).
Now compare Marsh’s strike rate of one MOM every 6.2 games against Watson (11.1 games), Kallis (10.2), Flintoff (10.1) and Symonds (9.5).
As if that wasn’t impressive enough, not one of Marsh’s MOM awards has been earned in familiar home conditions. His six MOM awards have come in four different parts of the globe – England, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, and the Caribbean.
Marsh also was man-of-the-series as Australia defeated a resurgent England in their five-match series in the UK last year. As evidence of his ability to shape results with either bat or ball, he won two MOM awards in that series – one in a match where he only batted (making 80no from 63 balls), and the other in which he only bowled (snaring 4-27).
While Marsh is in the side as a batting all-rounder, having earned a promotion to number five in the order, his bowling is as good as numerous specialist quicks playing ODIs across the world. It was his ability to take wickets in bursts which stood out in the tri-series final this week, earning him his latest MOM award.
The Windies were well positioned at 1-62, chasing 270, when Marsh flipped the match on its noggin. First he induced an edge from Darren Bravo, then he deceived Marlon Samuels with a cutter, before he trapped LBW the well-set Johnson Charles.
After 4.1 overs, Marsh had the incredible figures of 3-4 and Australia suddenly were in complete command. ODI batting all-rounders typically operate as support bowlers, aiming to get through their overs relatively cheaply while snaring the odd wicket.
Not Marsh. In Tests, too, Marsh has displayed an invaluable ability to dislodge key batsmen at pivotal moments. His bowling has been wonderful in the longest format for the past year and very solid in ODIs.
Where his batting in Tests is well and truly a work in progress, he is a very accomplished middle order 50-over batsman. In his past 19 ODIs, Marsh has cracked 562 runs at 51, while scoring at a run-a-ball.
At times he has played with atomic belligerence, at others with deft touch, patience and intelligence which belied his reputation as a front foot hitter. Yet wait until the next time Marsh fails in an ODI, and watch as clueless observers round on him with clichéd, baseless snipes.
The young all-rounder looks capable of becoming one of the finest ODI cricketers Australia ever has produced. Eventually, his detractors will disappear.
Big Ramifications
Guest
Mitch does it again. 76 not out off 40 balls. 2x 4s, 7x 6s.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
But he's been dropped a few times. Not from the test team but from the T20 and the ODI team. He looks like a player who fits at top level for the most part. His bowing is definitely up to international cricket. They are willing to play a waiting game with him in test cricket. Let's hope there is a payoff sooner rather than later.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Nice one Jimmy, well put.
jeznez
Roar Guru
I thought he was in the team because he was a Mitchell. Given Johnson's retirement and Starc's injuries we need to have one in the team don't we? Agree that the majority of criticism is on his test match batting and also agree he is worth persevering with.
Craig Swanson
Guest
Here here Don.
Craig Swanson
Guest
I have not seen much footage of Miller batting in Tests but heard that he batted more like a Botham or Kapil Dev. Throwing caution to the wind. Comes off most of the time but because there are also down times the average is rather low. compared to someone who values his wicket more and bats time. His FC record with the bat is quite terrific, some 100 scores over 50 including 49 tons. That suggests to me that he was not just a hitter.
Don Freo
Guest
It would have been over 2 years ago that I first suggested that Mitch could be as good as Kallis....thankyou, thankyou! Now, I suggest he will rise to the occasion in Test cricket over the next few years. He is unlikely to match Kallis with the bat because his career probably won't be as long but he will with the ball...at least with strike rate. I doubt that his 195cm frame will allow him to play long enough to take 300 wickets but he'll be a gem...and a leader.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
We''ve become accustomed to allrounder mania. On eras, I'm a firm believer that talent transcends time. The Watto comparison is relevant although he is probs an overachiever. As for Nugget, no question he was brilliant but he still evened out over the lesser test matches availability. Harvs, remarkable. Versatile. Would have smashed it in the modern era.
Slane
Guest
I've never heard anybody say Marsh is poor in ODI's. The only knocks on him are about his test batting.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I think calling Miller's batting "Wattolike" is unfair on Miller. He still scored three more centuries, in less test matches and his average was almost 2 runs higher. We have become accustomed to batsman averaging much higher these days. Harvey was the batsman of his generation, the finest between Bradman and Chappell for Australia, yet he didn't average 50 (48 odd). Meanwhile Watson batted around and during a generation where averages have skyrocketed, putting his 35 even clearer into prospective. As much as I like Clarke and Hussey, to suggest they are as good as Harvey is a bit much, yet their averages would say otherwise.
The Bush
Roar Guru
The taking it seriously thing was sort of my point... I don't see how his batting "developing quicker" than his bowling would impact on his Test career in this manner. If anything it would have resulted in him being a more accomplished batsman compared to his bowling, yet as good as his statistics are, you'd call him a "bowling allrounder" (i.e. he'd be selected in any team for his bowling, perhaps not in most teams for his batting alone). If a professional cricketer gave away his wicket in the manner that Miller is alleged to have done, they probably wouldn't be selected ever again. Sport has changed.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Just remember everyone, Kohli is the best ever at everything, and expect an Indian backlash if you dare to suggest otherwise.
Craig Swanson
Guest
Could also be that he took his batting at first class level more seriously. Or that his batting developed quicker than his bowling did. Which, if that is the case, answers one of my questions. Pure conjecture I suppose .He was not exactly a spring chicken when he made his test debut though. I have always maintained it takes longer to nurture two disciplines. Miller gave away his wicket on occasions? . Wow. What would be the reaction if that happened today?
Pope Paul VII
Guest
There is possibly more myth about Nugget Miller than Bradman. Certainly he was an outstanding and somewhat enigmatic cricketer. Frontline, McGrathlike average with the ball and Wattolike with the bat. Just goes to show being an allrounder is harder than it looks and this was a guy who's spot in the team was virtually unchallenged until the very end of his career. Pretty sure he once took 7/63 vs England at Brissie bowlng offspin on a sticky. Clearly a better bowler that Watto but Watto was never frontline, while Mitchy looks like he could secure a frontline bowling spot, rather than being the spare . Meanwhile Watto looks like Keith Miller with the bat while Mitchy looks miles behind. Time will tell Maybe the discrepancy between Miller's FC and Test batting was to do with his cavalier attitude in the face of better bowling? That batting was somewhat enhanced too by a stellar West Indies tour in 1955 when he was about 37. He scored a couple of big determined tons after a bit of a slump., Perhaps with an eye to posterity?
The Bush
Roar Guru
Miller was something of a disappointment with the bat at Test level. His FC batting average of 48.9 including over 40 centuries demonstrates that he was actually a true allrounder who perhaps just never cared for batting in Test match cricket. There are certainly legends of him deliberately giving away his wicket in matches when he thought the Aussies were being ruthless and otherwise unsportsmen like. To average more than 12 runs less at Test level compared to your FC average is pretty rare, at least for a player of that sort of level.
Craig Swanson
Guest
Interesting you should mention Keith Miller. I would be interested to know about his early career. For instance, did he develop first his batting or bowling? How long it took him to develop into a test all rounder. His record is extremely good. Would rate him clearly a bowling all rounder with an almost Lillee or McGrath like average of @22+. Nevertheless, his batting was not all that shabby with a respectable @36+ I believe Mitch Marsh has a @40+ test average in him.
Craig Swanson
Guest
I also pushed for Marsh to bat at #7 for the same reasons as you have. At least until he has established himself with both bat and ball. Then he could slot in at #4 or #5. Marsh always seems to be batting under pressure. Whether it is the situation of the match or what is between his ears, it can not be good for the development of his game. I still maintain he has techical issues and must try to be more relaxed at the crease and press forward with softer hands.
Paul D
Roar Guru
It seems par for the course to get stuck into players these days if their progress is less than meteoric and always upwards. If Keith Miller was playing these days he’d have been called a lair and a showpony. Marsh is a very good all-rounder and certainly has what it takes to be a success at this level, the selectors would be mad not to persist with him.
Tanmoy Kar
Guest
Mitchell Marsh got so many MOM ( one in each 6.2 matches) as basically he is an all-rounder, which Virat Kohli & A.B.DeVilliars are not. If he is so good in ODI, why he has played only 37 ODI in his 5 years career? In last 19 matches he scored 562 runs, which is not good, his average was 51 as 8 times he was not out. A good ODI batsman should score 1000 runs in every 25 matches, his average should be above 40. Still he is quite young & likely to go a long way in ODI & T20s as an all-rounder. You have not provided his Test records for comments!
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Can you send these stats to Brydon Coverdale or Daniel Brettig of cricinfo? They harp on about Marsh's lack of input in any of the teams he is in. For them he is always 'overdue' a score or wickets regardless of format. I'd say his bowling is very well-thought out for his age, I've noticed how frequently Smith gets him on to do something specific in test and one dayers with the ball. Smith is never backward in mentioning how he works with Marsh when it comes to bowling in matches.