The phrase, ‘to be at sixes and sevens’, implies that you are at a loss, or in a state of ineptitude where you cannot reliably take action. It embodies the current malaise in the Australian Test line-up.
The majority of the concern falls upon Mitch Marsh in the all-rounder’s role and Peter Nevill as wicketkeeper/batsman. Both offer some valuable traits, but are ultimately fracturing the balance in the team with their struggles.
Much of the press has fallen on Marsh, with his batting average of 24 inadequate for a number six and his bowling return of 36.33 more befitting of a part-timer. The focus, while justified, omits the interlinking relationship existing with Nevill, and the shielding the keeper could be providing to facilitate Marsh.
Key in this is the limp efforts of Nevill with the bat with his average of 20.88 with only two 50s from his 15 Tests being the lowest batting return of all Test wicketkeepers. Before entering the Test arena, Nevill’s reputation was that of a very able top six batsman and his inability to translate this into the Test arena has had a profound effect on Marsh.
If he could it would balance the team beautifully, strengthening the Aussie top six with Nevill’s solid technique and temperament as well allowing Marsh to play in a more free-spirited role at seven or eight. One only has to view Marsh’s devastating batting rampages in the shorter forms of the game to buy into the value it could give the Test line-up.
The other main worry is it seems apparent that Australia is stuck with both, due to the lack of other options.
The all-rounder’s position is a conundrum, with Marsh the stand out in Australian cricket. Names such as James Faulkner, Moises Henriques, Glenn Maxwell and Marcus Stoinis are floated, but all are speculative entities.
Another option is to revert to a traditional line-up with six specialist batsmen, because no all-rounder is worthy of a spot. But Australian cricket’s obsession with needing an all-rounder to lessen the demand on bowlers’ workloads eliminates this.
The crux of this is that persisting with Marsh is the only option, hoping his glimpses of real calibre translate into sustained performance.
The keeping position is more problematic. Nevill is an outstanding gloveman, but modern thinking puts a keeper’s batting figures in the forefront of their measures. Nevill can’t be persisted with if his batting doesn’t improve markedly.
If he is dropped, there are hardly any stand out options. Sam Whiteman is a stellar potential prospect but to pick him now would be irresponsible to his long-term future. Tim Ludeman for South Australia is a very accomplished gloveman but lacks appeal with the bat. That leaves options like Peter Handscombe or Matthew Wade – players accomplished with the blade but not so able with the gloves.
Queensland’s excellent keeper Chris Hartley, long ignored by the selectors would be a good choice in the interim until the likes of Whiteman fully mature.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Stoinis averages 50 with the ball in FC cricket. Might as well just pick the 6th best batsman.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
All about the pitches for our top 5, if they are true they are brilliant if they are in any way test standard with swing/seam/spin they are suspect
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
The unfortunate aspect of Faulkner is his recent demise. 5 years ago, he was the real deal in regards to a very able top 6 bat and capable bowler but to use the analogy of Harbhajan Singh he seems to have sold his soul to the $$$$$ of the T20/ODI gods Foregoing the puristic style of his game and essentially becoming a 'crickeying trickster' with an array of 'slow balls' and dexterity of slogs to cow corner
BurgyGreen
Guest
I agree with you. There will always be the perception that Faulkner doesn't bowl fast enough but his first class stats deserve respect.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
Faulkner probably edges Marsh in One Day bowling, but not Tests. I do not rate Faulkner as a Test bowler.
dave
Guest
What about the style of the top 5 batsmen? Marsh Is often coming in with after Warner/Smith have racked up huge scores and instructed to throw the bat for quick runs and a declaration.Good on him for doing the team thing even though he would be feeling the pressure surrounding his batting average. This Isn't always the case and he has had chances to save an innings and failed. It just seems with the top5 they are either massively dominant or spectacular failures. I can't remember too many times when he's come to the crease in a balanced scoreboard position.He either has a half hour to throw the bat for quick runs or try and salvage the team from a ridiculously dire position. It's all or nothing from our top5.
deccas
Guest
If Marsh is gonna be at 7 why don't we give Faulkner a crack at the spot. The argument has always been he isn't a top 6 bat, but is a bloody good bowler. Well Marsh isn't top 6 yet either, and his bowling is good, its coming along nicely, but Faulkner is straight up better. Marsh has had good exposure, he has shown he is a pretty decent cricketer, but we can't say he is actually a net contributor and not a passenger without a shadow of a doubt. Gotta drop him and see if another player makes us a for sure stronger team. As it seems we "need" to have that extra bowler I'd rather have the best one. Faulkner seems a probability to score runs as any other all rounder, but his bowling is truly top notch.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
I never really noticed him with the gloves in Sl, Colin with him in my view ( means zero ) as astute as ever His batting though was a travesty for a batsman of his ability/temperament
Colin James
Roar Rookie
Are we still keeping it a secret, or are we now allowed to say it aloud - that Nevill's keeping in Sri Lanka was decidedly untidy? I wonder whether it was a symptom of his batting woes, or whether his keeping slump affecting his form with the stick. But he was poor behind the stumps. Many fumbles, and he appeared quite lethargic at times.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
The fact I suggest Hartley shows how bereft the keeping options are. He might not be stellar with the bat but he is great with the gloves and is a natural leader. They are likely to look to Wade again if Nevill's struggles continue which will be moronic i share your opinion on Maxwell, as I have already expressed on comments on here
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
Ludeman, as i penned in the article is a great gloveman but lacking as a bat meaning he will never get a chance As you lads rightly point out Nevill is our best option, it is just a point of him performing with the bat. If he does he will have a long career for he is great behind the pegs in all regards
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
I would Have this 6: Burns, Warner, Khawaja, Smith, Patterson, S Marsh- but M M Marsh will be at 6 meaning his brother is likely to be at 5
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
I think Stoinis is a long way off tet standard as a bowler
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
The "experienced" Voges didn't do much for us when the chips were down in the Ashes or when we were collapsing regularly in Sri Lanka. We tried "experienced" shield batsmen like Cowan, Doolan, Quiney etc. In the last 10 years and that didn't exactly work out well either. History has proven that it is better to put in younger batsmen who are performing in the shield than older guys at the end if their career. Rogers was an exception.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Stoinis at 6 is the answer. Deserves a spot as possibly one of the top 6 batsmen in Australia, and offers a good solid 5th bowling option. Warner Burns Khawaja Smith Voges/ Handscomb Stoinis Nevill Starc Lyon Hazlewood Bird Voges gets one last series before moving aside for a younger bloke like Handscomb or Patterson before the India tests.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I am not sold on them either, especially Maddinson, his footwork is non existent. Head seems to have been fast tracked for little to show why. Hughes from NSW impresses me more as he has footwork and seems to know how to leave a ball. Then we have Heazlett, Dean and Renshaw who will be hopefully scoring 1000+ runs in leading their teams to Shield glory to get the selectors to take notice.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Sorry Tim, as much as I would love to see Hartley in the team he will not be there. His batting is good enough and he has real fight, he has dragged QLD to many a win over the years but he is seen as too old. He has been dropped for the one day comp and I can see him being moved on after this shield season to make may for Peirson. Whether that is a decision from QLD cricket or Pat Howard for me remains to be seen. I will be controversial and suggest the Shield might have age restrictions in coming years to give more young players game time. It would not surprise me in the slightest. On Maxwell, he might average 40 but if you actually watch him bat in Shield cricket his shot selection has been... I will say flakey at best. He will look great for 20 minutes then sky a reverse sweep that did not need to be played which will drop safely. It will be interesting to see how he plays in the Shield if he gets a game.
AREH
Roar Guru
Have to agree on that note Tim, the selectors have shown a reluctance to go down the path of six primary batsmen probably since the 2005 Ashes more or less, when Australia's infatuation with an all-rounder at number 6 began as a result of Flintoff torment.
Joel
Guest
Hartley is suffering from Seccombe Syndrome unfortunately. Best keeper, but selectors want more batting ability.
Joel
Guest
Ludeman.. Righto.. I'll give you Paine, forgot about him, but he would be the only keeper I would even consider.