You don’t like the job Mitchell Marsh or Rod Marsh are doing. You think they’re doing it wrong. You think they shouldn’t be the ones doing it.
You feel like saying it. So, you do. That includes online, on sites such as The Roar.
You might make good points to support your opinion. But then you cross the line. You make a claim that shouldn’t be thrown around without some evidence to back it up.
That claim is a variation on the one Roar commenter Raul made on Glenn Mitchell’s Thursday article:
“(Mitchell) Marsh is not international standard and we all know the only reason he is picked is that his Dad is a selector.”
Nepotism is a serious accusation, and not one to be made lightly.
Thankfully, fellow Roar commenter JohnB quickly pointed out the obvious flaw in such a “logic” – Geoff, not Rod, is the father of Mitchell and Shaun Marsh.
You might wonder why I’m bothering to write this article. After all, the claim was quickly and successfully challenged, and educated cricket fans know which Marsh is which.
Here’s why: put yourself in Marsh’s shoes. If you can’t do that, imagine if someone told you that you were only remaining in your job because of your father, even though that wasn’t true. Even though that person would only need to spend less than a minute online to find out that their reasoning for such a statement was completely wrong.
You’d be annoyed to say the least, and rightfully so. Aren’t we better than this?
To note that Mitchell Marsh hasn’t done much with the bat in his career, and that he perhaps shouldn’t be in the team despite scoring a half-century in the last Test in Sri Lanka, is fair. I would have Shaun Marsh instead of Mitchell Marsh in the team, and just worry about having six batsmen, one keeper and four bowlers.
Steve Smith’s own leg spin is handy, while David Warner and Adam Voges can both bowl some part-time spin.
I’m not unaware of potential drawbacks to the idea of playing four bowlers, and Smith doesn’t have Clarke’s knack with part-timers, but they are not insuperable problems.
As for Rod Marsh, the nature of his job means that everyone invariably thinks that they can do a better job than him.
There have certainly been selections during his time that I thought were mistaken. I’ve written on one of them before – the dropping of Cameron Boyce from Australia’s T20 team. Not because I didn’t think badly of Adam Zampa, but because the dropping went against the trend of giving the incumbent one more game to prove himself against a challenger, and Boyce wasn’t struggling with the ball at the time.
Yet, to trash the reputations of both men, based on a family link they do not actually have, is not a fair comment, and undermines credible arguments against their performance.
Quite apart from anything else, as I mentioned earlier, it takes less than a minute’s research to figure out that they are not father and son.
Seriously, to those who do insist on spouting this nonsense, you can look it up.
“But Pottsy. I looked it up and saw that there’s no family connection, and I’m still willing to argue that Marsh is only in the team because of his father.”
Well, to anyone who might think that, and I certainly hope that there isn’t, you need to improve as a human being more than Mitchell Marsh needs to improve as a Test cricketer.
Matthew H
Guest
Not upset, just giving up. Reminds me of 'discussions' I have had regarding Botham where some refuse to give dues based on opinion even though he was fastest man to 100 wickets and 1000 runs, 200 wickets and 2000 runs, 300 wickets and 3000 runs as well as first to get century and 10 wickets in single match. Sometimes you just can't win. I think it's the facts v beliefs situation where once belief has set in facts mean little. Let's just agree to disagree.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
average 27 odd in SL with bat, ok in comparison to the shambolic efforts of the batsman but figures not strong enough to bat in thwe top 6 If you are satisfied with that at 6, your batting is very weak
Don Freo
Guest
Thankyou for the concession...although there is no need. Opinions are what this is about. I have no problem with you expressing an opinion. I do find it strange, however, that you get upset by mine.
Matthew H
Guest
Don, I concede. Your arguments prove you are clearly far superior. Now that I have carefully re-read your comments I see that they make perfect sense. I apologise that I should deign to have an opinion and attempt to back it up with stats. They should just get rid of the selection panel and rely solely on your marvellous insights that obviously don't require any evidence to support them. Actually maybe you are Rod Marsh.
Don Freo
Guest
Marsh is better than Nevill. Nevill needs some numbers. Sri Lanka speaks against you, Tim. Sri Lanka is away...as in, not home. Mitch did ok. Only Davy did better.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
Nevill has been very disappointing for he can bat and bat very well. Good enough to be in the top 6 and average 40ish. As for Marsh, he would be brilliant as an 8, where his bowling is capable enough to be factored in as a main part of an attack and then his batting see as a bonus, but not relied upon. With him at 6, relied upon as a batting all rounder it throws everything out for he is not good enough. It is carried at home where the predomination of road pitches support the rest of the top 6 allowing him to be carried but away from home where they are pantsed he becomes a real focus Australia would be better to revert to a tradition top 6 of pure batsmen, conceding Marsh has failed and no others are strong enough to be inserted as an all rounder
Camo McD
Roar Guru
Pity Dan Marsh isn't still playing. That guy was pretty good. Wouldn't mind Rod picking him.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
First class stats indicate that at the current time, Mitch is performing with the bat in tests about as well as we have the right to expect him to. Nevill, however is not and some could argue that the added pressure of repeatedly following another failure of Mitch places upon him. As you state, Marsh at six does create a significant imbalance and that's a luxury we cant afford without Gilchrist averaging 50 at seven.
Don Freo
Guest
That run of ducks was similar to Greg's. Sibling rivalry. It was almost as long ago too. Your fielding stats are just silly. List the dropped catches and the runs conceded with missed ground fielding and slow running. If you think Khawaja and Burns are good fieldsmen, you may as well not comment on cricket threads.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
I do not know why you build an article around one absurd comment without taking into account a site like ROAR is full of similar comments. If you broke it down, i would suggest these figures over comments 10%- Informed and insightful 70%- ill-informed and biased 20%- Hysterical and laughable The one you bring up is obviously in the third category As for M Marsh, you can understand why he is in the team with them hoping what he could represent. It is a bit like Andrew Symonds the sequel where he was taunted by 'specialist fieldsman' taunts before he clicked and the team went to a new level. Making the times where he was essentially carried fully justified. The difference here with Marsh is the inability of the team to carry him due to the frailties in the top 6 and the lack of batting performance by Nevill in the keepers role. Which puts all the focus on Marsh's place in the team because of the imbalance he causes in the team with his struggles
Matthew H
Guest
Khawaja and Burns both have more catches than Marsh for less matches played. I guess I shouldn't bother pointing that out though should I Don, what do facts count for? Even thought the article talks about judging on evidence. Of course great fielders routinely break fingers while they are fielding too don't they? If you want opinions, a certain Ian Chappell (what would he know right?) reckon's Marsh's run of ducks and scores under 4 is not good enough. “That’s Danny Morrison and Glenn McGrath territory,” said Chappell. (http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/shaun-marsh-receives-the-ultimate-insult-as-his-batting-is-likened-to-glenn-mcgraths/news-story/358b9d8b26b14f1dee61cf5dc807ebf2). And remember we are talking about a 33yo Marsh v 29yo Khawaja & 27yo Burns.
Nudge
Guest
Ita actually Shaun so you were right in the first place johnb
Don Freo
Guest
It's Shaun.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
No he isn't. How is this hard for you to grasp?
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
Hi mate, I did note that, but it was taken out by the Roar - understandable. It wasn't like it was a malicious mistake mate, and I said as much. Agree fully with your last point.
JohnB
Guest
Incidentally, I got chipped for spelling the elder currently playing Marsh's Christian name as Shaun. It's Sean. My bad, although unless you're deliberately misspelling someone's name I don't think it matters much. The other reason for pointing out that Rod isn't the father of Mitch and Sean is that it's very unfair to Rod Marsh to suggest he's involved in nepotism.
twodogs
Guest
I'm sure he won more than his match payment also. Back then it was a long shot punt and a 'flutter' with little chance. As you said Matthew, these days it's a serious offence and he would have been branded a cheat.
Don Freo
Guest
Shaun Marsh dropped a simple catch once. Since then, commenters that rarely watch him cast him as a poor fieldsman. He is a gem in slips...so prolific in Shield games. Super safe hands. In the outfield he has one of the flattest, fastest throws around. I'd say he is a superb fieldsman. Very reliable and very sharp. Certainly better than Khawaja and Burns. Once again, the kind of misperception to which Pottsy refers.
Matthew H
Guest
All good Don, and I appreciate where you are coming from, it read a bit nasty. In reality the numbers for Marsh Burns and Khawaja are similar, however I truly believe the team should be settled with Burns and Khawaja and Marsh should wait until one of them is dropped never to return. Interestingly one of Marsh's big weaknesses is fielding. He has possibly improved in this regard and I think the other two are not world class there either. Who scored most runs on 27th October is a bit silly, otherwise we wouldn't bother keeping records and averages. Greg Chappell was basically forced out of cricket because of ducks. As for the nepotism I tried to point out that I realise the Marsh brothers are no relation to Rod Marsh but possibly didn't make that clear. What you probably don't realise is that while Kim Hughes was captain Rod Marsh was very nasty, changing the field etc. and he did bet against his team - you can dress it up how you like, in other sports that would be a life ban.
Don Freo
Guest
Matthew, Shaun's head is not on the block because he is very rarely in the team. Your comment is the kind that Pottsy refers too. Numbers do lie. Your numbers lie. That run of ducks was almost 10 years ago. What has that to do with anything? Why is a duck a problem? How about citing the percentage of innings when they were dismissed for 3...or worse still, 11? What a random stat! The stat you cynically silenced was, "Who scored most runs on 27th Oct, 2016?" How come you didn't mention that, hey? You crafty thing, you! I can imagine by the time this thread has run its distance, there's likely to be a comment from you about nepotism in favour of 2 of the team members. The stuff about Rod Marsh is just nasty. He didn't bet against his own team. He had a playful bet that had no chance of winning. Rod Marsh was unable to affect the result by "standing 30 metres back catching nicks." He didn't drop any.