Pressure rising on Mitch Marsh

Is Will Skelton a pollie, entertainer, a jockey, businessman? He has to be in the public consciousness for a cultural reference to work.

Mitch's bowling is way better than Phil Hughes' bowling. Why compare batting figures only and why not bring in the howlers Mitch has suffered both batting and bowling. The point is Mitch has had less favours than Phil had. It's just that you don't like Mitch as much as you do Phil. Marsh behind Nevill? Why? Marsh scores more runs.

Hughes played two tests in South Afric for a 0-75 on debut then 115 and 150? In his second test. He went to England and had two poor tests in which he was out to umpiring howlers in two of his 4 inning game and was dropped. Mitch has played in 14 straight tests since the Lords test (the 4 before that were injury cover), and he's hit one score above 50 (53). That is shocking bias shown to him by these selectors when you consider that poor Joe Burns wasn't selected and he has 3 tons' and 4 half ton's in only 12 matches while averaging what 42? Don't get me wrong, I wanted Mitch to be given a chance to prove himself unlike what Hughes was shown. He's had that and if there was no one else knocking on the door I'd be fine with his selection. Joe Burns is knocking on that door and I believe he is a genuine top 6 test bat. I rate Mitch Marsh's bowling very highly, in fact if he was selected at 8 as the third quick, I'd be more than happy with that. In fact if Smith had used him like that more often I believe he'd have established himself already as a bowling allrounder. I would be happy with the squad to look like this: 1. Warner, 2. S Marsh, 3. Burns, 4. smith, 5. Uzzie, 6. Voges, 7. Nevill, 8. M Marsh, 9. Starc, 10. Lyon, 11. Hazlewood.

Make sure you are fair there, Chris. Mitch is into his third year in the Aussie side and has played only 18 tests. Phil Hughes played 26 tests over 3 years. He was shown plenty of faith.

Flintoff's 3 more runs (averaging 31) makes him ok? Really, John... Even Miller only averaged 36. Botham only 33. A couple of 50s and Mitch is there. It doesn't take long to improve an average after only 18 tests.

Don't get carried away. Cartwright is not much of a bowler. He is only 3 months younger than Mitch and has done very little since his Shield debut in the 2012/13 season. He is just coming on now. Mitch will too...but in a higher pressure cauldron (The public gaze). Cartwright is good, Mitch is better.

Marsh got 70 or 80 against the Windies in his 7th or 8th test.

The definition hasn't changed but like the term "legend", the "all-rounder" tag is thrown around with reckless abandon.A true test batting all-rounder makes the team on the strength of his bowling alone. That is, he is one of the best six batsmen in the country. This current, "Bat at six and bowl regularly" might be ok in limited overs format, but it significantly weakens a test batting order. The 2005 Ashes and Flintoff's impact in particular, set our selectors on this needless quest for a test class all-rounder and it continues to cost us dearly. Shane Watson and Steve Waugh, for about 18 months of their respective careers could hold their spot as a batsman alone and added value with their bowling. One really has to go back to Keith Miller for a true long term batting all-rounder and how good was he, also averaging 22.98 with the ball. Stats-wise Greg Matthews is the surprise, as he has the best claims to a batting all-rounder. My thoughts are that a test all-rounder will be very recognizable by the runs they score in first class red ball cricket. 28 isn't a batting all-rounder, and it doesn't warrant test selection at six. Marsh would be a handy bowling all-rounder batting at eight but Smith needs to bowl him more. Nobody genuinely suggests Mitch Starc is a batting all-rounder, yet his test average is marginally better than Marsh's. That pretty much says it all. Mitch has lots of potential, but that means stuff all. When his FC average is 40, then look at him for the number six spot.

S Waugh scored his first test ton in his 27th test, although he scored back to back 90's against the strong West Indies attack in his 22nd and 23rd test. After 18 tests Waugh had scored 6 half centuries and was averaging 29.3.Supporting Waugh's selection and faith shown in him was his FC average of almost 40 when picked for Australia. M Marsh's average was a mere 28 when selected to bat at six for Australia. No wonder our batting struggles to make enough runs. Marsh averaging 24 at six and Nevill averaging 20 at seven. Nevill's glove work does cover some of his lack of runs and his FC average of 37 hints he will make more, perhaps when not pressured by yet an other Mitch failure ahead of him. To think of all the criticism Shane Watson copped for underperforming with the bat. Mitch makes Shane look like almost Bradman-like.

S Waugh was making 90s against the West Indies at their peak. No comparison to M Marsh's batting.

It's a good question Adrian. I'd be guessing but I reckon at least 25 possibly 30. Selectors rate Marsh highly and are sticking with him and excepting the backlash similar to what the selectors coped when Steve Waugh was struggling

How many tests did Steve Waugh play (initially picked as a batting allrounder) before scoring his first century? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm actually asking)

Look when he brought on Marsh most of the time Ronan, usually when the front 3 quicks were well and truely spent and bats had established themselves. Marsh was always up against it. He's good enough a bowler, especially on the flatter decks to be a first change bowler. Often he'd come on when one of the front three had already had a second spell. Give Marsh these next two tests, he announces himself as a genuine top 6 bat or he has to go. If only players like Phill Hughes had been shown this much faith, I'm sure he would have established himself.

If Australia had a keeper averaging around 40 (or better) with the bat like Watling/De Kock/Bairstow/Chandimal/Sarfraz then they could take the punt on moving them to six and trying Faulkner at 7. That's, of course, based on Faulkner being in good form in the Shield. He started really well this week, facing more deliveries than any other batsman in Tasmania's match vs Victoria while making 78 and 31.

Your last para described James Faulkner in a previous incarnation. With any luck, he'll come good again as I'd far rather him than Moises. Though Stoinis, if his temperament was good enough, could do a job at 6.

Mitch Marsh...the "Will Skelton" of Aussie cricket...

Also a lot of people quibble about the definition of an all-rounder and say that tag can only be applied to someone who could potentially be picked for their batting or bowling alone. But I think the definition of all rounder has changed - a batting all-rounder is someone who bats top 6 for their team and also bowls regularly. A bowling all-rounder is more performance-based I would argue in that it's a specialist bowler who also happens to average 25-30 (or better) with the bat in FC cricket, making half tons fairly regularly and perhaps the occasional ton.

Good post. There is no way that the Aussies are going to have only four bowlers now. They need the extra overs. Especially as test matches are scheduled so close together. You can't run your sprinters as though they are stayers. That was how Johnson was treated for long parts of his career and that guy was as strong as an ox. It didn't work with him and won't work long-term for anyone else

In Marsh's past dozen Tests he has bowled an average 17 overs per match. If Australia have to get 17 overs per Test out of Smith, Warner and Burns that is going to get messy - 0-80 most of the time. Especially at home on the flat decks, Australia need a reasonable 5th bowling option - someone who bowls regularly in FC cricket not a rank part timer like Smith/Warner/Burns. Stoinis or Cartwright are the two best players in this mould in domestic cricket - both are genuine top six batsman who bowl regularly for their teams.

If Marsh fails in the next two tests, someone seriously needs to have a word to Steve Smith and tell him to start Captaining the side with the notion that he has to use himself, Warner and Burns to give the 4 best bowlers we have a break. Let's face it, he's very badly under bowled Marsh to date which is surprising considering his bowling has been quite good despite the lack of use.