There are two kinds of all-rounders, and Mitch Marsh is the other one.
Mitch Marsh is a bowling all-rounder. His skill with the ball is that much more noteworthy than his skill with the bat. Yes, he has the ability to break out a huge score with the bat at some point, but Marsh is being played out of position, and if he keeps having to play the role he’s been given, he’s not going to last.
A true all-rounder is a rare commodity. A very rare commodity. Most players given the “all-rounder” role are bowlers who can swing a bat well, or batsmen who can bowl pretty effectively. For years, Australia had the latter – batting all-rounders like Mark and Steve Waugh, Michael Bevan, even Michael Clark, at one point in his career, was bowling enough that you could have gotten away with giving him the label.
But these players were all batsmen first. Marsh isn’t. Players like the Waugh brothers, or Michael Bevan, Allan Border, and others, were all batsmen who had a handy talent with the ball in hand. Marsh is a player who has a greater talent with the bat than the average bowler, but he’s a bowler first.
Yet regularly he’s coming in to bat with the pressure of being a top-order batsman, which is twice as difficult when you factor in Australia’s propensity for collapse in recent years.
Marsh isn’t a No.6 batsman. If anything, he would be best played around 7 or 8. Australia is trying to have its cake and eat it too by playing five bowlers and six batsmen, but with a consistently capitulating top order, it’s not working the way they’d like.
One of Mitchell Marsh’s biggest problems is that he almost constantly has to come out and save an innings, and it’s a simple reality that he doesn’t have the skillset to do that. He’s not the player you can ask to come out and block for three hours to save the match for a draw, he’s the guy who is best off coming in with the score at 6/400 and a mandate from the skipper to reach 500 in the next fifteen overs.
Look back through history for the great all-rounders. They’re few and far between. Flintoff, Kallis, Botham, Hadlee, Miller, and others – these were rare talents, and as harsh as it sounds to say this, it’s not fair to expect Marsh to be carrying that kind of a load on his shoulders. In fact, with the exception of Kallis, most of those players would have still been coming in further down the order than what Australia is expecting of Marsh.
If the selectors are that keen to have Marsh in the team, then they need to accept that he’s bowler 4, not 5, and slip him in at 8. If they want someone who can sit at 6 and also contribute their 20-or-so overs, then the important thing is to find that batting all-rounder, a Maxwell, Henriques or similar.
Of course, the other main issue is to stop the collapse in the top five so that whoever’s in those late middle-order positions doesn’t have to come out with an innings of pressure on their shoulders.
JohnB
Guest
I'm not sure if anyone - even Sobers - has produced both a batsman's and a bowler's figures (batting average 40 plus, 3.5 wickets plus per test) across their test career. However, it's arguable Kallis could have been picked as a bowler if he hadn't been able to bat. I don't dispute at all that his overall figures wouldn't have kept him in the side as a bowler: Tests 166 innings 272 deliveries 20232 runs 9535 wickets 292 bbi 6/54 bbm 9/92 average 32.65 econ 2.82 SR 69.2 5wi 5 10wm 0 1.76 wickets per match doesn't cut it. However, you have to remember he was only bowling 20 overs per match on average. If he'd not been the key batsman and had been playing as a bowler he could have bowled more. His overall average, economy and strike rate were quite respectable. Not great, but not bad either for a 3rd seamer. For comparison purposes, look at someone who played as a 3rd seamer for SA during Kallis' career - Andre Nel. Decent, not great, bowler, not a batsman at all. Career figures: Tests 36 innings 69 deliveries 7630 runs 3919 wickets 123 bbi 6/32 bbm 10/88 Average 31.86 econ 3.08 SR 62.0 5wi 3 10wm 1 His overall average is marginally better, economy rate worse, and SR better - but they're clearly all very much in the same ballpark (Peter Siddle's current average, economy & SR aren't too different from Nel's incidentally - 2 run better average, fractionally better on the other 2 metrics). The main difference is that Nel bowled 35 overs per match, and so the wickets per match comes to a more bowler-like 3.4. But Kallis would have matched that if he maintained the figures he did produce but bowled more. Would they have picked him ahead of Nel? Who knows, but the figures suggest there would at least have been an argument.
Whiteline
Guest
Lads...no such thing as an all rounder in the pure sense. That is, picked in their own right as a batsman or a bowler. Not even Kallis. He was a batsman who was a change bowler but would not have been selected as a bowler if he couldn't bat. The only true all rounders are wicketkeepers..Gilchrist and potentially de Kock and Barstow.
JohnB
Guest
Josh, if you look at stages in their careers rather than whole careers, you're not wrong about the batting all-rounders you mention (not all of them anyway). Clarke I'd quibble with (always a batsman able to bowl a bit) and Mark Waugh a toss up, but Steve Waugh was a batting all-rounder in the first part of his career (when he took almost all his wickets), and Michael Bevan might have only taken 29 wickets but he also only played 18 tests. He was definitely picked as a batting all-rounder and did a good job - with the ball. His batting (av 29) saw him dropped, if I recall rightly because of a perception he couldn't handle the short ball. Given he was able to average high 50s in FC cricket, suggesting he must have coped with the short stuff reasonably well at that level, it's interesting to speculate what might have been if he'd been persisted with. In debating whether Bevan could be an all-rounder with only 29 wickets, some might note that M Marsh has had 19 tests (1 more than Bevan got), and is averaging 23 with the bat. Balancing that however, with his stronger suit, bowling, he's got - 29 wickets. Don't ask about their respective bowling averages by the way. That wasn't meant to be a dig at M Marsh by the way - but he really needs to start producing. If he's going to bat at 6, he needs to be close to a tie for being the 6th best batsman in the country, and it looks like he simply isn't. He has a dwindling number of chances to show he in fact is. Messing around with the keeper to accommodate Marsh at 7 would just be creating other problems, and to bat Marsh at 8 he has to be one of the 4 best bowlers available - he's arguably nearer to being that than he is to being up to batting at 6.
dan ced
Guest
Marsh would be pretty close to edging out Siddle, given his age. Marsh is more whippy and looks more dangerous than Siddle ever has... but you can't have him in as an all rounder if he can't bat!
Anthony Condon
Roar Pro
The Australian attitude towards test cricket is that it's just five days of ODIs it seems...
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
I admit I didn't go and check the stats on any of them, and was running from memory. I guess we're sort of blurring the lines between "all-rounder" and the good old "part-timer" label. It's a lot easier to be a part-time bowler than it is to be a part-time batsman. Still - Steve Waugh's average there is on par with where Marsh's bowling average is at. Which probably hurts Marsh's case more than it helps anything...
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
"Mini Marsh is a 25 year old who is still being given games based on ... potential." That's the thing. He does have the potential to be a good performer for the Australian team, if he can be used effectively. Although, as I reflect on it a bit more, the reality is that Australia needs a sixth batsman more than they need a fifth bowler right now. Marsh wouldn't force out Starc, Siddle or Hazlewood on bowling ability, so he does need to be able to perform with the bat to justify his place in the existing side - and I'm not convinced that he's got the skills to do that. I also feel like the Australian selectors are trying to use a one-day style lineup in test matches, and it's just not working as well as it could.
peeeko
Guest
mark waugh averaged 41 with ball 59 wickets (128 tests less than half a wicket per test) Steve waugh ave 37 with 92 wickets (168 matches) Michael Bevan only took 29 test wickets Michael Clark took 31 wickets in 115 matches at 38 none of these is even close to resembling an all rounder
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
The batsmen I mentioned were a lot more useful with the ball than Lee, Warne, Gillespie - and probably Starc ever were with the bat. Johnson I'll give you, but he did get the all-rounder tag thrown on him a few times in his career. He's probably the best example for where I'd put Mitch Marsh, though, too (at least in the batting lineup).
anon
Guest
Starc has the same batting average as Mini Marsh (small in terms of runs and wickets not height). Johnson averaged 22 with the bat over a big sample size. Australian selectors have an unhealthy fixation/obsession with these Marsh brothers. Does Cricket Australia feel obligated to give this Marsh kid games because he made the big public decision to choose cricket over AFL all those years back? Mini Marsh is a 25 year old who is still being given games based on having "all the potential in the world". This has to stop. 18 test matches is a significant enough sample size to determine whether he's good enough to warrant selection. He might be talented, but over his 18 match career he's shown he can't handle the pressure of test cricket. Doesn't have the mettle. Doesn't have the bottle as the poms would say. And he doesn't seem focused to me. Always ready with a grin on his face, throwing his arms in the air, throwing his head back eyes closed, bemoaning his "bad luck". The kid just doesn't have it. Rod Marsh and Mark Waugh might think Swampy is a great bloke, but it's time for let his highly remunerated children to stand on their own two feet -- especially in the case of Mini Marsh. It's not only robbing games from more deserving players, but really hurting the team in terms of performance. This is one of the biggest chokes in the nearly 140 year history of Australian test cricket.
peeeko
Guest
Australia had the latter – batting all-rounders like Mark and Steve Waugh, Michael Bevan, even Michael Clark, you could argue Brett Lee , Warne, Johnson ,Starc and the gillespie 200 are just as much bowling all rounders as the batters you mention
correct sometimes
Guest
i wouldnt put Flintoff in that other category, his stats are average. He bowled well in good conditions against australia a few times