- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
A little bit of mathematics to start with – how many times does seven, or eight, go into six?
No, I don’t need an answer, but this piece of very rudimentary mental arithmetic is directly related to Mitchell Marsh, the current incumbent at four wickets down for Australia.
Without the need for decimals, if you really want the answer to the above question, Marsh simply does not fit into the position he had been earmarked for not so long ago.
The West Australian is not a number six Test batsman – he’s a seven at best – and the sooner the selectors admit the error of their ways by selecting a specialist batsman in his place, the better for Steve Smith’s side.
Statistics don’t tell you everything but in this instance, they speak volumes.
A fraction over 600 runs in 31 innings with a meagre tally of only two half-centuries, just doesn’t cut the mustard at any level, let alone the top one.
His bowling record of 29 wickets at a mark over 37 apiece isn’t too bad given his role with the ball, but that really isn’t the point.
In the team at six, Marsh, primarily, is there to score runs and he isn’t fulfilling the terms of his contract.
You reap what you sow and by picking a bowling all-rounder to do a batting all-rounder’s job, and those doing the regular pre-squad announcement conference calling are getting their just desserts.
In theory, the side that has taken to the field in Marsh’s 19 baggy green appearances has had the oft-sought luxury of five bowlers, but it has come at the expense of the six batsmen that are nearly always required.
It’s fine and dandy when results are good and those in the top order are churning the runs out, but it’s the exact opposite when the former are dire and the latter are having something of a blip in form.
The glaring weakness in the Australian side is their batting and that is hardly revealing the nuclear codes.
Defeat at the WACA was solely down to the inability of the home side to take advantage of their excellent first day and the opening salvoes of the second. To surrender the position the seamers and openers had crafted was downright careless, yet far from a surprise, and that is what should really be worrying to Smith et al.
Time and again the runs put on the board aren’t ample enough to create any kind of pressure and allow the chief strength at the captain’s disposal, the seam bowlers, to do their work with the odds in their favour.
Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Peter Siddle were the ace in the pack in Perth, but rather than be given a 200-run lead to get stuck into, they were back out in the heat without even the time to attempt their quick crossword of choice.
And once the South Africans had turned the screw far more than was absolutely necessary, the Australians, thinking of their batting woes, might as well have shook hands and had a few hours at the beach or in the pub.
Marsh isn’t the chief cause of these difficulties – to argue that would be apportioning too much blame in one direction – but as the weakest link in a struggling sextet, his cricketing head should be on the block.
If Australia wants to turn a debilitating streak of defeats on its head, then a top six of as many specialist batsmen is the way they have to go. Those who know more about the domestic scene will have a better grasp of who could do a decent job than I, but there has to be somebody who could grasp such an opportunity. If they can offer a few economical overs then all the better, but all the focus should be on what they can offer with the bat.
Pick four bowlers and back your batsmen to outperform their counterparts. If that means playing on a surface with a bit more grass, then so be it.
You either want to win or you don’t, and if the status quo is maintained then there could, against opponents who are notoriously stubborn, be more hurt on the way for the Aussies.