I know why teams do it and I know why teams want to do it. On the evidence of the past fortnight, I’ve got no idea why they’re doing it. Fancy taking a guess?
Yes, it’s the all-rounder position in the Australian team which is currently being occupied in body by Mitchell Marsh but not, by any stretch of the imagination, in soul.
When you don’t contribute with the bat and bowl next to no overs, you’re playing as a fielder and – let’s be frank here – the younger of the Marsh brothers is no Jonty Rhodes.
Actually, this is doing Rhodes a bit of a disservice, because he was a far better batsman than he was given credit for, but you catch my drift.
Not so long ago, I questioned Marsh’s inclusion in the Test XI and unless something is different, which it isn’t, that view hasn’t changed.
You don’t bat, you don’t bowl, what do you do?
A rhetorical question as Marsh isn’t a bad cricketer but he is badly out of place as things stand.
Harking back to the opening sentence, the answers are pretty obvious.
Australia, or any team for that matter, generally want to play five bowlers in Test matches. Spreading the load, offering variation, covering all bases, it’s a sound way of thinking.
In hot conditions, on pitches that don’t offer a great deal, this is far from daft but it is a luxury Australia don’t need.
The pitches are offering something – a bit too much probably – and the quartet of Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, Nathan Lyon and Steve O’Keefe are doing just fine. That’s all there is to it.
Marsh’s output with the ball in two matches has been five measly overs, which isn’t a problem if the other supposed string to the bow is in fine fettle. Yet 48 runs in four attempts says it isn’t and when one isn’t the other most definitely has to be. A pair of crosses on the charge sheet means the place on the team sheet is nigh on untenable.
At a push, Marsh is a decent fourth seamer in a Test side – 29 wickets at 37.48 is not too shabby – but he is nowhere near a number six – 674 runs at 21.74 is very shabby. He wasn’t when he made his debut and he isn’t 21 appearances later.
Fifty-over and Twenty20 cricket yes, five-day cricket no, and eventually something has to give. On the back of a demoralising defeat, where the very weakest link was all too apparent, is as good a time as any. Well, you would like to think so anyway.
So where now then?
Defeat, almost in every single case, leads to calls for all and sundry to be replaced or banished into the ether but enough has been shown by the tourists to render all such talk as merely overreaction.
They could do with David Warner scoring a few more and Matthew Wade justifying his inclusion but they won the first Test handsomely and had more than their fair share of moments in the second.
To succumb to panicked selections is to hand a fillip to the opposition which they don’t really warrant and an admittance you are having doubts.
Australia need to remain calm, remember the scoreline is far from unfavourable and that, from very recent history if nothing else, India are far from invincible.
But if any lesson is to be learnt then, when battle recommences in Ranchi in just over a week, the top six should, and needs, to consist of exactly that.
Andrew Young
Roar Guru
A seeming obsession with picking a token all rounder has the potential to, and has hurt our results for a while now. May as well pick another player with a specialist skill, rather than someone who is not sufficiently capable at either.
Linphoma
Guest
So, then they select a side of six outright batsmen plus Wade plus four outright bowlers. I don't count SOK and Starc as all-rounders just yet but they probably cancel Ashwin and Jadeja in the batting stakes. Suppose Ranchi rolls out as a road. India spin the dice and commission the next two pitches as eight lane highways, reckoning that their guys will out bat their guys when it comes to a bat-a-thon. Are Smudge and Warner prepared to make up overs to give the four frontline bowlers a spell before the new ball? What's in the selector's mix for the selection at six?
Rob
Guest
Probably should of said "a similar age" as Smith, Waugh, who were also selected with limited FC class experience. He has shown an ability to occupy the crease and is averaging more than Mitch Marsh. He averages around the same as Head, Stonis, Maddison and Ashton Turner but actually sticks around longer on average than these blokes do. He is a couple of years younger. He is definitely worth a watch. I can't understand why Maxwell doesn't get a good crack at the 6 especial on these wickets.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
I love how a 20 year old with six tests experience is included as a measure of hope for considering a young player, who is already 2 years older than him. For the record, nobody knows how green Renshaw was at 22. We will have to wait a couple of years, but I expect he wont be as green then as you suggest. As for Smith, he was nowhere near ready for test cricket when first selected and spent a couple of years completely transforming his game. Surely, you aren't hinting Marnus needs to do the same? Steve Waugh's early selection was as an all-rounder and he took a little while to find his place as a batsman of any consistency. Marnus' bowing doesn't suggest all-rounder and his FC average is 33. It is on the rise so perhaps he should be on the "Watch this space" list.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
This warm fuzzy selection crap has to stop. If selectors want to choose suitable personality types to go camping with on weekends, sitting naked around the fire singing Adele songs, that's one thing. As far as picking our best team/squad for a test series, they had damn well find reasons with greater substance for their picks.
Rob
Guest
Marnus Labuschange is a Test cricketer. Very green but so was Renshaw, Smith and Steve Waugh at the same age.
George
Guest
Journalists are too scared of copping a spray from $utherland or King Lehmann.
SonOfLordy
Guest
Don't want to be blackballed by Cricket Australia. I know for a fact the AFL base their operating procedures and chain of command on that of the Italian mafia. My suspicion is that Cricket Australia operate in a similar way.
BurgyGreen
Guest
Why aren't journalists asking the selectors the obvious questions? 1. You said Mitch Marsh was picked in the squad as a bowling allrounder. So why did he bat at 6 and bowl five overs across two Tests while carrying an injury that reduced his bowling effectiveness? 2. You dropped Mitch Marsh during the home summer due to form. How did he earn his recall?
Bplol
Guest
Even better is that he was picked as a bowling all rounder with a shoulder injury meaning he couldn't bowl at full pace
Rob JM
Guest
What's more amusing is that he was picked despite carrying a shoulder injury that meant he couldn't bowl at full pace. WTF!!!
BurgyGreen
Guest
I lost a lot of respect for Johnson after reading that article. He literally said, presumably with a straight face, ''And this may come as a surprise to the public but while performance is number one, not far behind it is your personality." It's disgusting. It's utterly juvenile and a disgrace to the proud history of the national team that the first XI is an unashamed club open only to Lehmann and Smith's mates.
George
Guest
Well said. Accountability isn't a strong point within CA.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
"probably because he doesn’t look like and drink the same beverages as those Marsh boys" Lordy - That's a strong statement to make. If that's the excuse for Khawaja's exclusion, then how do you explain the treatment meted out to Maxwell? Considering Maxwell's experience, know-how, and what he did to Sri Lanka in T20 series (everybody else struggled) he should be the 2nd batsman to walk into Australian batting line-up when playing in Asia. Before few of you go off and start talking about his Shield performance, check his record and consider the limited exposure he has to First Class Cricket due to his Australian short form Cricket commitments. And consider this, if Maxi was fielding at leg-slip, what would be the outcome of the 2nd test!!
SonOfLordy
Guest
I read an article recently where Mitchell Johnson defended the inclusion of the Marsh brothers because they are good blokes you like to have around you in the dressing room. Obviously I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it. He said it's not just about what you produce on the field but how you get along in the changerooms. What kind of high school cliquey crap is that? This is the Australian cricket team, you play the best players in the country and if they don't all get along then you get a strong-willed coach and captain to make sure they get along for the good of the team and country. Lehmann and the selectors don't rate Khawaja (probably because he doesn't look like and drink the same beverages as those Marsh boys), and Smith and Lehmann have it in for Maxwell. It's petty, pathetic from grown men, and the selection of Mitch Marsh basically cost us the second test and the series. Of course, no-one will be held accountable for bungling the selections by playing favourites.