If Australia need a fifth bowling option, Mitch Marsh is about the only option

There are many contrary opinions. Why would mine be the only one that matters? It is, however, an opinion that is valid and within its rights to be expressed. Just because my opinion departs from your embittered 'hate everyone' comments does not mean it ought not to be expressed. Just let it go if you have no desire to engage. No need to deride. Seems very precious of you.

Sure, Don. Your opinion is the only one that matters, right? Wake up to yourself. Those last comments of yours were absolute garbage. Henceforth, I shall give you your due, and ignore you.

It's a bold prediction, Chris, but I consulted the tea leaves and I'm feeling pretty confident...

Bob, you might, if you can read, work out that I am agreeing with John B. If you want this thread to be just unchallenged hatred of Mitch Marsh, you are going to be disappointed. He actually runs a good chance of being Shield player of the year in his current form. I'd suggest that if you want your prejudice unchallenged, you might be better served elsewhere. Nothing you have said on this site is ever anything but critical. Can you cite an example where that has happened? Ever? On this article alone, I have spoken in favour of Handscomb playing in this Test and I have always been a Maxwell fan. You are encumbered by stereotyping opinion. Once again, I don't think Marsh should play in this Test but the argument is never that he is useless. He is in excellent form.

Oh dear, Don.I do try and just express my opinion and stay out of the back and forth comments and criticism of other Roarers, but you are just so tiresome and your persistent defence of Mitch Marsh is embarrassing. Are you embarrassed? You should be. And your criticism of other Roarers?.....best not go there. Give yourself and the rest of us a break and just desist.

Don that's certainly one construction to put on it. I suspect that's giving him too much credit but it's undeniable that Qld didn't get the runs, and Marsh played some role in that.

And it was Marsh's tight bowling (in that context) that denied Qld the win.

Just noting 2 things - first, it's rarely a good idea to argue based on stats without a reasonable body of stats to work from. Second, most of Marsh's bowling was on the last afternoon of a game, when Qld were chasing a target to win (which they just fell short of). You therefore can't look at Marsh's bowling figures there without taking into account that the batsmen were going for runs meaning that Marsh's economy rate may well be distorted, and on the other side of the coin that the wickets he took may have had more to do with the batsmen going for runs than with his bowling.

too much One Day and T20 develops the 'quasi' allrounder in lieu of the genuine allrounder.

No that's not what he is in the squad for. That's what the Stuarts of the world would have you believe. He offers batting and bowling. Follow the cricket, not the critics. Make up your own mind. If you watch, you'll see. Simon O'Donnell is nowhere near Mitch Marsh. Watch some cricket.

Fair enough. You don't have a fascination with Mitchell Marsh. Just a one eyed view. Yes he is in form with the bat this year. He may make it into the top 10 in form batsman in the Sheffield shield at the moment. But isn't he in the squad for his bowling?? And how is he in form for that? He has had over 20 tests and has never looked like a test player. So we are not dismissing him. At the moment he doesn't have the class. The Waughs were excelling in the Sheffield shield before they were picked for Australia. Mitchell is average to good at the lower competition of Sheffield shield so to expect him to do better in tests is ludicrous. He is an excellent one day player. Not test class. I spoke to many former players at the GABBA during the first test and when his name was discussed some were amazed he got to play so many tests without any form whatsoever. A lot mentioned a similar player to Simon O'Donnel. A great one day player. Good luck to Mitchell Marsh and I hope one day he develops into a decent test player

Agree Kopa. The author of this article goes to great lengths to inform us of Maxwell's lack of bowling this year in State cricket. And he's correct - one wicket from 56 overs. So we therefore rule Maxwell out of contention based on his lack of bowling. According to the author. What the article does not refer to is M Marsh's State bowling figures this season of two wickets from 22 overs. So fair to say - on the subject of bowling all-rounders - both Maxwell and M Marsh are equally lacking. So if we are looking to replace Handscomb - the emphasis switches to batting form. This season Maxwell is averaging 75 runs (590 total) and M Marsh 45 runs (402 total). These numbers draw the following conclusion from the article's author. "Picking Mitch Marsh may seem like a risky Hail Mary play, but it's probably the only one we've got at the moment". Selecting M Marsh is probably the only option available to the selectors for the upcoming 3rd Test! I cannot recall reading such rubbish in a long while. How this article slipped past the editor staggers me.

No 'fascination' at all. I have said many times that Maxi is well and truly Test ready and I have also said we have another 20 Shield players (probably more) that would not disappoint if picked. I argued that Mitch should miss but now that he is there, he will do well. What I argue is that those who are blind to cricket and how it works resort to stats that are irrelevant to anything. The only relevant stats are form now. He has that...as do many others. How Marsh played as a young emerging player is totally different to how he is playing now. He is in form and has won selection on his merits. The anti-Marsh stuff is not based on cricket, it is irrational dislike. That is weak and blind. Handscomb, Smith, Langer, Hayden, the Waughs all hit their straps about the age Mitch is now. Sit back and enjoy. If we dismissed the careers of the Waughs using the anti-Marsh prejudice, we would have missed some great careers. If Marsh fails regularly, they drop him. I actually think Handscomb will get another go ahead of Marsh in this Test.

I don't understand your fascination with Mitchell Marsh in the test team. He is an excellent 50 over and 20/20 player but he is not test class. He has years of experience and 20 odd test matches and he has been average. He has over 70 first class matches and doesn't even average 30 with the bat. 30?? In first class games. Crazy! And we know how poorly he has done in tests. He will never be in the top 3 paceman in the country. And he will never have the skill to bat top 6 in tests. He reminds me of Chris Woakes. Number 8 batsman. 2nd change medium pace bowler. He is not test class and all his figures prove it. Even this years figures when he scored a hundred. He needs a few seasons of scoring big hundreds. So unless he scores multiple big hundreds (Glenn Maxwell) or takes wickets continuously (Bird and Sayers) why don't the selectors keep him in the one day teams where he is suited and is high class. We have cummins who can bat and Pattison who bats even better. He is not going to improve overnight and become a test class cricketer. He has been average in the longer game for a long time.

Let's not over inflate that. He's played 10 innings this summer, passing 50 twice with one century. He's in ok form but he's not setting the world on fire.

I think if they are about the same Chris then surely Wildermuth would get the nod. He hasn't been afforded the opportunities at test level and failed and he's bowled more than 22 overs after a long term shoulder injury which is what Marsh has done. I wouldn't pick either in the team, but if your logic is to pick Marsh because we need a fifth bowling option, I would agree with the guys above and go with Wildermuth. He's a genuine second change quick bowling option and can't be any worse than Marsh's test record of 21 with the bat. Otherwise we pick a genuine bat in Maxwell or Cartwrigth who can bowl a few extra overs 5 - 10 max throughout the day. Either way no matter how flat the WACA is I think we're seriously overestimating England's ability to bat for 150 overs.

Not an argument, just a possible option. Australia simply doesn't need a fourth pace bowler, in my opinion, and in any event, Mitch Marsh brings nothing to the table.

This article, unfortunately, is right on the money. I mean unfortunately in the sense that there are soooo few genuine allrounder options that the selectors are looking at MM again. This, I feel, is a result of one day and T20 cricket where the 'quasi' allrounder has developed. I feel for Maxwell (who does need to work on his bowling to be a test allrounder), but while Lyon is in the team Maxwell can only shoot for a batting spot. No Lyon and Maxwell bats #6 no problem. Two off spinners not really an answer. I sort of like MM, in that hopeful dreamy way where I actually imagine him carving out a big score and realising his potential. But like many others, 21 odd disappointments are hard to shake. I do need to remind you all of a young 'allrounder' chap called Steve Waugh who took about 27 tests before his century (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2000/nov/02/cricket4) and was given a truckload of chances. Lets hope MM spends a heap of time with Langer before the test. On a slightly humorous level; one can almost visualise the development of backyard cricket at the Marsh household. Older brother grabbed the bat first and made younger bro bowl to him all afternoon, defending his wicket to frustrate his sibling. Then when the younger finally got him out, he had to smash his brother's weaker bowling to run down his score before mum called them in for dinner.

here we go again,mitch marsh is back and i am out,oh god,try another fast bowler,jackson bird or for allrounder marcus stoinis, stoinis did not play,did not fire,so?what did mitch marsh do after playing all of his test before injury?mitch marsh can neither bawl nor bat,what "options" does he provide?if running down and throwing ball 60 times you call "10 overs from an allrounder" then next season even i can apply to play for australia,stoinis has shown his huge bowling ability in india,plus he is far better batsman than mitch marsh ever will be in three life,so far all of "debuts" australia made has brought result,try another one,but not mitch marsh,i am tired of seeing his heavenly heroic face.not him.enough of him.

Probably not looking. Many reasons why people miss things. Sometimes they just don't know enough about the game.