The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

'We are family, I'm vice-captain of the Test team'

Autoplay in... 6 (Cancel)
Up Next No more videos! Playlist is empty -
Replay
Cancel
Next
Expert
27th September, 2018
8

Whisper it quietly but I’m a bit of a fan of Mitchell Marsh.

I can’t say that I know him or that I’ve ever seen him play in the flesh. All I’ve got to go on are what I’ve seen on television, read in the press, perused on websites and, er, that’s it.

But still, I have plenty of respect for a player who, after a few initial setbacks, transforms himself into a very good international cricketer.

The Marsh who appeared in the 2015 Ashes, and I’m mainly referring to the batsman here, was, to put it mildly, out of his depth.

Five innings for a dismal return of 48 runs didn’t make for pretty reading for a number six and the manner of dismissal – leaden footed, unconvincing and hinting at neither a respectable output nor any kind of permanence – was that of a square peg being unsuccessfully forced into an unwilling round hole.

Your all-rounder is worthy of a place at six if he is good enough to bat at six and at that particular time, Marsh wasn’t.

Mitch Marsh of Australia

Mitch Marsh. (AAP Image/David Mariuz)

Fast forward 18 months or so to the next instalment of the Ashes and you could have been forgiven for thinking that the world had gone mad.

Advertisement

A maiden Test century at his home ground in the third contest, followed by a second at the SCG in the fifth as a good dose of salt was poured then rubbed gleefully into the English wounds, were the performances of a man who looked both ready for the task and comfortable with his second coming.

The statistics, judged purely at face value, don’t yet appear that of a world beater – just shy of 1200 runs at 27.85 in 28 appearances is far from disastrous but hardly off the scale – but they are heading in the right direction and there is certainly power to add.

And Marsh’s stock among his peers is obviously rising given they decided he should be one of two vice-captains of the Test side.

Gone is the recommended-by-the-selectors approach that saw David Warner elevated to Steve Smith’s deputy and instead, Marsh and Josh Hazlewood were nominated by their peers before giving individual presentations to a seven-man panel made up of Australian cricket’s great and good.

You can make up your own mind as to whether two vice-captains are necessary and also if making a sales pitch is of any benefit – it could be effective, it could be absolute nonsense, it probably doesn’t really make much difference, each to their own and all that – but that’s how it is.

But the method of selection wasn’t what made me, and a good few others no doubt, do a double-take, more the logic behind it.

Step forward selection committee chairman Trevor Hohns: “Mitch has successfully captained Australia A, Australia U19 and Western Australia. He is an extremely popular member of the team, he has great humility, and given his lineage, he understands and respects the responsibility which comes with representing Australia and Australians.”

Advertisement

It probably pays to break down Hohns’ oratory into its component parts and offer some constructive feedback.

a) I’m sure he has.
b) Who am I to doubt it?
c) Ditto.
d) Come again?
e) Let’s hope he does.

His lineage? That’s the kind of toe-curling drivel spouted on sycophantic documentaries about the Royal family not generally about who gets to toss the coin if the captain breaks a finger.

If the fact his dad and brother have represented their country is a determining factor in whether the younger Marsh knows how to behave I feel for all those who have been denied having a family member turn out in the baggy green.

Mitch Marsh

Mitch Marsh has proved a lot of doubters wrong, but can he keep it up? (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)

His lineage undoubtedly played a part in the development of Marsh the cricketer – how could it not? – but please spare the world the ‘this will sound authoritative’ soundbites.

Marsh could prove to be an inspired choice, a player who will thrive with a bit of responsibility but there really is no need to, albeit unwittingly, mock his ascension. The more it is dressed up, the more unconvincing it sounds.

Advertisement

What, and I’m all ears, is wrong with a reasoning, simply, of ‘we feel Mitch is the best man for the job’?

close