Trigger warning: I’m going to talk about the Marshes.
I thought we were done, truly.
I thought Australian cricket was finished with the Trojan virus of Australian selection policy of the 2010s.
But no.
The Marshes are back.
Not entirely back, but they are back.
First off is Shaun.
The 35-years-young batsman made the World Cup squad over Pete Handscomb and Ashton Turner, either of whom would have been better.
Turner has a wonky arm, true, but he is an explosive finisher in a team that doesn’t have one.
Handscomb is as good a batter as Marsh and a much better fielder, offering a back-up keeper option.
Yeah, sure, I get that Marsh has done well at ODI cricket over the past 12 months.
But you know something?
I don’t care.
When Marsh did well, we lost.
I hated how he was given all those chances against Pakistan in the UAE, and they didn’t play Turner once.
We don’t need him in this side. We’ve never needed him in this side. That’s harsh, I know, but when it comes to the topic of the Marsh brothers we can all plead a little PTSD.
(Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
I blame coach Justin Langer and his desire for Marsh redemption. He encouraged Shaun to give up drinking and get on the straight and narrow. A World Cup victory would make a great end to that story, because Shaun’s mediocre Test career keeps ruining it.
I can’t see this squad winning the World Cop. Not just because of Shaun Marsh – it’ll mostly be due to the fact there’s just too many people coming back into the side after a layoff – but his presence certainly won’t help.
Oh, and Shaun got a Cricket Australia contract when Joe Burns and Kurtis Patterson didn’t.
Then there’s Mitch.
There’s been a lot of sob stories this week about how poor old Mitch lost his Cricket Australia contract.
A lot less attention has been paid to why he’s even in the Australia A side.
I know it’s only Australia A, but it’s scary because it means the selectors are still considering him for Test selection.
Let that sink in.
After 31 Tests of mediocrity, Mitch Marsh is still a Test contender. He’ll be in England when the Ashes are on.
What makes it even more terrifying is that Mitch Marsh auditions for Test spots really well.
He scored a double century just before getting picked in the UAE in 2014. In the 2015 Ashes he scored two first class centuries in tour games to get him the nod over Shane Watson. In 2017 in India he scored 75 in a tour game against India A to get him back in the Test side. He got 162 in a tour game in the UAE last year against Pakistan A to ensure his selection against Pakistan. A century in a Sheffield Shield game at the start of the summer to get a crack against India at home.
Mitch Marsh is really good at scoring runs to get in the Test team. He’s not so good when he’s in it.
(Photo: Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
Just to remind everyone again – because the selectors seem to keep forgetting – his first class batting average is 31.
To make things worse, James Pattinson is in the Australia A squad and is clearly on the selectors’ radar for the Ashes.
Now Pattinson is a massive talent, devastating when fit. But he’s still coming back from injury. His coach said he would need to be used sparingly in matches.
And who is Mr Protect the Quicks?
Mitch Marsh.
I can see this nightmare scenario where Pattinson gets picked for the Ashes and the selectors worry about ‘protecting’ him so they pick an all-rounder at six – ignoring all the constant collapses we have when that happens – and Mitch Marsh is back in the side.
There are so many other players who could have gone on the Australia A tour. Ashton Turner, Nick Maddinson, Daniel Hughes, Matt Short.
But instead we’ve got Mitch. And his brother is in the World Cup side.
The selectors just don’t know how to quit them.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
I think it was Jarrod Kimber who once said if he thought too much about the treatment of Brad Hodge he would go insane.
Josh H
Roar Rookie
Hi Stephen, your points are fair enough. Selectors being as fickle as they are, they all have reasons for each of those players you mentioned: - David Hussey - pigeonholed as limited-overs player [see Glenn Maxwell] - Cameron White - pigeonholed as limited-overs player [see Glenn Maxwell] - Ed Cowan - too defensive and pragmatic - Callum Ferguson - too old - Peter Nevill - not a good enough batsman - Chris Hartley, Brad Hodge, Chris Rogers, Adam Voges - I honestly have no idea Note that I disagree with all of these, but these were the justifications (whether direct or implied) from the selection panel. It is well-known that Steve Waugh played 20+ Tests before scoring his first Test hundred and the selectors are obviously banking on that to come into fruition with the Marsh boys. Makes no sense, but I'm playing devil's advocate here, and that's what is happening.
MarkD
Guest
Gday Rellum, it's the ' after the Cup , it's time to move on.' that's the problem ! Shaun getting a CA contract tends to point to him being on the radar for more than just the Cup .
Spanner
Roar Rookie
Spot on Stephen, well researched. When two solid shield performers like HusseyD and FergusonC get one test between them, something is very, very wrong Also, Hodge made 200 against the powerful South African bowlers - surely this must have given him a bit more currency !
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Well I can see it with MM, but don’t see why SM needs to be tarred with the same brush. Only excessive generosity in selection might have been bringing him back for recent India series after a poor UAE tour, after but a brilliant 160 odd final innings chase to win a Shield game just before Christmas, and a dearth of experience in the team, it made good sense in some ways. But his ODI record is a completely different matter and a big jump to suggest he shouldn’t be in the team on merit, or that it was the result of favouritism. I would have preferred Handscomb on balance myself, but it wasn’t an outrageous decision.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Hey Josh Thanks for your comment. I agree the standard of batting isn't as high (unless the bowling has gotten super better... which I don't think it has). But I think over the past decade there have definitely been players who deserved chances given to the Marshes. Back in 2008 Shaun was picked on the Indian tour over Brad Hodge who had just played against the West Indies, effectively ending Hodge's international career - he was disposed of much too early (FCA of 48). Rogers and Voges were given chances v late in their careers despite strong records whereas Marsh was rushed in to the side. David Hussey (FCA 55) was never given one test. Cameron White (first class average just a little less than Marsh) was given four tests... as a bowler. Ed Cowan wasn't a barnstorming success at test level but his first class figures are near Shaun Marsh but he was booted with almost undue haste. Callum Ferguson was given one test. Maxwell's first class form has actually been quite consistent over a decade but he's only been given sporadic tests. Wade's actually the one who has had a decent run - I never would have picked him as a keeper (Chris Hartley should have been Haddin's back up, and Neville shouldn't have been dropped). But the issue is the amount of chances players get. The ones I've listed above have gotten one or two chances (Wade got three, I think). The Marshes get chance after chance. That is what wears people like myself down.
Josh H
Roar Rookie
I see where you're coming from Stephen but there's an enormous disparity between the quality of the Shield competition - and subsequently, the batsmen coming through - now and 12 years ago. I agree, Elliot, Bevan, Love, Siddons, would have been shoe-ins for the Australian team in any other generation. But nowadays, in terms of unlucky players we have Klinger, um, maybe... Ferguson? There just isn't that group of consistent batsmen knocking the door down with a copious volume of runs anymore. I'm not trying to justify Shaun and Mitch ever being picked or anything, but if we think about the vast majority of batsmen who have recently made their Test debuts - Renshaw, Bancroft, Patterson, Harris - they have been picked on really recent form: i.e. 3 or 4 previous games, instead of a full season of 1000+ runs. Is it a structural thing? Probably, the selectors dig their own grave in situations like these. My point is, the fixturing system lends itself to flawed selection policies, and it just so happens that the Marshes have been beneficiaries of this. Now the question I ask is: Wade was given 20+ Test matches to prove his worth and failed, just like the Marshes have. Why should he be given another chance due to form and the Marshes don't?
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
By your logic someone only succeeds at batting if they score runs every match. Fact is, Marsh scored 4 centuries over those three series in 11 match. Finch scored one, the rest none. If you assume people are getting out because they lack responsibility, it sounds like you have limited understanding of the game. If it was true that getting out for a low score meant lack of responsibility, the same applied to the rest of the batting order in spades. England may not have the best ODI pace attack but they have way better spinners and all rounder than we do, and having the best batting lineup means that you are chasing more runs on average.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Thank for clarifying. Appreciate you have a different point of view - but I can't help it: after a decade of watching the damage done by the favoritism shown these two, the careers thrown away so that they would get another chance, my temper with their continued promotion is frayed.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Stephen, I thought I was replying to comments of Kopa Shamsu above who said Marsh was completely lacking in responsibility. Seeems it came out looking like a response to you, in error. But the spirit of the remarks applies to the comment you made regarding SM: “But you know something? I don’t care. When Marsh did well, we lost.” I would put that in the category of comments that Ronan O’Connell has aptly described below.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
This article is nasty but funny ... because it hits a truth nerve. I would have preferred Handscomb over Marsh and suspect some nepotism is at play here, but the reality is both are highly deserving and either would have been extremely unlucky to miss out. The real question is, what on earth is Behrendorff doing in the squad, ahead of Handscomb?
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Hey Josh thanks for their comment. I don't want them never to be picked again because they've been selector's pets. It's because they've been given so many chances over the past decade and can never be consistent - at ODI and test level. They have had their moments absolutely and get everyone's hopes up but can never sustain it. The selectors in the past have overlooked plenty of players who've had great domestic seasons because they're not considered the right stuff - Wade recently, but before him Klinger, Hodge. I think Bevan and Elliot a few years back would carve them up at Shield level and never get a look in. But the Marshes seem to operate under a different set of guidelines to others.
Josh H
Roar Rookie
Let me get this right Stephen: are you suggesting that we should never picked Shaun or Mitch ever again purely by virtue of the fact that they have been selectors' pets in the past? Now I agree that they've been given way too much soft treatment, but if either of them score 10 hundreds in the upcoming shield season and/or average 100, they are fully 100% deserved to jump in that Test side. You pick the best players for the team regardless of any personal biases. And if their form dictates that they are in the top 6 batsmen at any given time, then so be it. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Your argument doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. Marsh is a gun white ball player and should be in the mix for the top 6 come world cup time. After the Cup, it is time to move on.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
You are very generous to managers, players and coaches. I would argue with the Marshes we have a decade of performances at international level to use as a sample
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
It's the favouritism that gets people down. People hate the favouritism, not the player.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Handscomb has a better strike rate (98.58 vs 81.48), can play in the middle order where we are weak (our only options are Maxwell, Stoinis and Carey, everyone else is a top four player). Handscomb does average 5 runs less than Marsh but bats lower, and is a better fielder. Though you are right about your last paragraph in all fairness - but then both Marshes have been shown so much favouritism over the past decade and been so erratic yes I would not pick either of them in any international format even if they averaged a hundred. I think neither of them should ever be picked for Australia again.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
I might agree with you if the selectors hadn't shown such consistent overwhelming favouritism towards the brothers over the past decade.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
The selectors said Handscomb was omitted for Steve Smith, but I feel he should have gone instead of Marsh. They could have gotten around it by taking another batsman. re: Mitch in the Australia A squad, if you've followed his career you'll understand my paranoia :) And I think Shaun is definitely still in the test frame.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
No one is denying Shaun Marsh's talent. He is very gifted. And very erratic. He's been given so, so many chances and has taken them sometimes. Mitch's test selection has never been justified. His ODI selection was. It's a shame though we didn't explore other all rounder options (if Ashton Turner could bowl again, that would solve lots of problems)