The Third Test in the Ashes Series - WACA (14 December)

[LP]

I think they are looking to take full advantage of the quick bowlers we have by bowling them in shorter spells.

Why would we need shorter spells if they had enough in the tank for a follow-on in Adelaide, isn't that suggestion therefore a contradiction?

[flyboy77]

That's the point, M Marsh is quite an effective bowler. Not so great with the bat
I think they are looking to take full advantage of the quick bowlers we have by bowling them in shorter spells.

he has been averaging 71 with the bat his season....

[ElwoodBlues1]

Why would we need shorter spells if they had enough in the tank for a follow-on in Adelaide, isn't that suggestion therefore a contradiction?

Cummins is injury prone and Starc has had his moments, you need five bowlers IMO and maybe I am old fashioned but I like an allrounder in the team.
M.Marsh would give us a bit if a tail as he unproven at test level but given Cummins is playing well with the bat and the English bowling is mediocre so
we may get away with it.

Problem with Marsh is that he isnt good enough with either bat or ball to hold his place and is more of a bits and pieces cricketer...the classic allrounders were usually good enough in at least one skillset to hold their place....ie Flintoff was no great bat but was a good enough bowler to be picked on his bowling alone.
This is why M.Marsh wont work IMO and would be a short term fix.....we have been desperate for years to find a quality allrounder but unlike other countries we cant find them...

[laj]

Cummins is injury prone and Starc has had his moments, you need five bowlers IMO and maybe I am old fashioned but I like an allrounder in the team.
M.Marsh would give us a bit if a tail as he unproven at test level but given Cummins is playing well with the bat and the English bowling is mediocre so
we may get away with it.

Problem with Marsh is that he isnt good enough with either bat or ball to hold his place and is more of a bits and pieces cricketer...the classic allrounders were usually good enough in at least one skillset to hold their place....ie Flintoff was no great bat but was a good enough bowler to be picked on his bowling alone.
This is why M.Marsh wont work IMO and would be a short term fix.....we have been desperate for years to find a quality allrounder but unlike other countries we cant find them...

On the bright side at least he is batting well for WA. Gambled successfully on one Marsh, hopefully it follows.

[flyboy77]

Cummins is injury prone and Starc has had his moments, you need five bowlers IMO and maybe I am old fashioned but I like an allrounder in the team.
M.Marsh would give us a bit if a tail as he unproven at test level but given Cummins is playing well with the bat and the English bowling is mediocre so
we may get away with it.

Problem with Marsh is that he isnt good enough with either bat or ball to hold his place and is more of a bits and pieces cricketer...the classic allrounders were usually good enough in at least one skillset to hold their place....ie Flintoff was no great bat but was a good enough bowler to be picked on his bowling alone.
This is why M.Marsh wont work IMO and would be a short term fix.....we have been desperate for years to find a quality allrounder but unlike other countries we cant find them...

Time will tell EB.

One could say the same about Maxwell (excluding very recent form with bat)?

[ElwoodBlues1]

Time will tell EB.

One could say the same about Maxwell (excluding very recent form with bat)?

Maxwell is a batsman who bowls IMo, M. Marsh is more a true allrounder but isnt proficient enough at either IMO to hold his place.
You wouldnt bat him 6 if he couldnt bowl and he wouldnt be a 3rd or 4th choice only pace bowler .

The selectors have had a desire for a true allrounder for years now......Watson didnt work out, Cartwright was a overnight fad that was put to bed real quick....and now we are back to Marsh.

[JonHenry]

Why would we need shorter spells if they had enough in the tank for a follow-on in Adelaide, isn't that suggestion therefore a contradiction?

I don't know? Maybe they would concentrate on the game they are currently playing, then focus on the next one?
Maybe the series defining game, Adelaide was there to be won?
FFS I thought you said you had played plenty of 3 and 4 game cricket?
Did you read what Warne, Taylor and even now what Smith have said since the game has finished?

[JonHenry]

Maxwell is a batsman who bowls IMo, M. Marsh is more a true allrounder but isnt proficient enough at either IMO to hold his place.
You wouldnt bat him 6 if he couldnt bowl and he wouldnt be a 3rd or 4th choice only pace bowler .

The selectors have had a desire for a true allrounder for years now......Watson didnt work out, Cartwright was a overnight fad that was put to bed real quick....and now we are back to Marsh.

I think Cummins is a technically better bat than M Marsh.
Marsh has previously planted his front foot to early.

Maybe the selectors think the tail is good enough that they can afford to play M Marsh at 6, or even Paine at 6 and M Marsh at 7.

[LP]

I don't know? Maybe they would concentrate on the game they are currently playing, then focus on the next one?
Maybe the series defining game, Adelaide was there to be won?
FFS I thought you said you had played plenty of 3 and 4 game cricket?
Did you read what Warne, Taylor and even now what Smith have said since the game has finished?

As you know I am not a critic of Smith's decision to bat, it was the right decision.

Do you think the selections for the next match are consistent with the various statements given how little Marsh has bowled recently, and given his history of breaking down when bowled heavily? Is it consistent to drop Sayers and bring in Marsh for a game in which they claim they will need an extra front line bowler?

Personally, I think they've brought Marsh in as a batsmen, it will be interesting to see how much he bowls. There is a stench to that decision.

It's fair for me to question the consistency of claims that the decision to bat in Adelaide was unjustified based on bowlers loads, but for the same critics to call for an extra bowler in Perth, a wicket traditionally more favorable to fast bowlers. Especially if the chances are high Lyon retains a spot for a location not know to be a spin bowler favorite.

I think Cummins is a technically better bat than M Marsh.
Marsh has previously planted his front foot to early.

Maybe the selectors think the tail is good enough that they can afford to play M Marsh at 6, or even Paine at 6 and M Marsh at 7.

The Cummins argument is a strong one and one I agree with, which is why I'd bat him higher and bring in another certified front line bowler for Handscomb, Sayers. You still have Paine and Starc batting of a fast flat track that they have a good history on. Once we have Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood, Sayers it's clear Lyon regardless of his form should come out of the team for that one test with Maxwell an option based on batting alone. That would be a hell of a formidable horses for courses squad to play in Perth targeting a fast and large total. The only way to get a result there is rapid scoring, and Maxwell is a clear first choice.

For mine Sayers and Hazlewood are workhorse bowlers, you won;t get the best out of them in short sharp spells, they need overs a plenty to become effective. Cummins and Starc are the sharp spell types.

For subsequent tests you then have two ways to go, firstly Lyon comes back in for Melb and Sydney, but he can come in for Maxwell or Sayers subject to performance.

Is Mitch Marsh going to be an effective batsmen on turning wickets in either Melb or Sydney, does that mean he's coming on for one test with little hope of a second?

[JonHenry]

As you know I am not a critic of Smith's decision to bat, it was the right decision.

Do you think the selections for the next match are consistent with the various statements given how little Marsh has bowled recently, and given his history of breaking down when bowled heavily? Is it consistent to drop Sayers and bring in Marsh for a game in which they claim they will need an extra front line bowler?

Personally, I think they've brought Marsh in as a batsmen, it will be interesting to see how much he bowls.

The Cummins argument is a strong one and one I agree with, which is why I'd bat him higher and bring in another certified front line bowler for Handscomb, Sayers. You still have Paine and Starc batting of a fast flat track that they have a good history on. Once we have Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood, Sayers it's clear Lyon regardless of his form should come out of the team for that one test with Maxwell an option based on batting alone. That would be a hell of a formidable horses for courses squad to play in Perth targeting a fast and large total. The only way to get a result there is rapid scoring, and Maxwell is a clear first choice.

For mine Sayers and Hazlewood are workhorse bowlers, you won;t get the best out of them in short sharp spells, they need overs a plenty to become effective. Cummins and Starc are the sharp spell types.

For subsequent tests you then have two ways to go, firstly Lyon comes back in for Melb and Sydney, but he can come in for Maxwell or Sayers subject to performance.

Is Mitch Marsh going to be an effective batsmen on turning wickets in either Melb or Sydney, does that mean he's coming on for one test with little hope of a second?

Have they actually claimed they need another front line bowler?
I don't think Marsh will bowl a lot.
12 overs an innings should make a big difference to the other quicks.
Hazlewood didn't bowl like a workhorse bowler in Adelaide.
This bloke is as good as we have. I was in Adelaide all 5 days and he was putting them under more pressure than anyone.
He is a seriously good bowler. Absolute World Class, and I think now with his pace up, they want the All Rounder to use these guys as weapons in short bursts more.