Carlton Supporters Club

Time will tell EB.

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

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?

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 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?

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.

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?

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.

I would not have selected Mitch Marsh.
In his favour, he is a big, athletic lad who hit the cover off the ball and bowl about the pace of the present English bowlers. That is not a bad set of traits to have.
However, as a bowler he does not tend to move the ball in the air or off the pitch enough. Too many of his balls come through gun-barrel-straight! That is not good for an international bowler.
Secondly, as a batsman he does not deal well with a moving ball. This means he has periods of low scores against pace or spin.
These weaknesses are not the things to bring into test cricket, especially against the Poms.

It has been a LONG time since we had a true allrounder in the side. In the '70's, almost every player could and did bowl a bit. Keith Stackpole had a pretty good leg break in his arsenal. Ian Chappell bowled some leggies. Greg Chappell was a medium pacer who could move ht eball either way. Doug Walters was the official 'patnership breaker'.
After that we still had guys who were wickettakers as bowlers. Simon Katich bowled chinamen and bowled them well. Injury restricted his bowling, but he took 6 wickets in a innings. Bevan was an unreliable bowler, but his left arm wronguns simply couldn't be read. He got a lot of wickets, and had he better contro he would have made the team as a bowler.
Now we don't have that. Warner and Smith can bowl leggies, but they rarely do.

We need a batsman who can bowl properly. Not many of them around.

Marsh bowls consistently above 140kmhr and can move it if the Doctor is blowing!

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.

Do the Marsh brothers have incriminating photographs?

I reckon their old man took the pictures and has them on file.......


Surely to Christ we don't need another bowler.......... ?   if the selectors think we do then they have rocks in their head.

If they think Mitch Marsh is the 6th best batsman in the country they have rocks in their head......

Ok........  I've just worked it all out.

The Selectors do have ROCKS IN THEIR HEAD.

I'm no supporter of the selectors but they have done a good job with S Marsh and Paine.
Bancroft also got an 80.
Credit where it's due