Changes for the first test V West Indies

Remove this Banner Ad

Not at test level it isn't . Marsh is 100 times more penetrating at test level at this stage. Agar has potential but he needs more wickets. Runs are a bonus, and he isn't a top 6 bat.

Agar is absolutely a top 6 bat.

And Marsh is a stock bowler, not a strike bowler - Agar can do the same job but actually contribute with the bat.
 
Agar is absolutely a top 6 bat.

And Marsh is a stock bowler, not a strike bowler - Agar can do the same job but actually contribute with the bat.

Agar isn't even batting in the top 6 for WA! Might want to bat there for WA first. He has potential, but if you think he is a top 6 test bat, you are kidding. Marsh is the better bowler to break partnerships. Agar's bowling is solid, but he needs a good season.
 
Agar isn't even batting in the top 6 for WA! Might want to bat there for WA first. He has potential, but if you think he is a top 6 test bat, you are kidding. Marsh is the better bowler to break partnerships. Agar's bowling is solid, but he needs a good season.

This is what I don't get - has M. Marsh ever carved out a century for WA?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This is what I don't get - has M. Marsh ever carved out a century for WA?

Think so, and a big hundred in the tour match last year. Mitch Marsh at least bats in the top 6 for WA (number 5-6). Agar bats 8. You are wanting a bloke batting at 8 to bat 6 in test cricket....it just won't work. Our batting is bad enough without doing that.

I have said this 100 times. My preference is to play the next best genuine bat at 6.
 
Think so, and a big hundred in the tour match last year. Mitch Marsh at least bats in the top 6 for WA (number 5-6). Agar bats 8. You are wanting a bloke batting at 8 to bat 6 in test cricket....it just won't work. Our batting is bad enough without doing that.

I have said this 100 times. My preference is to play the next best genuine bat at 6.
Think so, and a big hundred in the tour match last year. Mitch Marsh at least bats in the top 6 for WA (number 5-6). Agar bats 8. You are wanting a bloke batting at 8 to bat 6 in test cricket....it just won't work. Our batting is bad enough without doing that.

I have said this 100 times. My preference is to play the next best genuine bat at 6.

So, all those shield centuries?

And he bats anywhere from 5-8 M.Marsh - don't make things up.

Agar has made two centuries this season and is averaging 54 - he can bat, and bat well.

Marsh has never delivered a body of work at Shield level and lo and behold, has barely fired a shot at Test level - much like his brother - it's a disgrace that either of them are in the Aus team, let alone both.
 
So, all those shield centuries?

And he bats anywhere from 5-8 M.Marsh - don't make things up.

Agar has made two centuries this season and is averaging 54 - he can bat, and bat well.

Marsh has never delivered a body of work at Shield level and lo and behold, has barely fired a shot at Test level - much like his brother - it's a disgrace that either of them are in the Aus team, let alone both.

Mitch Marsh had a bumper Shield season 2 years ago from memory, where his batting slowly came around. Do I feel he is a test number 6? Right now no. Will he in the future, quite possibly. Is he worth persisting with right now? Yes.

Agar is batting 7 or 8 at best. How about he bats in the top 6 and then you can discuss whether he can be a test number 6. It is a lot easier coming in later without worrying about the new ball.

This isn't saying Agar won't be there in the future. He will, but he isn't and never will be a top 6 bat in test level.
 
Mitch Marsh had a bumper Shield season 2 years ago from memory, where his batting slowly came around. Do I feel he is a test number 6? Right now no. Will he in the future, quite possibly. Is he worth persisting with right now? Yes.

Agar is batting 7 or 8 at best. How about he bats in the top 6 and then you can discuss whether he can be a test number 6. It is a lot easier coming in later without worrying about the new ball.

This isn't saying Agar won't be there in the future. He will, but he isn't and never will be a top 6 bat in test level.

You cannot find a century for M.Marsh can you?

On the one hand you're suggesting patience based on potential, for a kid who has't put together a body of work at Shield level, multiple hundreds.

Meanwhile, you've got a kid who strikes the ball at a better rate, has shown an ability to bunker down and take the game away from opposition sides AND has demonstrated the ability to score multiple hundreds at shield level - but he is not afforded patience?

The "he doesn't bat 6" line holds no water - you don't fluke one tonne, let alone two and he is coming in fairly early with WA's top order this year.

Agar is a significantly better option as a bat, Marsh offers more with the ball at this stage, Agar has hime covered comfortably in the field.

Line ball for me.
 
You cannot find a century for M.Marsh can you?

On the one hand you're suggesting patience based on potential, for a kid who has't put together a body of work at Shield level, multiple hundreds.

Meanwhile, you've got a kid who strikes the ball at a better rate, has shown an ability to bunker down and take the game away from opposition sides AND has demonstrated the ability to score multiple hundreds at shield level - but he is not afforded patience?

The "he doesn't bat 6" line holds no water - you don't fluke one tonne, let alone two and he is coming in fairly early with WA's top order this year.

Agar is a significantly better option as a bat, Marsh offers more with the ball at this stage, Agar has hime covered comfortably in the field.

Line ball for me.

Marsh got a massive ton in a tour match, that was one of the innings that propelled him to the test side. These is the potential, and I feel he is more likely to do it that any other AR anyway. Personally, I would rather play neither anyway. Would pick Handscomb personally.

Don't care what Agar is doing at 7 or 8. He needs to bat 5-6 if he wants to be a top 6 bat. It really is that simple. Otherwise he has to be getting a lot of wickets to get rid of a bowler. Very good option as a spinner down the track, but he isn't there yet.

Give me the bloke with the ball if it is an AR. We need bowling depth more if we are so persistent with picking an AR.
 
Marsh got a massive ton in a tour match, that was one of the innings that propelled him to the test side. These is the potential, and I feel he is more likely to do it that any other AR anyway. Personally, I would rather play neither anyway. Would pick Handscomb personally.

Don't care what Agar is doing at 7 or 8. He needs to bat 5-6 if he wants to be a top 6 bat. It really is that simple. Otherwise he has to be getting a lot of wickets to get rid of a bowler. Very good option as a spinner down the track, but he isn't there yet.

Give me the bloke with the ball if it is an AR. We need bowling depth more if we are so persistent with picking an AR.

I just can't fathom how a bloke with no history of demonstrating the ability to go big and bash 100's in our feeder comp - shield cricket - is afforded more time over another player who is demsonqrating an ability to generate centuries.

And then selectors scratch their heads and think demoting the bloke is the answer.

What will be an absolute travesty is watching M.Marsh score a tonne against a 2nd grade pennant attack and then watch him fail against the power house nations.

Also - you say Agar needs to bat at 6 to be considered for the 6th bat in Australia - Marsh has never scored a century for WA at six - but that is good enough for the Aussie cap?

Makes no sense and for me the name is the only reason M.Marsh is being afforded opportunity others have earned.
 
Player A- 27 matches, 1678 runs @ 43.05, 3 centuries, 11 half centuries, 35 wickets @ 37.62

Player B- 34 matches, 1444 runs @ 26.25, 1 century, 10 half centuries, 50 wickets @ 26.90

Player C- 29 matches, 1090 runs @ 28.68, 2 centuries, 6 half centuries, 78 wickets @ 39.69

All those are stats playing for their states yet everyone instantly dismisses Player A...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Marsh has 4 FC centuries. I don't recall him ever making one in the Shield.

Agar has 2 FC centuries, both in the Shield.

I like how runs/centuries in the Shield is the benchmark for some players, but not others.

Does anyone actually think David Warner or Steve Smith were picked on weight of runs in the Shield?

Warner has 26 fifties and 21 hundreds at first class level at an average of 51.

Smith has 31 fifties and 23 hundreds at first class level at an average of 54.
 
Marsh has 4 FC centuries. I don't recall him ever making one in the Shield.

Agar has 2 FC centuries, both in the Shield.

I like how runs/centuries in the Shield is the benchmark for some players, but not others.

Does anyone actually think David Warner or Steve Smith were picked on weight of runs in the Shield?

Steve Smith was.
 
Player A- 27 matches, 1678 runs @ 43.05, 3 centuries, 11 half centuries, 35 wickets @ 37.62

Player B- 34 matches, 1444 runs @ 26.25, 1 century, 10 half centuries, 50 wickets @ 26.90

Player C- 29 matches, 1090 runs @ 28.68, 2 centuries, 6 half centuries, 78 wickets @ 39.69

All those are stats playing for their states yet everyone instantly dismisses Player A...

Are you comparing a spin bowling allrounder with seam bowling all-rounders?
 
Test matches count as first class stats, don't they?
Can't look it up at the moment but I would say Warner has, what, about 10 shield games? Even averaging 100 wouldn't account for 21 centuries

Plus a smattering of those shield games would be coming back from injury and after he was a test player
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Changes for the first test V West Indies

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top