Australia v South Africa, Second Test, Hobart, 12-16 November

WTF was Marsh ever considered? His figures were crap for a batsman or a bowler and they've farking remained that way. FFFFFF!

because ever since Steve Waugh ( and probably before) Australia has had a batsman who can bowl a bit (SRW MEW Blewett Boof etc)

then Flintoff had his 2005 series and they figured they'd get a batsman who could be a "genuine" 4th seamer and Watto became a regular when fit player and scoring runs or taking wickets didnt become important

Marcus North probably lasted longer than his batting form suggested because he could bowl off spin

someone found that Mitch Marsh bowled at 140+ (probably with a tail breeze and a dodgy radar) and could whack the ball so he became the new watto when the old watto failed his final review

they could try Stoinis Faulkner Christian Hopes Reeks and Cartwright but the revolving door of selection doesnt do much for stability

Maxwell as an offie would be the alternative but he spins it the same way as Lyon

As the sports scientists are reluctant to make the bowlers harden the fark up having a fifth bowler will become a constant

If one of the keepers was capable of batting in the top 6 (or one of the top 6 capable of keeping) it may help the situation

Nifty's batting only seems good for nearly blocking out draws

I would have said Freddie was a bowler who could bat a bit.

he batted at 6

we dont have a genuine bowler who could bat in the top 6

we have blokes who might be able to bat top 6 who might be also be able to bowl

Was originally picked as a bowler, but yeah batted most of his career at 6/7 with a fairly poor average of 31.

Tah MB! I knew all that but just needed to get it off my chest but it's nice to know there are some others who think this grail quest we're on is becoming somewhat stupid.

And as it's Hobart WTF don't we play Bird????