Marsh called up as replacement for Jaques.

embee wrote:

Henry wrote:On what basis have they selected Marsh over D.Hussey? The IPL and a few jamodis against the Windies and Bangladesh? This selection sounds more bizzare all the time. The fact is, for all of his natural gifts (that have mostly been on show in the shorter forms of the game) , Marsh averages 35 in first class cricket.

Trev

He averaged 60 in FC cricket last season ...He's 25 yo ...and he has a lot of talent ...and someone on the NSP likes him

he now struggles to average 30 in a good FC year

Hehe, nice find, A.   

Shaun Marsh's Test average is now > 40 as he approaches 2000 Test runs having scored more centuries in his first 20 Tests than Steve Waugh ...

I see horrie was an early fan ...

I was. He has too many convictions. Think how well he's gone on os tours where he and sibling have directly contributed to losses

I was actually referring to your earlier gushing (for you) post on p1 ... "terrific selection"

Right now he's batting as well as I've ever seen him bat, and he is amongst our top 6 batsmen, so he has every right to be in the side. I also thought his efforts in India, where he saved a Test for us, were more plus than minus.

Let’s see how he goes in South Africa.

Absolutely. He's only made one ton there thus far.

My point being, he’s hardly the first Australian batsman to fill his boots at home. All of them average more at home than away.

except Damien Martyn, apparently ...

I’m talking now. Not 15 years ago!

It is true that after very poor tours of England and India in recent years we are unlikely to have any cricketers averaging more 'away' than at home.

Was Rogers close, perhaps?

I suspect that the general H > A batting average truth applies to all teams in Test cricket at present.

for horrie's interest/apoplexy:

Shaun Marsh is now up to # 16 on the ICC batting ratings, a career high.

It seems he's put quite a few scores together over the last year, mostly at home, with a few important scores away as well.

His FC and Test averages are now very close, at 40-41. With just six runs in his next Test he will surpass 2000 Test runs, a fair feat given his very interrupted career and the multiple roles he has been expected to play, from numbers 1-6.

Of his last 16 innings (Cricinfo); only one was single figure, and just two others were below 20. There are a couple of (established) not outs in there, too, which would only bring his average down.

Some credit where credit is due?

He started in such a deficit position. Good on him for getting to an ordinary players test average. Failed in Bannieville. Lets review after this series.

40+ is now an ordinary Test player's average?

I'd say good, with > 45 sustained over a long career 'very good'.

Great > 50 (over a long period).

Many good players did not even average 40; or do you think (eg) Keith Stackpole and Kim Hughes were ordinary players?

Yep re both Stacky and Kimbo, tho both played some terrific knocks.

Bog has too many convictions outside roady roads. As said lets review after this series.. He failed against the Bannies but succeeded in roads against the worst Pomgolian attack I have seen, the ancient Jimmy aside.

On todays pitches an average of 40 is,next door to mediocre. I note bro's average is next door to woeful.

With today's pitches I maintain an average of 45 is good.

lardbucket wrote:for horrie's interest/apoplexy:

Shaun Marsh is now up to # 16 on the ICC batting ratings, a career high.

It seems he's put quite a few scores together over the last year, mostly at home, with a few important scores away as well.

That's got to be current players right? Surely even pwc or whoever runs that program nowadays wouldn't have him at 16 on the alltime list.

current list, latest update

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/marsh-hurt-in-injury-scare-for-aussies-20180709-p4zqh5.html

Injury scare for Shaun Marsh.