bennymacca wrote:why do we need an out and out batsman in at 6 though? The adage that an all-rounder should be able to hold their spot as either a batter or a bowler is a bit of a misnomer imo. Our top 5 are going great guns (cant believe I am saying that after the previous couple of years)
If he can pull his average up to low 30s in test cricket that would be more than adequate imo.
I dont think he should be compared with other batsmen that could potentially bat number 6, nor compared with our first choice seamers. The choice should be whether we want an all-rounder as part of the structure of the team, and if the answer is yes, then he plays because he is clearly the best allrounder in the country at the moment (seam bowling at least)
Getting an average of around low 30's i believe will be a stretch for him.
Personally i do think you need six specialist batsmen (at times the keeper may fall into them six) no matter how well your top 5 are going (at some point like the Ashes your top 5 will get exposed and if you don't have a genuine number 6 your tail will crumble. If you had a Gilchrist who could move to 6 and Marsh at 7 then that would be perfect but at the moment we are almost 4 out all out.
We were only a couple of coin tosses away from potentially having Marsh seriously exposed in this series.
Personally i could see Marsh becoming a seriously good bowler and a number 8 bat.