I would pretty much agree with everything you said there. And I don't believe the series is lost, it is there to claim if Australia can manage to learn from the first test and apply some discipline to batting and bowling. But most of all, Watson has to go.
I think everyone should take a bit of Kool Aid re Watson.
I'll present a case (not too convincing, as I'm not that convinced by it myself) for his retention:
1) He's our best dry pitch bowler. When the ball gets scuffed up and reverses, he's the best exponent of it we have. Starc can be handy in those conditions too - *if* the ball gets properly prepared by others. Johnson is worse than useless, as he isn't effective when the pitch is slow, and he's so loose he buggers up the ball for everyone else.
1a) Mash is a typical seam up Aussie quick - just not quite as quick as the others. A good (or better) bowler in zippy conditions.
From an attack balance perspective, Watson is still the better choice IMHO. In other words, March is only likely to be good when we don't need him.
2) As for batting, Mash has a FC average of 29 (34 in test cricket), Watson's is 43. Marsh's test record is better than his FC record, but equally it's not as good as Watson's in the games they've played together.
3) Marsh's main claim to a spot is the fact he slapped a few county pie chuckers out of a tiny ground in a practice match with little or no meaning. Yes, it's good that he did, but that's not a good enough reason to make changes to our national side, even though it was during the Micky Arthur era.
4) Watson didn't play all that badly, at least not when compared to all the others, making 30s in each innings and being dismissed just after breaks IIRC. He didn't throw his wicket away, which is more than can be said for Clarke. Watson didn't drop Root on 0, and he isn't responsible for the tactics after lunch on day 1.
4a) Of the codgers in the team, Clarke and Haddin were worse - far worse. Johnson played well in patches but without results (unless you count slogging part time spinners around the park in the afternoon session of a match already decided), which is people don't even say about Watson anymore.
5) We know what we are going to get with Watson: fairly regular promising, attractive 50s which he fails to convert, and never enough to win a match on their own. Similarly with his bowling: he can bowl effective tight overs in certain conditions the others struggle in.
6) What happens if we bring Marsh in and he "fails" (or only does as well as Watson)? If he has 2 less than stellar games in a row do we drop him and bring Watson back?
Putting this all together, I think Marsh is the obvious and selected heir apparent for Watson's all-rounder position. But the only real argument for a change is that we lost the first test, and while miracles happen, we'd have lost it just as convincingly with M Marsh in the team.
