The PlanetCricket View: How much more sweeping can the Aussies do?

angryangy

ICC Chairman
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
I think it was acceptable to de-contract Katich, but they could easily have kept picking him.

Phil Jaques probably should have played more games, after all it was his injury that gave way to Katich's return. Alas, since he did his back, he hasn't remotely been the same player (not that Ponting has seemed like Ponting in that time either).

I can understand arguments against David Hussey, but you've got to say something is wrong when someone with 41 first class centuries doesn't get so much as a look. There were lots of high quality Australian cricketers in the 90s who didn't enjoy great Test careers, but they almost all got a chance.

Mark Cosgrove's probably not as good and hasn't found touch yet this summer, but seems set to go down the same route. I think his girth is overplayed, because they could work fitness targets out of him with a contract. Australia have decided he's not worth it, South Australia decided the same and that left Tassie to decide they're not too far up themselves for an extra 500-1000 runs per season.

One I really don't understand is Chris Rogers. He's not an aggressor, he tends to dig in and he's made tens of thousands of runs, yet that gets him four less Tests than Steve Smith. He was scoring loads of runs when Hayden went and they could easily have left Hughes as their one in the bank.

At the moment there aren't a lot of 'right nows' but there are ones to look at. Ed Cowan has matured his game immensely at Tasmania and now seems ripe for selection. There are players like Burns, Lynn or Patterson who you'd like to see get one or two thousand runs on the board first. Then there are weirder players like Peter Forrest; he's been around for ages, but he's turning that corner on two wheels. A few of the top players this season are coming along like that and that makes it difficult to make a lot of big calls, but only for the moment. If Forrest powers through the rest of the season the way he started it, he could well average over 40, in spite of starting his career at Qld with 1600 runs @ 32.

Ultimately, this is a side that only cries out for a couple of strong back up batsmen: I think they're in there somewhere. The rest of the pressure is on the veterans to justify their prestige.
 

aussie1st

Retired Administrator
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Location
Auckland
I can understand arguments against David Hussey, but you've got to say something is wrong when someone with 41 first class centuries doesn't get so much as a look. There were lots of high quality Australian cricketers in the 90s who didn't enjoy great Test careers, but they almost all got a chance.

His name was closest to selection when we decided to go with North. At the time I'd admit I too went down this road because I thought North was a gritty batsmen which we needed at the time. At the time David Hussey was struggling to convert his 50. However I and the selectors clearly missed how many high and low scores North was making. His inconsistency were well on show before being given a Baggy Green. Sadly this will remain one of the what ifs.

One I really don't understand is Chris Rogers. He's not an aggressor, he tends to dig in and he's made tens of thousands of runs, yet that gets him four less Tests than Steve Smith. He was scoring loads of runs when Hayden went and they could easily have left Hughes as their one in the bank.

Losing out to Jaques in the role for opener was the point where Rogers was always going to be a fill in. Off field rumours also surfaced as another reason. Chalk him in the 'what if' group.

Must admit it's bringing back old memories discussing these guys. I remember calling for these guys to be picked.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top