Rogers Shows Australia What They Had Been missing
Considering his record should they have turned to him before the likes of Cowans and Warner?
Considering his record should they have turned to him before the likes of Cowans and Warner?
Should Chris Rogers Have Been Selected Earlier?
- Thread starter hawkeye
- Start date
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
well, no idea what his form was like so it depends...
or it would depend, had phil hughes, shane watson and ed cowan not all had extended runs opening, in which case yes, he should have been in years ago.
or it would depend, had phil hughes, shane watson and ed cowan not all had extended runs opening, in which case yes, he should have been in years ago.
ONE Test in January 2008, made just 21 runs but then not reselected for FIVE AND A HALF YEARS. Brainless by the aussies.
Didn't realise he is all but 36, the aussies may as well persist with him but I think Cricket Australia or whatever the board is called, should hang their heads in shame not having picked and use him more. He's scored runs for fun in the counties, given the decline of aussie cricket and what some of their batsmen "offer", his lack of opportunities is criminal.
Didn't realise he is all but 36, the aussies may as well persist with him but I think Cricket Australia or whatever the board is called, should hang their heads in shame not having picked and use him more. He's scored runs for fun in the counties, given the decline of aussie cricket and what some of their batsmen "offer", his lack of opportunities is criminal.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Yes. I have been calling for his selection since the AUS home season versus S Africa (along with G Bailey) when Watson was initially injured. But yet the selectors picked Rob Quiney & contined to play the useless Ed Cowan
Last edited:
Aislabie
Test Cricket is Best Cricket
It irritates me to see the constant Cowan-bashing from all and sundry.
Go watch the video of his ton against the Saffers.
But yes, Rogers should have been in the side long ago, should have replaced Hughes when they dropped him mid-Ashes instead of Watson.
Go watch the video of his ton against the Saffers.
But yes, Rogers should have been in the side long ago, should have replaced Hughes when they dropped him mid-Ashes instead of Watson.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
I don't think cowan was very good but at least he was a guy that understood his limitations and had a game built around making the most of them. less natural talent than watson or hughes but a far better understanding of application.
out of all the opening combinations australia tried prior to bringing in rogers, he and warner were by far the most prolific.
I think the best australian top 3 on results is rogers, warner, cowan. get khawaja out, "faith" hasn't worked with hughes and it won't work again. also, said many times, but watson needs to go. he's hopeless but more than that such a poor team can't afford to carry his mental baggage (warner comes with penty of problems but at least no one can doubt he's a fighter that wants to play for australia).
out of all the opening combinations australia tried prior to bringing in rogers, he and warner were by far the most prolific.
I think the best australian top 3 on results is rogers, warner, cowan. get khawaja out, "faith" hasn't worked with hughes and it won't work again. also, said many times, but watson needs to go. he's hopeless but more than that such a poor team can't afford to carry his mental baggage (warner comes with penty of problems but at least no one can doubt he's a fighter that wants to play for australia).
Last edited:
Watson (45 Tests) - 2796 runs @ 34.52
Hughes (26 Tests) - 1535 runs @ 32.66
Warner (21 Tests) - 1383 runs @ 38.42
Cowan (18 Tests) - 1001 runs @ 31.28
Smith (11 Tests) - 620 runs @ 29.52
Khawaja (9 Tests) - 377 runs @ 25.13
Marsh (7 Tests) - 301 runs @ 27.36
Rogers (5 Tests) - 363 runs @ 36.30
Quiney (2 Tests) - 9 runs @ 3.00
Interesting that by and large the more Tests played, the higher the average. 20+ Tests and all four are averaging 30+ . Rogers is already second in the list if you place them in order of batting average, can't see much gain between Cowan and Hughes.
Reads a bit like England in the 90s, one or two batsmen up around the 40 average and a whole lot not.
Hughes (26 Tests) - 1535 runs @ 32.66
Warner (21 Tests) - 1383 runs @ 38.42
Cowan (18 Tests) - 1001 runs @ 31.28
Smith (11 Tests) - 620 runs @ 29.52
Khawaja (9 Tests) - 377 runs @ 25.13
Marsh (7 Tests) - 301 runs @ 27.36
Rogers (5 Tests) - 363 runs @ 36.30
Quiney (2 Tests) - 9 runs @ 3.00
Interesting that by and large the more Tests played, the higher the average. 20+ Tests and all four are averaging 30+ . Rogers is already second in the list if you place them in order of batting average, can't see much gain between Cowan and Hughes.
Reads a bit like England in the 90s, one or two batsmen up around the 40 average and a whole lot not.
I say no. Rogers' domestic form (in Australia at least) had never been lights out. Rogers got picked to debut in 2007/08 vs India. I went and looked it up...
He are Rogers' first class averages for each Aus. summer:
2008/09: 19 innings, 1195 runs @ 74.68, 5x100s
2009/10: 15 innings, 641 runs @ 49.30, 2x100s
2010/11: 8 innings, 218 runs @ 27.25, 0x100s
2011/12: 19 innings, 781 runs @ 41.10, 3x100s
2012/13: 17 innings, 742 runs @ 49.46, 3x100s
I think the only time where he was an obvious option was in the 2008/09-2009 period. Katich was going well in his new role at the top, Hayden needed replacing after a poor summer. The Aussie selectors instead turned to the younger Phil Hughes (and then Shane Watson after Hughes looked vulnerable mid-Ashes). Hughes had just had a very productive season for NSW so it made sense to go for the young kid with a bright future (963 runs @ 68.78, 4x100s - compares well with Rogers bumper season). Then, both Hughes and Watson started brightly as Test openers (Hughes 3 100s, Watson averaged 65 his first year opening). You can see why there was no urge to turn to Rogers when there were 2 younger, more 'talented' options there to partner Katich.
He's been solid for Victoria from 2009/10 onwards, but he's never made a truly compelling amount of runs since 2008/09 and has been weighed down by the rumours of not fitting into the Aussie dressing room back in 2008. Even now, I think the only reason he got in is because of his vast experience in England. Overlooked? Yes I guess, but Michael Klinger's probably got just as good an argument, I bet he's made more Shield runs over the same time period. Ed Cowan, probably made a similar amount as well. Ed got a go because he's 5 years younger I'd imagine.
He are Rogers' first class averages for each Aus. summer:2008/09: 19 innings, 1195 runs @ 74.68, 5x100s
2009/10: 15 innings, 641 runs @ 49.30, 2x100s
2010/11: 8 innings, 218 runs @ 27.25, 0x100s
2011/12: 19 innings, 781 runs @ 41.10, 3x100s
2012/13: 17 innings, 742 runs @ 49.46, 3x100s
I think the only time where he was an obvious option was in the 2008/09-2009 period. Katich was going well in his new role at the top, Hayden needed replacing after a poor summer. The Aussie selectors instead turned to the younger Phil Hughes (and then Shane Watson after Hughes looked vulnerable mid-Ashes). Hughes had just had a very productive season for NSW so it made sense to go for the young kid with a bright future (963 runs @ 68.78, 4x100s - compares well with Rogers bumper season). Then, both Hughes and Watson started brightly as Test openers (Hughes 3 100s, Watson averaged 65 his first year opening). You can see why there was no urge to turn to Rogers when there were 2 younger, more 'talented' options there to partner Katich.
He's been solid for Victoria from 2009/10 onwards, but he's never made a truly compelling amount of runs since 2008/09 and has been weighed down by the rumours of not fitting into the Aussie dressing room back in 2008. Even now, I think the only reason he got in is because of his vast experience in England. Overlooked? Yes I guess, but Michael Klinger's probably got just as good an argument, I bet he's made more Shield runs over the same time period. Ed Cowan, probably made a similar amount as well. Ed got a go because he's 5 years younger I'd imagine.
Cowan moved away from his strengths, he has got out slashing at wide ones quite a few times of late. And averaging just a touch over 31 at his age just isn't good enough.
Really the only time Rogers could have been picked was around the Hayden replacement period. After that his age was always a factor when we already were looking at replacing Ponting and Hussey.
Really the only time Rogers could have been picked was around the Hayden replacement period. After that his age was always a factor when we already were looking at replacing Ponting and Hussey.
