*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

[uvelocity]

rogers should be in and around the place as a backup, because he has experience. but we shouldnt be dropping anyone for a four eyed colourblind ranga

 

[the big bambino]

The crux of the matter here.

I ask e people who are advocating Rogers' selection, how much have you watched of him?

Not enough because the selectors refuse to pick him.

 

[benchmark00]

Not enough because the selectors refuse to pick him.

Presumably because the selectors do watch him.

Nah look, I'm not saying Rogers is ****house. He's not, he has a FC record worth respecting.

My issue is that we have all these people coming out saying its a disgrace he hasn't been picked. It really really isn't.

Rogers is a quality domestic pro. Unfortunately some people are destined to be that because they have a game that can hold up to state/county cricket but not higher levels. That's fine. What isn't fine is people coming out and saying he would improve the Australian team so much, when he actually wouldn't.

If you whack Watson, Warner and Hughes in the shield over an extended time they would beat the door down, they would consistently average 50+. Just because they go through form fluctuations at test level it doesn't mean they're no good, it's just that Rogers' form fluctuations don't get noticed.

Cowan is a little different because he performed solidly over the course of a couple of seasons in the toughest conditions in first class cricket. If he had spent the last couple of seasons in shield he would have clocked up impressive numbers too in all likelihood.

 

[the big bambino]

Well those selectors have included the likes of Hilditch and Invers

I'm not getting the impression people think he'll turn things around for us. Just that he deserves the chance. Also if Hughes and Watson scored as decently as Rogers at fc level they would deserve a chance: Which they have been given.

Rogers form at fc level has been better than Cowan's recent solid few years as well. There maybe an element of time has past him by that explains Cowan getting a run while Rogers didn't. I did see him play his test along with a rep game where he made some runs against India I think. And yes he did look limited. So does Hughes. Warner has technical issues. Same with Usman. Smith shapes up funny too. Everything that is said about Rogers can be said about those ahead of him. He just has a weight of runs plus experience in England. Yep he could fail. I just think he deserves the chance against the backdrop of our test team.

 

[chaminda_00]

I would be very surprised if Cowan scored as many runs as Rogers in FC cricket over the last couple season, if he was given the same chances. He never was anywhere near as prolific as Rogers.

 

[adub]

Has his own individual style, but it's a bit Chanderpaul-ish in that while he starts off looking weird, he ends up in the right spots to hit the ball. Splays his feet at the crease, back foot points towards third man, front foot towards straight cover.

If we had some issues with our openers then I can see the reason for his inclusion; if he got picked he'd probably give us Cowan-esque results; probably more likely to turn his half centuries into hundreds though.

Really, it's just that Rogers has been doing over his whole career what you now only need to do for a season and a half to get picked for Australia. That's why the clamour has come.

I think he'd go better than Cowan, but I also advocate for him to come in at 3 with Hughes dropping down one. But yeah agree with the rest. 5 years ago leaving him out was a far enough call. But if some mong like Bailey or Voges gets a call up before Rogers well I'll just not bother watching the Ashes because I'll know we're not fair dinkum. It's not a beauty contest, it's a run making contest, and Rogers despite not looking much chop makes runs. That's all that matters in the end.

 

[Valer]

I would be very surprised if Cowan scored as many runs as Rogers in FC cricket over the last couple season, if he was given the same chances. He never was anywhere near as prolific as Rogers.

Tasmania...

 

[adub]

If you whack Watson, Warner and Hughes in the shield over an extended time they would beat the door down, they would consistently average 50+. Just because they go through form fluctuations at test level it doesn't mean they're no good, it's just that Rogers' form fluctuations don't get noticed.

Hughes and Warner yes, Watson no chance. He has never averaged anything like 50. 42 - 43 ain't shabby, by any means, but it ain't 50. Obviously he hasn't had many opportunities to play Shield the last few years, but it's no surprise to me that in the few games he has played for NSW he's been as **** if not ****ter than he has been for Australia. His last Shield 50 was in March 2009 FFS. The seaming conditions that have been carving up top orders would find him out just as fast. LB's and nicks galore.

What he really needs is a good spell in the Shield to test your theory seeing as he can't make runs in tests either. There is no way on God's green earth that he's a better red ball bat than Rogers no matter how much more attractive he looks making his 20 or 30 before getting out.

 

[chaminda_00]

Tasmania...

Mid 40s, not 50s like Rogers. A class below.

Cowan is just a poor mans Chris Rogers.

 

[Tangles]

I'd love to know if Invers was told to value ODI and T20 form when selecting the Test team when he was hired or if that his own deal. All that shoul be considered is red ball form/ability.

I think time has passed Rogers by. He wasn't good enough to get into the test team in his prime. He just gets mentioned now because we have issues they think he can paper over for a season or two.

 

[adub]

I'd love to know if Invers was told to value ODI and T20 form when selecting the Test team when he was hired or if that his own deal. All that shoul be considered is red ball form/ability.

I think time has passed Rogers by. He wasn't good enough to get into the test team in his prime. He just gets mentioned now because we have issues they think he can paper over for a season or two.

I mention him, because he can offer 2 or 3 years of solid performances to take some pressure off the likes of Hughes and Warner in the side, give young guys like Burns, Doolan, Maddinson and Silk a couple of seasons to hone their game and really prove themselves without them being thrown into an underperforming team before they're ready. Those guys need to come through but they are all a long way short of good enough in 2013.

The arguments against Rogers are he's old and looks ugly. They are weak as piss arguments. Of course if there was some 25y/o about that batted and scored like Greg Chappell we'd all be over that, but in the real world we don't have that luxury. A hard nosed pro like Rogers would be massive boost to the resillience of the side compared to what a show pony like Watson brings.

 

[benchmark00]

Hughes and Warner yes, Watson no chance. He has never averaged anything like 50. 42 - 43 ain't shabby, by any means, but it ain't 50. Obviously he hasn't had many opportunities to play Shield the last few years, but it's no surprise to me that in the few games he has played for NSW he's been as **** if not ****ter than he has been for Australia. His last Shield 50 was in March 2009 FFS. The seaming conditions that have been carving up top orders would find him out just as fast. LB's and nicks galore.

What he really needs is a good spell in the Shield to test your theory seeing as he can't make runs in tests either. There is no way on God's green earth that he's a better red ball bat than Rogers no matter how much more attractive he looks making his 20 or 30 before getting out.

Umm what? Unless I'm looking at different things to you, for first class cricket alone (without test matches) Shane Watson averages pretty much 50...

 

[the big bambino]

I think adub has the issue on Roger's potential value. Hopefully he can give some value for a couple of seasons giving our younger players more time to develop. I agree his presence in the squad could concentrate the minds of Cowan, Warner and Watson more acutely. A point mentioned by LHC I think.

 

[Tangles]

While his FC record is good there is still a jump in level to Test cricket. I don't see the point unless we swap him for Cowan. If he comes in and doesn't perform immediately the heat will be on because then a short term fix has achieved nothing.

 

[adub]

Umm what? Unless I'm looking at different things to you, for first class cricket alone (without test matches) Shane Watson averages pretty much 50...

His Shield average is 41.8

Averaged 42.9 or something for Tas
43.2 or so for Qld
and is in the 20s for NSW with a top score of 33.

His last Shield 50 was in Mar 2009 although granted he went on to make a big one with 145.

His non-test fc record is boosted by a good record in tour games for Australia and a short stint in England where he averaged 80, but you said he'd average 50 in the Shield, and his Shield record in no way indicates that to be right. Even at his best he never did, and the last two years against the red ball have been a long long way short of his best.

 

[adub]

While his FC record is good there is still a jump in level to Test cricket. I don't see the point unless we swap him for Cowan. If he comes in and doesn't perform immediately the heat will be on because then a short term fix has achieved nothing.

Of course there's a step up. That why test spots should go to the guys with the best fc records - they're the ones more likely to survive the step up. It's no guarantee, but the odds are much better.

And why does he have to only be considered a replacement for Cowan. Why can't he come in for Watson or Smith? I think he would do a job for us at 3, but who knows maybe he could come in at 6 and take to it like Hussey? The point is simply that we have guys in the test top 6 who very legitimately could be dropped for consistent failure. The only thing that is saving them is the lack of alternatives. When our alternatives are as sparse as they are it doesn't make sense to put up artificial barriers to potential test batsmen. Rogers is keen, in form and has a record that puts everyone bar Clarke of the available options to shame. That's good enough for me to make him to be the obvious candidate to come in despite his age.

 

[benchmark00]

His Shield average is 41.8

Averaged 42.9 or something for Tas
43.2 or so for Qld
and is in the 20s for NSW with a top score of 33.

His last Shield 50 was in Mar 2009 although granted he went on to make a big one with 145.

His non-test fc record is boosted by a good record in tour games for Australia and a short stint in England where he averaged 80, but you said he'd average 50 in the Shield, and his Shield record in no way indicates that to be right. Even at his best he never did, and the last two years against the red ball have been a long long way short of his best.

This is a first, someone saying playing at a higher level has unfairly boosted their record.

Futhermore noting that this higher level success has been recent, but his recent form has been a long way short of his best

 

[adub]

This is a first, someone saying playing at a higher level has unfairly boosted their record.

Futhermore noting that this higher level success has been recent, but his recent form has been a long way short of his best

Oh boo-hoo. You asserted he'd average 50 in the Shield and when I demonstrate that there's no evidence to support that assertion you want to change the goalposts.

So anyway what are you talking about higher level? Since when did tour games become competitive? Tests are a higher level. Tour games are glorified centre wicket practice and always have been. It's great to make runs or take wickets in them and selectors obviously use them to give potential selections a chance to show what they can do, but the idea that a performance in a tour match is more valuable than what you do in competitive Shield matches is bunk.

A couple of 50s against a Div 2 Northants attack featuring such fearsome names as Wigley, Lucas, Brooks (on debut), White (called up for his first fc game in a year, the previous one being a tour match against NZ which was also his only fc match in a year) and Willey (debut season) is nice, but it ain't a higher level than Shield. I'll give him the 100* against South Africa A way back in 02 and the twin tons against the Indian Board XI back in 10, not quite test quality attacks, but solid fc quality. But the games are still virtually meaningless practice matches. He was certainly in his best form around that 2010 tour which he backed up with the ton in the test after, but he's been pretty much **** since the end of that year. Hardly the support for the idea that this 'higher level' success has been recent.

Again this is all a distraction. As I've pointed out it is your assertion that Watson would be Bossing around the Shield bowlers and averaging 50, not mine. He never has and in the form of the last two years he'd be no chance at all. No one is saying he would instantly drop down the pecking order below the likes of Forrest or something stupid like that, just that he isn't Mr Dependable, and he hasn't ever been. Frankly a good summer of playing Shield could be just what he needs. If he did come out and Boss the comp then sure put him back in the Test side. I don't think he's up to it though. He's a short order cook now. White ball or bust pretty much, and even that hasn't been as productive as it once was. If he's bowling then that would get him a lot leeway even from me, but as a batsman he doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[benchmark00]

I forgot Chris Rogers, the great white hope of Australia, has been playing against the Windies pacemen circa 1985.

 

[Burgey]

They're both junk. Just one of them occasionally bowls.