*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

[social]

Australia potentially has a pace attack to rival almost any in history

Unfortunately our batting, Clarke aside, rivals Bangladesh

Can see us winning one test WACA style but our batting will almost definitely ensure that we wont win the series

 

[GIMH]

I doubt he'll play either way. Down the pecking order IMO. Assuming no one gets injured, it'll be Anderson-Broad-Finn.

Plenty of time for Tremlett to get himself back in that first choice attack, I think he will.

Onions has started the season well as well, but he's probably 6th choice at the min

 

[flibbertyjibber]

If Harris stays fit and spearheads your attack with Pattinson we might get a 3 day test somewhere as both attacks look the strength of each side. England have more reliable bats in the top 7 though, would say Cook, KP, Trott and Prior v Clarke is a mismatch. Australia need Warner and Haddin to have brilliant series and one of the other bats to stand up which hasn't happened before.

 

[Spark]

If Harris stays fit and spearheads your attack with Pattinson we might get a 3 day test somewhere as both attacks look the strength of each side. England have more reliable bats in the top 7 though, would say Cook, KP, Trott and Prior v Clarke is a mismatch. Australia need Warner and Haddin to have brilliant series and one of the other bats to stand up which hasn't happened before.

This is actually why I'm hesitant to totally write us off yet, because when you get a bowler-dominated series like this might be (I'm not going to say it will be after Eng vs SA and Aus vs SA last year...) then the margins between winning and losing become very fine. If 300, 320 becomes a matchwinning first innings total, it doesn't need everyone in the top seven to make a sizeable contribution for that to happen.

 

[GIMH]

This is actually why I'm hesitant to totally write us off yet, because when you get a bowler-dominated series like this might be (I'm not going to say it will be after Eng vs SA and Aus vs SA last year...) then the margins between winning and losing become very fine. If 300, 320 becomes a matchwinning first innings total, it doesn't need everyone in the top seven to make a sizeable contribution for that to happen.

Yeah, a Clarke or Pietersen (or whoever) special can make all the difference in those cases.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Don't think the Rogers/Khawaja comparison has much stock, to be honest.

 

[adub]

I have seen Rogers play in first class cricket extensively.

So you'll have seen the **** score more runs than just about anyone else you've seen seeing as he's now 14th all time highest run scorer in the Shield and of those above him only Lehmann, Bevan, Jones and Langer have better averages, and only Lehmann, Bevan, Elliott and Jones have scored more tons. In fact Bradman and those 4 are the only other players with more Shield tons than Rogers (Siddons and Cox equal on 30).

Or maybe you're just looking at the last 5 years of so...

Where of course if you were watching a lot of first class cricket you have seen Rogers score more runs than everyone else bar Klinger (3577 v 3600) Hughes 3402, Bailey 2805, Hartley 2782, Quiney 2763, Cosgrove 2751, Cowan 2713, D Hussey 2687, Voges 2569, Khawaja 2534, Doolan 2450, Wade 2257, DJ Harris 2220, Robinson 2185, Ferguson 2106,
Broad 2043 are the only others with more than 2000 in the last 5 seasons.

You'll have seen him score them at a better average (49.68) than everyone bar Hughes (52.34) of guys who've scored more than 1500 runs. Ponting, Love and Hodge are the only others with a better average. Khawaja (48.73) surprised me by coming in next, followed by Wade (46.06), McDonald (45.50), Smith (44.49), Klinger (44.44), Cosgrove (44.37), Cowan (43.76), Thornely (43.19), D Hussey (42.65), Katich (41.74), Haddin (41.41), Burns (40.22) and Quiney (40.04) being the only guys with averages over 40 in the last 5 seasons.

You no doubt would have enjoyed watching Rogers score more Shield centuries (13 including 6 in the last two seasons) than anyone else as well. Hughes with 11 clearly next with Klinger, Cowan, Bailey (8), Khawaja, Cosgrove, D Hussey, Quiney (7), McDonald, Ferguson, Hartley, Forrest, Broad, North (6), Ponting, Smith, Burns (5), Wade, Katich, Voges, Harris, Doolan, Townsend (4), Hodge, Love, Rohrer, Nevil, Manou, White, Lynn, Maddinson, Jaques, Davis, Ronchi (3).

He doesn't go to bad for a guy with the massive weaknesses to his game you've identified does he? You really should contract yourself out as a consultant to Shield bowlers so you can pass on the secrets of how to get the **** out, because they sure seem to struggle to unlock the secret.

There is of course one name strangely absent from the above lists though isn't there. How is it that the outrageously talented SE Marsh can't jag a mention in any of the lists of most runs, best averages, or most tons? Well the fact he's a crock who spends more time injured (or dropped for disciplinary issues) might have something to do with it, but that doesn't explain the less than average average now does it? In the past 5 years 35 guys have scored more tons, including guys like Martin Love and Brad Hodge who've been retired since 2009, and absolute crud like Davis. Paine is about the only regular keeper who hasn't score more tons FFS. 22 guys have a better average over the past 5 years where no one has scored 100) runs in a season since back in 08/09 (that was Rogers btw). 32 guys have scored more runs. But this guy should be in the Test squad?

Now it could be that you are absolutely right and your superior cricket knowledge from us mere mortals who think statistics might provide a handy guide for assessing the relative merits of cricketers has identified the failure of Chris Rogers before it happens. You could well be right and Rogers will be proved a clown promoted far above his station and not the solid pro with a good chance of making a decent fist of test cricket we who aren't blessed with your insight think he is. You could also be right that Marsh is but a step down from the second coming of Christ himself and not the total **** his record indicates he is (maybe you should slip a few tips on how to bowl to Marsh's strengths so that he isn't getting out cheaply so often as a kind of 2 for 1 deal with your how to get Rogers out consultancy). You could be absolutely correct about all of these things.

But Occam's Razor leads me to assume the simplest answer is in fact the correct answer, and the simplest answer is that Rogers has been far and away one of the best and most consistent batsmen in the Shield for the past 5 seasons (and many seasons before that), Shaun Marsh is an over rated fraud who should never have been anywhere near the Test side and probably wouldn't have been if his name was Jones, and your ability to pick talent just on how they look and without reference to how many runs they actually make is wildly overstated.

 

[benchmark00]

And all those names you've mentioned have had glowing and successful test careers!

 

[benchmark00]

I mean, it's seriously the most stupidly irrelevant post. When have I denied he's be prolific at FC level? Pull your head in.

 

[marc71178]

I doubt he'll play either way. Down the pecking order IMO. Assuming no one gets injured, it'll be Anderson-Broad-Finn.

I'd not be so sure on Finn - depends a lot on how the operation has done for Bresnan and could see him back in the team if bowling back how he was pre-injury.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd be surprised, the hierarchy in England seem to be giving Finn every chance, and he'll be bowling in One Day stuff which he's suited to beforehand to keep the momentum.

I don't think that the lay down is there that Bressie will come back bowling just how he was pre-injury that quickly, either.

 

[benchmark00]

Finn will get first crack, but I think Tremlett will play a role in the series.

 

[adub]

The point quite clearly is that most of those name haven't had prolific test records (or even fc records) and yet they all perform better than that **** Marsh you have such a hard on for.

And that's because he's a ****, and he will always be a ****.

I don't get to sit at the MCG watching every Rogers innings, but I catch the streams when I can. I see him score big often. I don't see Marsh because he's back in the sheds or not at the ground. Your visual evidence isn't worth **** when it leads you to think a solid bat like Rogers has massive weakness but a total **** like Marsh is a talent. Pull your own head in.

 

[benchmark00]

The point quite clearly is that most of those name haven't had prolific test records (or even fc records) and yet they all perform better than that **** Marsh you have such a hard on for.

And that's because he's a ****, and he will always be a ****.

I don't get to sit at the MCG watching every Rogers innings, but I catch the streams when I can. I see him score big often. I don't see Marsh because he's back in the sheds or not at the ground. Your visual evidence isn't worth **** when it leads you to think a solid bat like Rogers has massive weakness but a total **** like Marsh is a talent. Pull your own head in.

Ah so this isn't actually about Rogers at all, this is about Marsh? How about you read my posts about Marsh going back a long way, having a massive teary like you've just done because I said Marsh has talent and is better suited for the test middle order when in form than Rogers is just makes you look stupid.

Would love for you to find where I said Marsh should walk in to the XI, or when I even said he should be in the squad. I said I'd be happy for him to be in the squad and would like to see him play if he can prove he is in the right form.

Absolute clown posting. Oh oh oh but Rogers has made runs at FC level so you're wrong to say he isn't right for the Australian test middle order!!!!!!!!

 

[social]

Ah so this isn't actually about Rogers at all, this is about Marsh? How about you read my posts about Marsh going back a long way, having a massive teary like you've just done because I said Marsh has talent and is better suited for the test middle order when in form than Rogers is just makes you look stupid.

Would love for you to find where I said Marsh should walk in to the XI, or when I even said he should be in the squad. I said I'd be happy for him to be in the squad and would like to see him play if he can prove he is in the right form.

Absolute clown posting. Oh oh oh but Rogers has made runs at FC level so you're wrong to say he isn't right for the Australian test middle order!!!!!!!!

Why are you assuming that Rogers has been picked as a middle order batsman?

Tbh, havent heard anyone, anywhere venture this theory

 

[benchmark00]

Why are you assuming that Rogers has been picked as a middle order batsman?

Tbh, havent heard anyone, anywhere venture this theory

That's the point, Rogers isn't a better opener than (in no order) Cowan, Hughes, Warner or Watson. Meaning he should be (not that he will be) competing for a middle order spot, not an opening spot. Marsh is a better middle order batsman than Rogers.

Anyone who has been following my posting on this topic will tell you I've been consistent with this. But hey, bring up how many runs Rogers has made at FC level, that will get you everywhere.

 

[adub]

Ha, you really are the self appointed genius aren't you. What it's about is that you've stuck it up people who have looked at the stats and made the far from ground breaking discovery that a guy like Rogers should be in the squad every day of the week and twice on Sunday before Marsh (or Ferguson, or any of the other numpties that get their names floated). It was you who pulled the 'hey I've watched Rogers he's got nuthin' BS, and insinuated that you are the superior judge and those plumping for Rogers to make the side are just stats counters without your refined cricketing knowledge. When you push for a bum like Marsh, well others of us who have watched several decades worth of cricket will question just how much value your wonderous non-stats based insight is really worth.

I don't think anyone is pushing for Rogers in the middle order, but even if he did end up there it would hardly be the first instance of an opener succeeding lower down (or the other way round). If our best 6 bats are all Shield openers then pick them and worry about the order later. I'd back Rogers to make a better fist of it than just about any other option we have because for all the ugliness of his method he knows it inside out and it works. Selecting Marsh the only worries would be who you have ready to come in when he either breaks down or his failures get too numerous to overlook.

Thankfully we don't have to worry about it as the selectors were able to tell the difference between an old pro who can make a valuable contribution and an over rated **** with injury and disciplinary problems, even if you can't. It's refreshing seeing a squad selected that is largely based on how well they have performed, rather than the pick and hope on 'potential' or 'style' rubbish we've seen far too much lately. I'll be looking forward to seeing Rogers getting a game and hoping he can bring a little of his fc qualities into the top level. We will be sending about the strongest possible squad to take on England which is something I don't believe we've been able to say for the past two Ashes series. With a bit of luck and a couple of batsmen stepping up we can actually win this. The Poms will underestimate this side at their peril.

 

[Prince EWS]

I actually think Rogers is a better opener than Cowan. I don't think dropping the latter for the former is a particularly great idea at the moment though.

 

[dermo]

gunna be so lols if rogers doesn't even play a test

 

[benchmark00]

Ha, you really are the self appointed genius aren't you. What it's about is that you've stuck it up people who have looked at the stats and made the far from ground breaking discovery that a guy like Rogers should be in the squad every day of the week and twice on Sunday before Marsh (or Ferguson, or any of the other numpties that get their names floated). It was you who pulled the 'hey I've watched Rogers he's got nuthin' BS, and insinuated that you are the superior judge and those plumping for Rogers to make the side are just stats counters without your refined cricketing knowledge. When you push for a bum like Marsh, well others of us who have watched several decades worth of cricket will question just how much value your wonderous non-stats based insight is really worth.

I don't think anyone is pushing for Rogers in the middle order, but even if he did end up there it would hardly be the first instance of an opener succeeding lower down (or the other way round). If our best 6 bats are all Shield openers then pick them and worry about the order later. I'd back Rogers to make a better fist of it than just about any other option we have because for all the ugliness of his method he knows it inside out and it works. Selecting Marsh the only worries would be who you have ready to come in when he either breaks down or his failures get too numerous to overlook.

Thankfully we don't have to worry about it as the selectors were able to tell the difference between an old pro who can make a valuable contribution and an over rated **** with injury and disciplinary problems, even if you can't. It's refreshing seeing a squad selected that is largely based on how well they have performed, rather than the pick and hope on 'potential' or 'style' rubbish we've seen far too much lately. I'll be looking forward to seeing Rogers getting a game and hoping he can bring a little of his fc qualities into the top level. We will be sending about the strongest possible squad to take on England which is something I don't believe we've been able to say for the past two Ashes series. With a bit of luck and a couple of batsmen stepping up we can actually win this. The Poms will underestimate this side at their peril.

Lol keep with the Marsh and Rogers comparisons.