*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

[the big bambino]

Rogers scored a pair of 50s (the 2nd one not out) in Middx 10 w win over Notts. He put on 2 century opening stands with Robson who seems to have chosen England according to Rogers.

We're desperate and Rogers should be in the squad for the ashes. Cricinfo were also boosting Voges but his shield record was poor but better than Bailey's. It'd be weird to see either in the squad ahead of Rogers when the only justification for it would be their ltd over records. And thats no justification at all. Expect it to happen.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Bailey's got the mentality for Test cricket I feel more than some of the more recent picks for Aus, he'd tough it out more than trying to go for the flashy stuff asap I reckon.

That or I keep forgetting that despite looking like Collingwood under the lid he isn't.

 

[Maximas]

Rogers scored a pair of 50s (the 2nd one not out) in Middx 10 w win over Notts. He put on 2 century opening stands with Robson who seems to have chosen England according to Rogers.

We're desperate and Rogers should be in the squad for the ashes. Cricinfo were also boosting Voges but his shield record was poor but better than Bailey's. It'd be weird to see either in the squad ahead of Rogers when the only justification for it would be their ltd over records. And thats no justification at all. Expect it to happen.

Couldn't have put it better myself, sums up the current selection panel perfectly.

 

[benchmark00]

Sums up current CW selection opinions that they're advocating selecting Rogers despite there being four better openers than him currently in the team.

 

[Valer]

Sums up current CW selection opinions that they're advocating selecting Rogers despite there being four better openers than him currently in the team.

5.

I'd bet on Clarke making runs out of position than rogers...
(+ the four players who have actually opened more than 1 innings).

 

[the big bambino]

Apart from Warner I'm wondering who the other 3 better openers are. Cowan is about as good as he will ever be and that isn't good enough to make him a monty over Rogers. Watson's form has been terrible and his position in the side in unsettled at best. Some are gearing him to a lower middle order spot so he can give an emphasis to his bowling.

Then there's Hughes whose form is dodgy. Besides we want to make him our permanent no.3 don't we? Or thats the impression Micky Arthur gave just before he made his return. Whats the point in moving him to opener if the situation arose? We'd just give him a new brief even before he settled his present one. Then we'd need another no.3. That'd increase the pressure on Clarke to leave a position where he's made a mountain to one where he's made a molehill.

It might seem we have a heap of openers but really we don't have many options. Thats why I favour Rogers in the squad to act as the replacement opener without disturbing Hughes (or Clarke) or confusing Watson even more about his role. Whatever the hell that happens to be now.

 

[Spark]

Wait, are we thinking of Clarke as the incumbent #5 or #3? No one in the establishment has cleared that up afaik

 

[adub]

I'd love to know also who the 4 better bats than Rogers in the current side are. Starc, Siddle, Pattinson and Clarke? Still leaves plenty of room for a batsman who's averaged 50 for a long long time at fc level.

 

[benchmark00]

Ok if you want to include Starc, Siddle and Pattinson there are 9 batsmen in the Australian team better than Rogers. Are you happy?

 

[benchmark00]

Wait, are we thinking of Clarke as the incumbent #5 or #3? No one in the establishment has cleared that up afaik

Clarke's 5 in non sub continental conditions.

 

[Maximas]

4 better openers than Rogers? I wouldn't rate any of them ahead of him purely on FC stats, except for Hughes maybe, but his form against quality bowlers is not great.

 

[benchmark00]

4 better openers than Rogers? I wouldn't rate any of them ahead of him purely on FC stats, except for Hughes maybe, but his form against quality bowlers is not great.

The crux of the matter here.

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

 

[chaminda_00]

The crux of the matter here.

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

He looks better then Cowan and looks more like at proper Test batsmen then Hughes and Warner. Has far better shot selection then Watson.

So yes to all when it comes to looking better.

Though the Rogers' as a worse Australian domestic FC record then Warner and Hughes when you included Australia A games. Which is Rogers' biggest issue is his record for Australia A compared to other options.

If you can score runs for Australia A, why will he score runs for Australia. Though he has only played 7 matches and the last was a couple years back.

Deserves a chance over Cowan at the very least, as Cowan will never be Test standard.

 

[benchmark00]

You are genuinely kidding yourself if you think he looks better than those players. The only thing Rogers has going for him is his weight of runs, he looks complete garbage when you watch him bat, and doesn't have a technique which will translate to higher level success, that's why he can't make runs at A level.

 

[Maximas]

only time I saw Rogers was against India in his only test 5 years ago, however Hughes also has a garbage looking technique and he has had some success at test level. Weight of runs is the most important factor in selection IMO, he has had to play on some dicey wickets in the last few SS seasons and he still has a decent average. So I don;t see why he shouldn't get a go particularly with the inexperience we have in the team.

 

[chaminda_00]

You are genuinely kidding yourself if you think he looks better than those players. The only thing Rogers has going for him is his weight of runs, he looks complete garbage when you watch him bat, and doesn't have a technique which will translate to higher level success, that's why he can't make runs at A level.

What are actually looking for when your judging players. I hear the argument so often when judging players he looks good, he looks poor. It is so subjective.

I personally don't think he has poor technique compared to the average modern Test cricketer. Maybe he has some slight weakness which is why he failed at A level. But he shown his temperament gets around those weakness. Which Warner, Watson and Hughes haven't shown signs off yet.

 

[benchmark00]

only time I saw Rogers was against India in his only test 5 years ago, however Hughes also has a garbage looking technique and he has had some success at test level. Weight of runs is the most important factor in selection IMO, he has had to play on some dicey wickets in the last few SS seasons and he still has a decent average. So I don;t see why he shouldn't get a go particularly with the inexperience we have in the team.

You seem to have forgotten the performances of the others in SS. For some reason Rogers' runs are more valuable...

If the last you saw of Rogers was 5 years ago, if he does get selected for Australia you're in for a big shock...

 

[Maximas]

You seem to have forgotten the performances of the others in SS. For some reason Rogers' runs are more valuable...

If the last you saw of Rogers was 5 years ago, if he does get selected for Australia you're in for a big shock...

The others in the SS? well Rogers averaged 49 from 10 games, 9th overall best average. Of those above him, 2 are in the test team, another is a keeper, one is retired, one played 2 games and one is Jason Krejza. That leaves us with Jordan Silk and Moises Henriques. Silk only played three games, and he isn't ready for an Ashes tour yet, while Henriques has done his reputation some harm in India.

I just don't see why a guy averaging 49 in FC cricket with years of experience wouldn't be of value to the Aus cricket team right now, leaving aside A team performances and technique questions. I do agree however that I'm talking about somebody who I haven't seen a lot of.

 

[benchmark00]

I mean the players in the Australian team. Their SS record.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.