SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
On the basis of an opener, I think he's good. He's no Chris Rogers thoughYes, but his career average was 45. He spent his prime opening. A bit like Langer, his overall average under sold how good he was as an opener.
On the basis of an opener, I think he's good. He's no Chris Rogers thoughYes, but his career average was 45. He spent his prime opening. A bit like Langer, his overall average under sold how good he was as an opener.
Rogers was a 100 test cricketer if he wasn't an Australian at that particular point in time.On the basis of an opener, I think he's good. He's no Chris Rogers though
I feel like we say this about a lot of players, a lotRogers was a 100 test cricketer if he wasn't an Australian at that particular point in time.
Comparing a guy who played 24 tests after he was 35 (and one when he was 30) and averaged 43 to a guy who played 58 tests in his prime and averaged the same isn't really fair.stephen says that about a lot of players, usually Australian.
Chris Rogers was a likeable guy but he was about as good as Gambhir, basically.
There's no nomination process this timeIf Graeme Smith is not already in, I would like to nominate him. And Gary Kirsten.
tbf he's usually rightstephen says that about a lot of players, usually Australian.
Gary Kirsten is a much better choice than GibbsIf Graeme Smith is not already in, I would like to nominate him. And Gary Kirsten.
Always forget about that guy, and how good he was. Peaked late though. He's one guy who you probably couldn't say "if he wasn't Australian blah blah blah" because he wasn't much good until a year or 2 before he was picked then his career ended because he was unfit for cricketComparing a guy who played 24 tests after he was 35 (and one when he was 30) and averaged 43 to a guy who played 58 tests in his prime and averaged the same isn't really fair.
Rogers was a gun batsman who couldn't get a game because he was competing against guys who were averaging 50 at test level and then against guys who were being fast tracked with youth policies. By the time he got his second test (the first was injury cover) he was past his prime. He played for 3 years and averaged 43 in test cricket, including averaging almost 50 in England over 10 tests.
The guy made 76 first class hundreds. He was a gun who happened to be in an era of ridiculous depth for Australia.
He and Jaques are both really unlucky not to have played a lot more tests. And both are the last couple of players to be in that category for Australia. Love, Law, Bevan etc... were the early victims of the super strong Australian domestic competition. Rogers was the last.
Ehhh, wouldn't say he was a late bloomer. If anything he peaked too early - his career was effectively done by the time he turned 30.Always forget about that guy, and how good he was. Peaked late though. He's one guy who you probably couldn't say "if he wasn't Australian blah blah blah" because he wasn't much good until a year or 2 before he was picked then his career ended because he was unfit for cricket
Geoffrey Boycott loved saying "my nan could hit that with a stick of rhubarb". Not entirely certain in what context though.What's the grandmother cricketer joke
Jaques was good enough pretty early on tbf.tbf he's usually right
Gary Kirsten is a much better choice than Gibbs
Always forget about that guy, and how good he was. Peaked late though. He's one guy who you probably couldn't say "if he wasn't Australian blah blah blah" because he wasn't much good until a year or 2 before he was picked then his career ended because he was unfit for cricket
He had a very short window though. He burst on to the first-class scene and then was around about the Aussie side within a couple of years.Ehhh, wouldn't say he was a late bloomer. If anything he peaked too early - his career was effectively done by the time he turned 30.
But yeah he probably would've only played 20 more Tests than what he actually did if he wasn't Australian.
He was demanding a limited overs spot from as early as 05 though when he scored 4 limited overs hundreds and averaged 90+ in the season (and was averaging over 50 in fc cricket too at that point).He had a very short window though. He burst on to the first-class scene and then was around about the Aussie side within a couple of years.
Basically the opposite of Rogers or Hussey who were first-class stars for like 15 years
you say "early" as '05, but then he played his last test in '08.He was demanding a limited overs spot from as early as 05 though when he scored 4 limited overs hundreds and averaged 90+ in the season (and was averaging over 50 in fc cricket too at that point).
You're right though that he didn't wait as long as some.