Who should replace Chris Rogers in the test team?

[Sweet Jesus]

Ok so if batting orders are so irrelevant why not have Brad Haddin and Steve Smith open in the next Test series.

I didn't say they were irrelevant to a team. I said that the difference made by moving one position in the order – when discussing a batsman's ability to score runs – is over-stated.

Surely you grasp the difference?

Is that an opinion? Fact? Circumstantial evidence? Anecdote?

His lack of runs are a fact.

It's not that hard, mate.

You must be hard to have a conversation with in real life

For people who talk rubbish, I imagine that's true.

 

[Natho]

Love to see bancroft get a gig but hes not ready yet. Silk looks pretty good too. But it'll be burns for the time being.

 

[The_Reaper]

Yet Cowan scored run for most of the season. Unfortunately did little in the final few games, which will have ruled him out given the strong preference for more attacking batsmen.
Unfortunately there is no real ready-made replacement. Whoever gets runs at the start of next summer, especially if they come off a strong 2014/15, has to be looked at. From memory, I don't think Australia has another Test series between the Ashes and the home summer.

Two test tour of Bangladesh

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Silk looks pretty good too.

He passes 'the eye test'.

 

[BEaston]

Yet Cowan scored run for most of the season. Unfortunately did little in the final few games, which will have ruled him out given the strong preference for more attacking batsmen.

He scored at the highest SR of most of the top scoring batsmen this season didn't he? Seems to have changed his plodding style.

He's easily the best option to me. At least for a couple of years until Burns is ready.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

He scored at the highest SR of most of the top scoring batsmen this season didn't he? Seems to have changed his plodding style.

He's easily the best option to me. At least for a couple of years until Burns is ready.

He never had a plodding style. He was just performing the role that the team needed from him. He is an excellent stroke maker when he bats with an open mind.

 

[the_interloper]

I didn't say they were irrelevant to a team. I said that the difference made by moving one position in the order – when discussing a batsman's ability to score runs – is over-stated.

Surely you grasp the difference?

I disagree, I think going from opening to number 3 and vice versa is a huge difference to be honest, and i think a lot of cricketers would agree with me.

His lack of runs are a fact.

It's not that hard, mate.

You like to make simple things hard though so i needed to try and clarify.

For people who talk rubbish, I imagine that's true.

So not me then obviously?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I disagree, I think going from opening to number 3 and vice versa is a huge difference to be honest

Why?

You certainly don't give a batsman a pass for not scoring runs just because he's changed his spot in the order.

You like to make simple things hard though so i needed to try and clarify.

Maybe you should stop saying stupid things and we won't have a problem.

 

[the_interloper]

Why?

You certainly don't give a batsman a pass for not scoring runs just because he's changed his spot in the order.

You might move them back to their original spot though and give them a chance to regain form. You have clearly never played cricket at any decent level that's for sure.

Maybe you should stop saying stupid things and we won't have a problem.

What facts do you have which prove I have said anything stupid?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You might move them back to their original spot though and give them a chance to regain form.

You might.

But you probably shouldn't insist on promoting them to the Test side when they're not scoring runs.

What facts do you have which prove I have said anything stupid?

The statements themselves suffice.

 

[Run n Spread]

For all the sh*& he cops about his 9 if you are picking on form Quiney would at least be mentioned as he is one of the in form openers behind Cowan. Even if not really a realistic proposition for selection he is in form as a specialist opener.

To answer the question I will say Cowan/Harris or Silk leaning to Silk due to the opportunity and need to bed down the position long term.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

For all the sh*& he cops about his 9 if you are picking on form Quiney would at least be mentioned as he is one of the in form openers behind Cowan. Even if not really a realistic proposition for selection he is in form as a specialist opener.

To answer the question I will say Cowan/Harris or Silk leaning to Silk due to the opportunity and need to bed down the position long term.

Doesn't Silk need time to bed down in first class cricket first as he's hardly breaking the test cricket door down?

 

[Run n Spread]

Doesn't Silk need time to bed down in first class cricket first as he's hardly breaking the test cricket door down?

Maybe go with Cowan/Quiney then. I'm at a loss (seriously). In that there are those who argue get the kids in vs it is simply the best 11 not a rebuild side. In reality it is a bit of both as yep every series is mega but you can't expect people to perform right away at that level as the jump is huge for most. Look at Smith, Bell. Considered hacks at first now leading the way. So at a loss could go young but then again a lot of spots will open up in the next year or 2 so may need an experienced head Rogers style. Could be Cowan/Quiney/even Voges who knows?

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Maybe go with Cowan/Quiney then. I'm at a loss (seriously). In that there are those who argue get the kids in vs it is simply the best 11 not a rebuild side. In reality it is a bit of both as yep every series is mega but you can't expect people to perform right away at that level as the jump is huge for most. Look at Smith, Bell. Considered hacks at first now leading the way. So at a loss could go young but then again a lot of spots will open up in the next year or 2 so may need an experienced head Rogers style. Could be Cowan/Quiney/even Voges who knows?

Rogers may not be going anywhere just yet. He's hardly going to be in a mad rush to retire, he will want every bite of this belated apple that he can get.

It will be up to the selectors to turf him out.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Doesn't Silk need time to bed down in first class cricket first as he's hardly breaking the test cricket door down?

Nah, mate. He 'passes the eye test'.

And he didn't get to open this season so his lack of runs doesn't count.

Rogers may not be going anywhere just yet. He's hardly going to be in a mad rush to retire, he will want every bite of this belated apple that he can get.

It will be up to the selectors to turf him out.

Gone after the Ashes, I reckon.

 

[The_Reaper]

For all the sh*& he cops about his 9 if you are picking on form Quiney would at least be mentioned as he is one of the in form openers behind Cowan. Even if not really a realistic proposition for selection he is in form as a specialist opener.

To answer the question I will say Cowan/Harris or Silk leaning to Silk due to the opportunity and need to bed down the position long term.

Surely Bancroft is actually the form opener.

Though I wouldn't advocate bringing in Bancroft just yet. But he'd be better value than Quiney

 

[PaddyO]

Rogers is definitely retiring post Ashes.

I'd go Khawaja but I feel the selectors dislike him for some reason.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Two test tour of Bangladesh

Ah. That's what I was forgetting.

In that case, I still don't know. Voges can open, but I've got him slotted in for three in the West Indies and hopefully beyond. Despite a disappointing end to the season after being very good for the first six games or so, maybe Cowan. But I still think the selectors would opt for someone, almost anyone, else (actually, they will probably bump Watson back up to open).

I like the little I've seen of Marcus Harris, but his numbers suggest he has to be a long, long way off consideration. Burns, to me, is better in the middle order. Silk is coming off a bad year and cannot be considered. Klinger maybe, but I can't see the selectors going there simply due to age (as irrelevant as that should be).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Rogers is definitely retiring post Ashes.

I'd go Khawaja but I feel the selectors dislike him for some reason.

Not many FC runs lately.

Ah. That's what I was forgetting.

In that case, I still don't know. Voges can open, but I've got him slotted in for three in the West Indies and hopefully beyond. Despite a disappointing end to the season after being very good for the first six games or so, maybe Cowan. But I still think the selectors would opt for someone, almost anyone, else (actually, they will probably bump Watson back up to open).

I like the little I've seen of Marcus Harris, but his numbers suggest he has to be a long, long way off consideration. Burns, to me, is better in the middle order. Silk is coming off a bad year and cannot be considered. Klinger maybe, but I can't see the selectors going there simply due to age (as irrelevant as that should be).

If Rogers broke both his legs in a BBQing accident tomorrow and was ruled out of the West Indies tour and the Ashes, who would be picked to open the batting?

I'd suggest it would probably be Burns, which suggests he might also be the most likely once Rogers finishes.

 

[Yoda_]

See this is where I disagree. I am always saying you don't change a bloke when he is averaging 60 in a set position. I would MUCH prefer Smith at 4 and get a bloke at number 3 to do a job. We don't need to be shifting Smith all over the place. You don't weaken two positions. It is the same as moving Clarke from 5 was utterly one of the most stupid decisions we made. He is a natural 5, Smith is a natural 4. Get someone at 3 that is a natural 3. Burns is probably that person actually.

Clarke averages 56 at number 5 (12 not outs including his mega 329*)
Clarke averages 54 at number 4 (3 not outs)



Has Steve Smith batting at 3 over the summer not shown he is capable there? Even our most prolific run scorer [Ricky Ponting] was pretty damn good at number 6 (ave. 49) before shifting to no. 3 and averaging 56.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Yoda_]

Any of these guys heading over for county cricket?

Would be a massive audition for them if they got across


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Even our most prolific run scorer [Ricky Ponting] was pretty damn good at number 6 (ave. 49) before shifting to no. 3 and averaging 56.

Nah mate. LukeParkerno1 says don't change it if it's working.

 

[The_Reaper]

Any of these guys heading over for county cricket?

Would be a massive audition for them if they got across


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aaron Finch

 

[Yoda_]

Aaron Finch

Disappointing none of those aforementioned guys aren't going over to ply there trade early


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BEaston]

Clarke averages 56 at number 5 (12 not outs including his mega 329*)
Clarke averages 54 at number 4 (3 not outs)



Has Steve Smith batting at 3 over the summer not shown he is capable there? Even our most prolific run scorer [Ricky Ponting] was pretty damn good at number 6 (ave. 49) before shifting to no. 3 and averaging 56.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not sure where you got your numbers from but Clarke averages 61 @ 5 but only 31 @ 4.