Ed Cowan

[Doodlesweaver]

Because he wants to play with mates apparently.

That's what I would have thought. In the end, he might find it unsatisfying.

 

[DaRick]

Pretty consistent and pretty good at seeing off the new ball.

Problem is that his average was in the low 30's and he'd invariably score 20-30 before getting out. It was as if he'd lose concentration after a while.

Another issue was that Chris Rogers was just as consistent and significantly better performed. It was always unlikely that Cowan would regain his spot in the side with that in mind, especially since he apparently had issues fitting into the team.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Cowan's extended run was mostly down to the fact that he complimented Warner well - their partnership was always one of the most productive in world cricket.

Granted he didn't contribute a lot of those runs, but that wasn't really his primary job. At the time he was dropped he averaged 76 balls an innings to Warner's 56, which was where his real value sat. You need at least one of your openers to reliably see off the new nut, especially when your middle order is as fragile as ours was in those days.

I'd be interested to see how often Cowan batted out the first session of a Test, as opposed to Warner. I suspect it would be a favourable comparison.

Realistically though, that sort of Test opener is pretty old-school - he was always on borrowed time averaging under 35.

He didn't get big scores, but didn't fail all that often either - which at the time I felt should have been enough to keep him in a very fragile side. From memory only in his last Test did he fail twice; and he should not have played that game due to illness. there were others where he failed in his only innings. The issue was he didn't score quickly enough the modern day where marketability is at least as important as results, wasn't as brain dead as much of the team, and crucially couldn't put big scores together to get a higher average.

 

[The_Reaper]

He didn't get big scores, but didn't fail all that often either - which at the time I felt should have been enough to keep him in a very fragile side. From memory only in his last Test did he fail twice; and he should not have played that game due to illness. there were others where he failed in his only innings. The issue was he didn't score quickly enough the modern day where marketability is at least as important as results, wasn't as brain dead as much of the team, and crucially couldn't put big scores together to get a higher average.

Issue was that Rogers was just a better batsman than Cowan.

 

[Phone]

the issue was that they picked the most in form player and, surprise, that didn't mean squat in the end

of course, the way he was dropped was hot garbage

 

[Blue1980]

Issue was that Rogers was just a better batsman than Cowan.

Rogers should of been picked around 2011 or so, would of been much better than Cowan and Co