Middlesex v Surrey, Lord's, 4th day May 5, 2013

Rogers double century wows selectors

Vithushan Ehantharajah at Lord's
  shares 28

Surrey 338 (Burns 114, Murtagh 3-54) and 85 for 1 drew with Middlesex 166 (de Bruyn 3-32) and 514 for 8 dec. (Rogers 214, Robson 129)
Scorecard

A day that could have provided a potential nail-bitter petered out into a draw but not before Middlesex captain Chris Rogers wowed the crowd as he scored a double century of contrasting batsmanship.

Beginning the day on 113 not out, he reached his ninth double century of his career with some astonishing hitting that would have John Inverarity sitting back in his chair with a quiet, yet visible satisfaction.

"Mickey Arthur sent me a text last night saying 'well batted - save some runs for the summer'," a content Rogers revealed, Fosters can in hand. While you might question his drink of choice - Corey Collymore had a pint of stout - there's no questioning the wisdom in Australia plumping for an opening batsmen more comfortable in his own skin than many. That being said, he did make a run back to the dressing room for a cap when he was needed on camera.

"I'm in a good place and my game feels in pretty good order," he told ESPNcricinfo. "But to be fair, the pitch was pretty flat when we were asked to bat on it again. Maybe we were lucky in that respect but you've still got to make things count."

As it stands he averages over 50 in first-class games at three of the five venues that England and Australia will frequent later this summer. But even the familiarity, especially here on what has been his home since 2011, is much ado about nothing.

"It's a nice thing to have that familiarity with the grounds but it'll mean nothing in the Ashes," Rogers said. "Mostly because I'll have a whole new set of nerves; I've been waiting for the opportunity to play Test cricket again for so long that now it's just a case of taking it. I've got to be honest, it's a chance I never thought I'd have again."

It was a quite astonishing climb to 200 from his starting point this morning. The remaining 69 runs came off just 53 balls and featured 11 boundaries. The hundred partnership he shared with Dawid Malan, who made 47, took 76 balls and looked like it might afford Middlesex enough time and runs to go all out to take 10 Surrey wickets.

Having left the short ball yesterday, Rogers started taking them on, even against Dernbach, whose skiddier bouncers had Rogers twice ducking for cover. When he dispatched Tim Linley for six over square leg - the first maximum of the match - it took him to 175 and past his previous highest score for Middlesex. Another six, this time of Zander de Bruyn, took him to 194 before he went on to bring up his double ton.

Starting, essentially, at 111 for 2 this morning, Middlesex lost Steven Finn, though not before the newly fashioned nightwatchman had driven Jade Dernbach quite lavishly through the offside. Dawid Malan strode to the crease and, together with Rogers, ticked the score over; picking up singles with regularity, before something within Rogers stirred.

But when Rogers, Malan and Paul Stirling, for 1 after his first innings golden duck, went before lunch, so did the idea that Middlesex would give Surrey any kind of carrot to chase. Rogers admitted the thought of giving Surrey even a whiff of victory was something he wouldn't entertain.

Post lunch was an odd mish-mash of prodding, swiping and the occasional planting of Vikram Solanki into the grandstand. After a bit of early meandering, Dexter freed his arms to hit the Solanki - whose three overs cost him 34 runs - for three sixes in an over. The first brought up Dexter's half-century; the second took Middlesex past 500.

When Dexter and then Roland-Jones holed out, in a seven ball period that saw Rory Burns and Arun Harinath claim their maiden first class wickets, Rogers called his side in on 514 for 8 - Middlesex's highest score against Surrey at Lord's.

With Surrey 85 for 1, Malan and Stirling bowling in tandem to recalibrate Middlesex's over rate to avoid a penalty, Rogers and Smith - unbeaten on 48 - declared that was that.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Amith_S on | May 6, 2013, 5:22 GMT

    Rogers is doing what Cowan fails to do, go on with his starts. I thank Watto will do well. He did well in England last time, has his confidence up from the IPL and I think has dined on a bit of humble pie. Plus, he's a very good 5th bowler. If he fails this will be his end for test cricket. Khawaja will fire if he is given a chance and i think Warner is also due for a good series.

    I'd play this top 6 for the 1st test.

    1. Rogers 2. Warner 3. Hughes 4. Clarke 5. Khawaja 6. Watson

  • POSTED BY Mary_786 on | May 7, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    @Amith good comments, i like your top 6 but its all on who scores in the games leading up to the first test.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    @ Ducky610

    Had to comment simply because that is my preferred line-up to a T given the squad going to England, and for all the same reasons for Watson, Warner and Khawaja to come in when they do! I think that Warner will be especially dangerous at #4 using his natural aggression to go after the ball when it doesn't do as much. I like Cowan's starts and he has been a consistent player for the past couple of years but he just doesn't go on and is becoming a liability.

  • POSTED BY Ducky610 on | May 7, 2013, 2:36 GMT

    Unfortunatly I dont think they will drop Cowan... I've paid close attention to him in the county matchs and its exactly the same case as in tests, he makes good starts promising to score big and then goes out.... I'd like to see

    1. Watson 2. Rogers 3. Hughes 4. Warner 5. Clarke. 6. Khawaja...

    Simply because if Watson is going to come back it will be opening... Warner at 4 because thats where stroke players (ie. Pieterson, Martyn, Mark Waugh) usually thrive and I'd love to see Warner have a go there. And Khawaja at 6 to play the Mike Hussey role since there is no chance of him coming back However it will most likely be:

    1. Cowan 2. Warner 3. Hughes 4. Watson 5. Clarke 6. Rogers

  • POSTED BY Meety on | May 6, 2013, 23:34 GMT

    @Chris_P on (May 6, 2013, 0:43 GMT) - a couple of things 1) I think Inverarity should be applauded for doing what Hilditch stubbornly refused to do, 2) Send ROgers a case of real beer! Fosters? Who drinks that? @ VillageBlacksmith on (May 6, 2013, 8:09 GMT) - thankfully it is only Arthurs + DiVenuto, (Langar is WA coach). @Batmanian on (May 6, 2013, 13:07 GMT) - Warner has next to zero experience in the middle order, it MAY be the place for him to bat, but after trialling in the Shield (IMO). Until then, he has to be an opener again - IMO!

  • POSTED BY Mitty2 on | May 6, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    @lyndon, i love patto, but i was purely talking about the at home series against India, not anything else!

  • POSTED BY Batmanian on | May 6, 2013, 13:07 GMT

    Aus A games certainly looming large... Rogers will be hard-pressed not to make it now. I would prefer Watson to open (I don't see any point in selecting him elsewhere). Watson, Rogers, Warner, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Haddin, Harris (if fit/otherwise Starc), Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon seems plausible.

    Watson, Cowan, Rogers, Warner, Clarke, Khawaja is another option if they insist on retaining Cowan. I'm confident Khawaja will get another chance because he is POTENTIALLY a non-streaky batsman in a team with a few too many (he is of course ACTUALLY a flaky player, but can grow out of that with a bit of application).

  • POSTED BY Edwards_Anderson on | May 6, 2013, 12:25 GMT

    @Amith I think its guaranted that Watson will play.It will be Cowan, Hughes or Khawaja who may miss out if we go for Rogers. If the selectors are serious, Hughes should be the one to miss out. My prediction is that Khawaja and Haddin will score big in the Aus A games. But as few of your have pointed out there's along time between now and 1st Test. An Australia A tour and a couple of warm up games and whoever scores high in the lead up games will get their spots. It's there positions to be grabbed!

  • POSTED BY Sunil_Batra on | May 6, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    Good work Rogers, a lineup of Rogers, Warner, Khawaja, Hughes, Clarke, Watson looking good for the first test.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 11:18 GMT

    @mitty 2.."and patto showed his potential"

    Patto may have showed his potential in Australia in that series but he showed himself to be a true champion in Chennai with his 5/96. To get penetration on that wicket when everyone else struggled was extroadinary. Imagine a similar such effort on an English greentop. You'ld halve the number of runs scored and almost double the number of wickets with maybe a couple of Englishman retired hurt!

  • POSTED BY Amith_S on | May 6, 2013, 5:22 GMT

    Rogers is doing what Cowan fails to do, go on with his starts. I thank Watto will do well. He did well in England last time, has his confidence up from the IPL and I think has dined on a bit of humble pie. Plus, he's a very good 5th bowler. If he fails this will be his end for test cricket. Khawaja will fire if he is given a chance and i think Warner is also due for a good series.

    I'd play this top 6 for the 1st test.

    1. Rogers 2. Warner 3. Hughes 4. Clarke 5. Khawaja 6. Watson

  • POSTED BY Mary_786 on | May 7, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    @Amith good comments, i like your top 6 but its all on who scores in the games leading up to the first test.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    @ Ducky610

    Had to comment simply because that is my preferred line-up to a T given the squad going to England, and for all the same reasons for Watson, Warner and Khawaja to come in when they do! I think that Warner will be especially dangerous at #4 using his natural aggression to go after the ball when it doesn't do as much. I like Cowan's starts and he has been a consistent player for the past couple of years but he just doesn't go on and is becoming a liability.

  • POSTED BY Ducky610 on | May 7, 2013, 2:36 GMT

    Unfortunatly I dont think they will drop Cowan... I've paid close attention to him in the county matchs and its exactly the same case as in tests, he makes good starts promising to score big and then goes out.... I'd like to see

    1. Watson 2. Rogers 3. Hughes 4. Warner 5. Clarke. 6. Khawaja...

    Simply because if Watson is going to come back it will be opening... Warner at 4 because thats where stroke players (ie. Pieterson, Martyn, Mark Waugh) usually thrive and I'd love to see Warner have a go there. And Khawaja at 6 to play the Mike Hussey role since there is no chance of him coming back However it will most likely be:

    1. Cowan 2. Warner 3. Hughes 4. Watson 5. Clarke 6. Rogers

  • POSTED BY Meety on | May 6, 2013, 23:34 GMT

    @Chris_P on (May 6, 2013, 0:43 GMT) - a couple of things 1) I think Inverarity should be applauded for doing what Hilditch stubbornly refused to do, 2) Send ROgers a case of real beer! Fosters? Who drinks that? @ VillageBlacksmith on (May 6, 2013, 8:09 GMT) - thankfully it is only Arthurs + DiVenuto, (Langar is WA coach). @Batmanian on (May 6, 2013, 13:07 GMT) - Warner has next to zero experience in the middle order, it MAY be the place for him to bat, but after trialling in the Shield (IMO). Until then, he has to be an opener again - IMO!

  • POSTED BY Mitty2 on | May 6, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    @lyndon, i love patto, but i was purely talking about the at home series against India, not anything else!

  • POSTED BY Batmanian on | May 6, 2013, 13:07 GMT

    Aus A games certainly looming large... Rogers will be hard-pressed not to make it now. I would prefer Watson to open (I don't see any point in selecting him elsewhere). Watson, Rogers, Warner, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Haddin, Harris (if fit/otherwise Starc), Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon seems plausible.

    Watson, Cowan, Rogers, Warner, Clarke, Khawaja is another option if they insist on retaining Cowan. I'm confident Khawaja will get another chance because he is POTENTIALLY a non-streaky batsman in a team with a few too many (he is of course ACTUALLY a flaky player, but can grow out of that with a bit of application).

  • POSTED BY Edwards_Anderson on | May 6, 2013, 12:25 GMT

    @Amith I think its guaranted that Watson will play.It will be Cowan, Hughes or Khawaja who may miss out if we go for Rogers. If the selectors are serious, Hughes should be the one to miss out. My prediction is that Khawaja and Haddin will score big in the Aus A games. But as few of your have pointed out there's along time between now and 1st Test. An Australia A tour and a couple of warm up games and whoever scores high in the lead up games will get their spots. It's there positions to be grabbed!

  • POSTED BY Sunil_Batra on | May 6, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    Good work Rogers, a lineup of Rogers, Warner, Khawaja, Hughes, Clarke, Watson looking good for the first test.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 11:18 GMT

    @mitty 2.."and patto showed his potential"

    Patto may have showed his potential in Australia in that series but he showed himself to be a true champion in Chennai with his 5/96. To get penetration on that wicket when everyone else struggled was extroadinary. Imagine a similar such effort on an English greentop. You'ld halve the number of runs scored and almost double the number of wickets with maybe a couple of Englishman retired hurt!

  • POSTED BY Dashgar on | May 6, 2013, 10:41 GMT

    One congratulatory text and the selectors are wowed? Strange headline but still well done by Rogers. For years he's seemed to be out of form at all the crucial times. Shows that sometimes the selectors need to throw form out the window when selecting solid pros like Rogers. Select them early, take that anxiety away and they start performing above and beyond what we've seen before.

  • POSTED BY Jediroya on | May 6, 2013, 10:38 GMT

    Oz selectors have been ignoring Rogers' centuries, double centuries and triple centuries for nigh on 10 years, why should this year be any different?

  • POSTED BY Mitty2 on | May 6, 2013, 10:30 GMT

    @lliam flynn, although seeming a ridiculous comment, you could make an argument for it. It should be remembered that with the exception of perth - which was a tad green - the pitches that were played on were very flat and very easy to bat on. Our attack purely were phenomenal, and when hilfenhaus is free from that chronic knee injury his action looks decent and he bowled at 140 with more swing; siddle embodied his improvement; and patto showed his potential. All the credit, however, should go to craig mcdermott who - despite the pitches - formulated a set plan which proved wonders.

    The indian attack had no palpable plan and didn't bowl in combination, and were all individuals with no supporting help. Zaheer - like anderson - was threatening with the new ball but mediocre with the old; yadav - like finn - had potential and pace (although finn's pace has dropped considerably) but was very very expensive; and ishant - like broad - are both terrible and both share terrible averages!

  • POSTED BY HansonKoch on | May 6, 2013, 9:38 GMT

    I don't understand the love for Kwahaja. He's on OK Shield cricketer - averaging in the low 40's. It's not like he's been repeatedly smashing double centuries and then blowing everyone out of the water in the IPL. He's no Mike Hussey.

    Hussey has to be recalled at whatever price it takes.

    My batting line-up would be: Rogers, Hughes, Hussey, Clarke, Clarke, Warner, Haddin. Watson, Warner and Hughes are on probation in that order of tolerance.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 9:36 GMT

    @GlinnMcGraw....Who knows what the selectors may do. Their ad hoc reactionary selections and off field drama's on the Indian tour suggest that Anything is possible.I understand that when their is a batsmen of Rogers calibre in hot form that it may be tempting for the NSP to rejig the order and rush him into the opening spot to try and solve the top order batting crisis. I am of the belief however that when batting resources are thin there needs to be continuity so that Every batsmen can get to grips with their particular role and hopefully find their feet. At the moment Cowan is fulfilling 60% of his requirements as an opener in providing the team solid starts but needs to go on with it, David warner averages above 40 on test quality Pitches so the crisis really is only the number 3 spot.If Hughes is to be persisted with it would show real bad faith to hide him down the order so it is 3 or nothing in my opinion. If he were to fail then Rogers could move to number 3 with Khawaja at 4.

  • POSTED BY nthuq on | May 6, 2013, 9:26 GMT

    If County Cricket is truly a place where a batsman can prepare for international cricket like every Englishman says when they talk about Joe Root (who averages in the low forties now in First Class?) I think Rogers will give our batting lineup some much needed backbone so we don't have to rely on Clarkie's dodgy back.

  • POSTED BY KingofRedLions on | May 6, 2013, 9:05 GMT

    Lyndon McPaul seems to be seriously over-estimating Australia's expectations of Rogers. Perhaps he is actually a little bit frightened himself.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 8:41 GMT

    @mitty 2...Just interested in your opinion. Which side out of the Indian side that last toured Australia and Englands likely attack for this Ashes series has the better attack. Looking back; you could say that the Indian attack wasnt bad with Zaheer Khan's irresistable swingers and Umesh Yadav's brute pace. Although Ishant Sharma didnt have much luck he still bowled some good spells! Ironically you could almost say that the Indian seam attack overall is more threatening but just as reliable as any likely combination out of Anderson, Bresnan, broad, Tremlett and Finn though England's spinners are better. I would rate Zaheer and Anderson as equals and Umesh (in the form he was in) as more threatening than any of Bresnan, Broad or Tremlett and perhaps have Ishant Sharma slightly shading Finn in terms of accuracy and reliability. What do you think?

  • POSTED BY ygkd on | May 6, 2013, 8:34 GMT

    Nah, rubbish player that Rogers ... one-cap wonder...only ever made a squizzilion First Class runs at a pathetic average of over fifty. There's plenty of better openers at home averaging as much as thirty-something, without the double-hundreds to blot their copy-book, let alone a triple. I mean the bloke once scored 200 against an Australian touring team! How un-Australian is that?

  • POSTED BY VillageBlacksmith on | May 6, 2013, 8:09 GMT

    @Lliam... cdnt agree more mate, tho I think you are being a little cautious at only 7-0 from 5... with the ''wowing'' I think it could be at least 10-0 from 5... it just needs langer and arthur to get into his head and knock it all out of him..

  • POSTED BY Mitty2 on | May 6, 2013, 7:59 GMT

    @lliam flynn is spot on. Anderson couldn't swing it to save himself and Lyon spins it more than swann in his sleep. Broad couldnt land a threatening bowl and is more inaccurate than harmison. Finn's more erratic than MJ with one of the worst economy rates in recent memory.

    On top of that, pattinson bowls 180km/h and is the fastest bowler ever; starc the greatest left armer of all time; Harris the most durable bowler of all time; bird better than mgcrath and siddle the best ever first change.

    Clarke better than bradman and best to ever captain the game, Cowan the fastest scorer, Warner our best grinder and will wear any attack down, hughes the most technically adept batsman, khawaja and Watson the best at not planting the front foot out and are the best converter of starts,Rogers with the best ever FC record, wade the worlds best keeper, haddin the worlds best keeper/batsman and Faulkner who is the best bowling allrounder to ever grace the cricket field.

    Us to win 17-0 in ten tests.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 7:32 GMT

    Channeling my inner FFL and RnWA, I predict Rogers (the greatest batsman to have ever existed) will go on and make 1000 runs in the series with Anderson and Swann both getting series figures of 800/0. Aussies 7-0 from 5 matches.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    After all these years of rejection by the selectors it would be extremely unfair to suddenly burden this man 'Rogers' with the expectation of being Australia's' Top order batting saviour' from ball one of the Ashes. The expectation amongst fans and officials seems to be building to the point where he will stride out to the ground at Trent bridge as opener; to face a pumped up James Anderson, wearing a cape and brightly coloured underwear on the outside of his trousers. Mickey and Co need to put the onus back on the current trio of Warner, Cowan and Hughes to repay the faith shown in them by the selectors and continue in their respective positions at least for the first Test . Rogers deserves to have some batting cover on his first test back at number 4 if he is included and should only move up on account of abject failure or injury to the top 3. Continuity is key and the inclusion of a solid player such as Rogers should give confidence to Hughes and Warner to play their shots.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 2:03 GMT

    For a few overs with Burns and Smith batting it looked like Surrey might go for it. If anything Middlesex bowled too well to let Surrey have enough bad balls to keep them interested and too one dimensionally to actually penetrate. Still good value for £5 and I actually missed all of Chris Rogers innings by only turning up after lunch!

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 6, 2013, 0:43 GMT

    To be blunt, if the selectors are "wowed" then they haven't been watching this guy ply his skills for the past 10 or so years. Seriously, does any true (Aussie or county cricket) cricket follower believe this effort was a shock? Now if Shane Watson had done it, it would have been a monumental shock! But there is little to no chance of that happening, & this is the reason why Rogers should open.

  • POSTED BY GedLadd on | May 5, 2013, 23:16 GMT

    Surrey's much lauded bowling attack failed to take twenty wickets for the third time in a row.

    Middlesex had a very poor first innings but should be praised to the rafters for their resilience in the face of a massive first innings deficit and the follow on.

    Middlesex took what they could from this match; Surrey failed to take what they should.

    Meanwhile the crowds were treated to more than three-and-a-half days of fascinating cricket. I can hardly wait for the return fixture.

  • POSTED BY on | May 5, 2013, 22:16 GMT

    totally agree with you william

  • POSTED BY WilliamFranklin on | May 5, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    Sadly Middlesex had no intention to offer a positive result with that declaration, their only intention to claw back their over rate from the first innings which was very poor. It may have been their highest score against Surrey at Lords but with solanki burns and harinath bowling, well done. Surrey deserved to 'win' on bonus points.

  • POSTED BY WilliamFranklin on | May 5, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    Sadly Middlesex had no intention to offer a positive result with that declaration, their only intention to claw back their over rate from the first innings which was very poor. It may have been their highest score against Surrey at Lords but with solanki burns and harinath bowling, well done. Surrey deserved to 'win' on bonus points.

  • POSTED BY on | May 5, 2013, 22:16 GMT

    totally agree with you william

  • POSTED BY GedLadd on | May 5, 2013, 23:16 GMT

    Surrey's much lauded bowling attack failed to take twenty wickets for the third time in a row.

    Middlesex had a very poor first innings but should be praised to the rafters for their resilience in the face of a massive first innings deficit and the follow on.

    Middlesex took what they could from this match; Surrey failed to take what they should.

    Meanwhile the crowds were treated to more than three-and-a-half days of fascinating cricket. I can hardly wait for the return fixture.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 6, 2013, 0:43 GMT

    To be blunt, if the selectors are "wowed" then they haven't been watching this guy ply his skills for the past 10 or so years. Seriously, does any true (Aussie or county cricket) cricket follower believe this effort was a shock? Now if Shane Watson had done it, it would have been a monumental shock! But there is little to no chance of that happening, & this is the reason why Rogers should open.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 2:03 GMT

    For a few overs with Burns and Smith batting it looked like Surrey might go for it. If anything Middlesex bowled too well to let Surrey have enough bad balls to keep them interested and too one dimensionally to actually penetrate. Still good value for £5 and I actually missed all of Chris Rogers innings by only turning up after lunch!

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    After all these years of rejection by the selectors it would be extremely unfair to suddenly burden this man 'Rogers' with the expectation of being Australia's' Top order batting saviour' from ball one of the Ashes. The expectation amongst fans and officials seems to be building to the point where he will stride out to the ground at Trent bridge as opener; to face a pumped up James Anderson, wearing a cape and brightly coloured underwear on the outside of his trousers. Mickey and Co need to put the onus back on the current trio of Warner, Cowan and Hughes to repay the faith shown in them by the selectors and continue in their respective positions at least for the first Test . Rogers deserves to have some batting cover on his first test back at number 4 if he is included and should only move up on account of abject failure or injury to the top 3. Continuity is key and the inclusion of a solid player such as Rogers should give confidence to Hughes and Warner to play their shots.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 7:32 GMT

    Channeling my inner FFL and RnWA, I predict Rogers (the greatest batsman to have ever existed) will go on and make 1000 runs in the series with Anderson and Swann both getting series figures of 800/0. Aussies 7-0 from 5 matches.

  • POSTED BY Mitty2 on | May 6, 2013, 7:59 GMT

    @lliam flynn is spot on. Anderson couldn't swing it to save himself and Lyon spins it more than swann in his sleep. Broad couldnt land a threatening bowl and is more inaccurate than harmison. Finn's more erratic than MJ with one of the worst economy rates in recent memory.

    On top of that, pattinson bowls 180km/h and is the fastest bowler ever; starc the greatest left armer of all time; Harris the most durable bowler of all time; bird better than mgcrath and siddle the best ever first change.

    Clarke better than bradman and best to ever captain the game, Cowan the fastest scorer, Warner our best grinder and will wear any attack down, hughes the most technically adept batsman, khawaja and Watson the best at not planting the front foot out and are the best converter of starts,Rogers with the best ever FC record, wade the worlds best keeper, haddin the worlds best keeper/batsman and Faulkner who is the best bowling allrounder to ever grace the cricket field.

    Us to win 17-0 in ten tests.

  • POSTED BY VillageBlacksmith on | May 6, 2013, 8:09 GMT

    @Lliam... cdnt agree more mate, tho I think you are being a little cautious at only 7-0 from 5... with the ''wowing'' I think it could be at least 10-0 from 5... it just needs langer and arthur to get into his head and knock it all out of him..

  • POSTED BY ygkd on | May 6, 2013, 8:34 GMT

    Nah, rubbish player that Rogers ... one-cap wonder...only ever made a squizzilion First Class runs at a pathetic average of over fifty. There's plenty of better openers at home averaging as much as thirty-something, without the double-hundreds to blot their copy-book, let alone a triple. I mean the bloke once scored 200 against an Australian touring team! How un-Australian is that?