The Ashes 2013 April 22, 2013

The case for short-termism

Brad Haddin, Chris Rogers and Ryan Harris might all be ready to retire by this time next year. But they can all be key men in Australia's Ashes campaign
107

Among the countless names written into Test match scorebooks, that of Cyril Washbrook is one of the most evocative. It rolls off the tongue and instantly summons a sense of time and place, of English cricket after the war, and of batting bravery in a period when pitches and skulls alike remained unprotected. Most relevantly, Washbrook's is an enduring example of short-term selection thinking making all the difference in an Ashes series.

Short-termism is the sort of concept politicians love to rail against. By pinning the label on their opponents they can tar them as lacking in vision, even verging on the myopic. National selectors can be similarly targeted if they are said to lose the balance between the present and the future. Countless England panels were lampooned for recycling older players when their Australian counterparts pushed aggressively for youth at almost every possible juncture.

So it is seldom popular, in politics or team selection, to press for the short-term option. Strategic thinking, with the "bigger picture" in mind, is considered the best path, usually with good reason. There seems little point in granting the older batsman another season when there are young striplings pushing up from beneath. Still less in plumping for the older bowler who has lost some of his earlier pep when an aggressive firebrand, not yet 25, has made his presence felt. The future must be planned for, always.

But as Australia's selectors enter their final deliberations on the composition of an Ashes squad that will be named this week, Washbrook's England recall as a 41-year-old in 1956 can provide a reminder that when the most important series is the next one, an older head or two can prove invaluable. That summer is most commonly associated with Jim Laker, Tony Lock and spitefully spinning pitches. But before Washbrook returned to the team for the third Test at Leeds, Australia led the series, and uncertainty had enveloped England's batting.

The most outlandish element of Washbrook's return was the fact he did it when a member of the selection panel. In the meeting to decide the Leeds team, his colleagues asked Washbrook to leave the room temporarily while his name was discussed. Returning to the table with drinks, Washbrook was told he had been selected. Boys Own Annual stuff, this, but less significant than the difference his presence made to England's other batsmen.

A little less than an hour of the Headingley Test had elapsed when Washbrook walked to the middle at No. 5, his team a precarious 3 for 17. Before this point Washbrook had been known primarily as a bold opening partner for Len Hutton, but five years since his last England appearance he was now cast as a bulwark for the middle order. Benefiting from his rich experience of batting, Washbrook was to construct a patient 98, while cajoling a young Peter May to 101.

In the words of Alan Ross it was the innings of a "Master Builder", tilting the match and series towards Laker and England. Writing in Cape Summer, Ross summarised the effect: "So Washbrook, pertinently surveying the hitherto silent and raincoated Headingley crowd … came down the steps bringing with him an unmistakeable renewal of confidence. It was going to be all right: from the very first he made it seem so."

In the current muddled state of Australian cricket, such a reassuring presence must be sought for the Ashes tour. The next 12 months feature 10 Tests against England, followed by a tour of South Africa. These 13 matches are as rigorous an assignment as any Australian team has been set, and the squad that limped from India, a week after their captain Michael Clarke had already exited due to his troublesome back, look ill-equipped to survive it, let alone thrive in it.

What India exposed so mercilessly was that the balance of the team had been thrown out so comprehensively by the retirements of Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey that it virtually ceased to function. Those players expected to step into the breach as batsmen and senior players - Shane Watson in particular - failed almost completely to do so.

A sore and weary Clarke spoke of feeling like he had added a coaching component to his roles as captain, batsman and selector. The suspension of four players, Watson included, for failing to complete basic tasks reflected the hole opened up in the team's psyche without the reassuring sights of Ponting and Hussey as exemplars of all that is required of an Australian cricketer.

The selectors are now aware that the team they selected for India was incapable of forming an effective combination, and needs to be strengthened by additional leaders. None may be found quite so dramatically as Washbrook, by drafting in a member of the selection panel. Nonetheless there are senior names available, players that have it in them to contribute tellingly over the next year, if not much further beyond it.

Haddin's best two series for Australia happened to be the past two Ashes bouts. For the next 12 months, Haddin should don the gloves and the vice-captaincy

Brad Haddin's has already been noted consistently. Twelve months since he gave up his Test place to be with his ill daughter, Haddin has punched out a strong season for New South Wales and been conspicuous by his absence from the national team, as both a leader and a gloveman. In India he found himself promoted to de facto captain when Clarke left the field due to his back problems. Matthew Wade is the future, but his keeping and batting have strained beneath the weight of three formats. Haddin's best two series for Australia happened to be the past two Ashes bouts. For the next 12 months, Haddin should don the gloves and the vice-captaincy, in Test matches at least.

Within the bowling ranks, Ryan Harris can be expected to play a key role. Returning to the crease after an elongated recovery from shoulder surgery, Harris impressed all who faced or observed him in the latter rounds and final of the Sheffield Shield. Possessing a method well suited to England, Harris also has the gift of an equable temperament and universal respect among Australian cricketers. With Queensland he has worked increasingly as a mentor as well as a bowler, concerned with the team as much as himself. While allowances for his body may not allow five Tests, he can play a critical role on the field in two or three, and a unifying one off it in the rest.

Lastly, the batting should be buttressed by the inclusion of Chris Rogers. At 35 he has become as well versed at batting in England as any member of Alastair Cook's team, and moreover has shown himself to be a team-builder and captain of some distinction in his time with Middlesex. Arguments may be raised against his presence in the squad on the basis of age and also his station as an opener, when at least another four such top order types are likely to be named. Yet his familiarity with the moving ball and methods to counter it would provide much-needed solidity and knowledge to the Australian order. And with only one Test cap to show for all his run scoring, Rogers will be hungry.

John Inverarity's panel do not have a Washbrook among their number, but in Haddin, Harris and Rogers they have a trio of players capable of making a difference over the next 12 months. All are products of an earlier time, when Australian cricket functioned rather better than it does at present. By this time next year they may all be ready to retire, but it is the time in between that is of most import. Short term thinking is needed.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • ABARRIVES on April 22, 2013, 17:58 GMT

    Finally, some comes out and pitches in for Rogers. With the opening problems they are facing and for sure, they are gonna face against Poms, they can ill-afford to not name a man averaging 50 something in 400 odd first class innings in the Aussie squad. I find this age thing really RIDICULOUS in this case. Back to back Ashes really provides the selectors to bring Rogers in. If he can stablize your top order batting for next 18-24 months, and provide middle order time to develop and build up, what more you want. Right now, almost all of their batting is in rebuilding phase. Moving ball and Anderson coming in, I surely would be a worried if there is Warner facing it. May be Warner can play at 6, You see if you want to win test matches you have to bat major part of 2 days and no.5&6& prove to be your next openers facing the next new ball. Haddin and Harris I guess would be on the plane to England. I would be disappointed if Haddin is kept out of the squad. And please, Clarke plays no.4.

  • on April 22, 2013, 11:40 GMT

    Interesting article. I'd agree with Haddin, as he's always impressed me when I've seen him play. His leadership qualities would also be valuable IMO. Rogers is intriguing, however as others have pointed out AUS have a lot of opening batsman vying for those two roles. Personally I'd have Watson as a specialist opener alongside Cowan, but you could always drop the later to three in order to accommodate Rogers. I'm not a fan of Hughes or Warner personally, especially in English conditions with their poor technique. I wouldn't give Harris a look in purely for the fact that his body is unreliable and there's already an abundance of fast bowling available. Siddle, Starc and Pattinson almost pick themselves as the first three seamers. However the experience of these players mixed with youth such as Starc, Pattinson and Steve Smith could give Clarke the kind of blend he's been looking for.

  • hycIass on April 22, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    There are some basic mistakes we are doing that I simply can not understand: - Picking five batsmen - Picking Shane Watson as batsman alone We must ensure we pick 6 batsman if we are to win the ashes with Watson bowling. My batting lineup would be Cowan, Warner, Hughes, Khawaja, Clarke, Watson, Wade. Our boys will land a fast bowling ambush in the ashes but it will be challenge to see them knocking over a vastly more experienced outfit in England more often than their blokes bowling over our less accomplished batsmen. Anderson is a very good bowler. Finn, Broad, Onions, Bresnan should be more than adequate back up, despite some flat patches. Swanny and Monty way ahead of Lyons.Surely the selectors will not attempt to continue with this allrounder theory and simply pick Watson as an allrounder?Six bats and try and stay in the game as long as possible.Clarke, Khawaja and Warner to get the bulk of the runs, basically someone aside from Clarke must have a big series.

  • jackthelad on April 22, 2013, 7:47 GMT

    The essence of this article is, of course, that there are 'horses for courses', and that Cricket Australia need to adopt this policy if they want to regain and subsequently defend The Ashes. In realistic terms, I can't see the Oz authorities accepting this. Their rhetoric for several years now has all been about 'rebuilding' and 'planning for the future', and the fact that the construction project seems to be taking an awful long time and showing few results hasn't fazed them in the slightest. A number of dogmatic assumptions would have to be overcome for any pragmatic strategy to be taken up - examples being, 'all you need are bowlers that can bowl faster than anyone else', 'young uns are always better than old uns', 'cricketing life is over at 34 years of age' and a multitude of others. Nice suggestions, Daniel, but I don't think the ideologues of Cricket Australia are capable of listening.

  • heathrf1974 on April 24, 2013, 6:30 GMT

    Selecting is not that complicated. You don't plan for the future. You select the best available players. Simple.

  • on April 24, 2013, 4:00 GMT

    Were you in the selection meeting Mr. Brettig? It seems so.... all your suggestions were accepted...

  • simonsays on April 24, 2013, 1:31 GMT

    I don't see Chris Rogers as "shorterism". People here and in C.A seem to be forgetting that forging a winning philosophy and confidence are lasting impacts, however they may come. To bring anyone in with a shout of turning around the fortunes of others makes perfect sense. Was McDermot considered short term? He wasn't with the team longer than 18 months and he changed our bowling fortunes beyond belief. Though it is not a certainty that Chris will perform, given his form and history in England, it is foolish not to give him a go. To go for youth merely by ideology is farcical and shows a void of real logic. To think long term you must FIX the short term. Go on, C.A, make the right call here for ONCE!

  • GeorgiaPS on April 24, 2013, 0:12 GMT

    For a more modern example, look to Pakistan's Misbah Ul Haq. That short term plan is remaining in place a lot longer than any expected.

  • cricketfanwrites on April 23, 2013, 17:29 GMT

    @Peter James Warrington - I am in COMPLETE agreement with you. If Mr. Brettig sources are correct, its fair to say that CA seems to be going backwards. Are they building for the future or selecting a team based on merits. Neither seems to be what they are doing.

    I've said it before and will repeat it here again - CA is making the folks on the West Indies Cricket Board look like geniuses.

    Seems like Khawaja will get punished severely for for the incomplete homework. Watson will benefit from having the VC taken away from him. Johnson's CA career is done - Hello T20 Leagues! Pattinson? - CA NEEDS him.

    If Mr. Brettig's sources are found to be credible, CA will go down to the Englishmen 3-1 or even get White Washed. Hope its not the latter.

  • Batmanian on April 23, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    @Peter James Warrington, the captain's all right, don't you think? The problem is, he has a dodgy back. Wicketkeepers make serviceable VCs, and are defacto VCs without the title, but it seems particularly stupid to pick a wicketkeeper as VC when he might actually have to captain at a crucial juncture. I don't like the idea of Haddin having three big jobs; he can't pick his own shots when it matters, how is he going to set a field? Gilchrist could do it, but Gilchrist could do anything.

  • ABARRIVES on April 22, 2013, 17:58 GMT

    Finally, some comes out and pitches in for Rogers. With the opening problems they are facing and for sure, they are gonna face against Poms, they can ill-afford to not name a man averaging 50 something in 400 odd first class innings in the Aussie squad. I find this age thing really RIDICULOUS in this case. Back to back Ashes really provides the selectors to bring Rogers in. If he can stablize your top order batting for next 18-24 months, and provide middle order time to develop and build up, what more you want. Right now, almost all of their batting is in rebuilding phase. Moving ball and Anderson coming in, I surely would be a worried if there is Warner facing it. May be Warner can play at 6, You see if you want to win test matches you have to bat major part of 2 days and no.5&6& prove to be your next openers facing the next new ball. Haddin and Harris I guess would be on the plane to England. I would be disappointed if Haddin is kept out of the squad. And please, Clarke plays no.4.

  • on April 22, 2013, 11:40 GMT

    Interesting article. I'd agree with Haddin, as he's always impressed me when I've seen him play. His leadership qualities would also be valuable IMO. Rogers is intriguing, however as others have pointed out AUS have a lot of opening batsman vying for those two roles. Personally I'd have Watson as a specialist opener alongside Cowan, but you could always drop the later to three in order to accommodate Rogers. I'm not a fan of Hughes or Warner personally, especially in English conditions with their poor technique. I wouldn't give Harris a look in purely for the fact that his body is unreliable and there's already an abundance of fast bowling available. Siddle, Starc and Pattinson almost pick themselves as the first three seamers. However the experience of these players mixed with youth such as Starc, Pattinson and Steve Smith could give Clarke the kind of blend he's been looking for.

  • hycIass on April 22, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    There are some basic mistakes we are doing that I simply can not understand: - Picking five batsmen - Picking Shane Watson as batsman alone We must ensure we pick 6 batsman if we are to win the ashes with Watson bowling. My batting lineup would be Cowan, Warner, Hughes, Khawaja, Clarke, Watson, Wade. Our boys will land a fast bowling ambush in the ashes but it will be challenge to see them knocking over a vastly more experienced outfit in England more often than their blokes bowling over our less accomplished batsmen. Anderson is a very good bowler. Finn, Broad, Onions, Bresnan should be more than adequate back up, despite some flat patches. Swanny and Monty way ahead of Lyons.Surely the selectors will not attempt to continue with this allrounder theory and simply pick Watson as an allrounder?Six bats and try and stay in the game as long as possible.Clarke, Khawaja and Warner to get the bulk of the runs, basically someone aside from Clarke must have a big series.

  • jackthelad on April 22, 2013, 7:47 GMT

    The essence of this article is, of course, that there are 'horses for courses', and that Cricket Australia need to adopt this policy if they want to regain and subsequently defend The Ashes. In realistic terms, I can't see the Oz authorities accepting this. Their rhetoric for several years now has all been about 'rebuilding' and 'planning for the future', and the fact that the construction project seems to be taking an awful long time and showing few results hasn't fazed them in the slightest. A number of dogmatic assumptions would have to be overcome for any pragmatic strategy to be taken up - examples being, 'all you need are bowlers that can bowl faster than anyone else', 'young uns are always better than old uns', 'cricketing life is over at 34 years of age' and a multitude of others. Nice suggestions, Daniel, but I don't think the ideologues of Cricket Australia are capable of listening.

  • heathrf1974 on April 24, 2013, 6:30 GMT

    Selecting is not that complicated. You don't plan for the future. You select the best available players. Simple.

  • on April 24, 2013, 4:00 GMT

    Were you in the selection meeting Mr. Brettig? It seems so.... all your suggestions were accepted...

  • simonsays on April 24, 2013, 1:31 GMT

    I don't see Chris Rogers as "shorterism". People here and in C.A seem to be forgetting that forging a winning philosophy and confidence are lasting impacts, however they may come. To bring anyone in with a shout of turning around the fortunes of others makes perfect sense. Was McDermot considered short term? He wasn't with the team longer than 18 months and he changed our bowling fortunes beyond belief. Though it is not a certainty that Chris will perform, given his form and history in England, it is foolish not to give him a go. To go for youth merely by ideology is farcical and shows a void of real logic. To think long term you must FIX the short term. Go on, C.A, make the right call here for ONCE!

  • GeorgiaPS on April 24, 2013, 0:12 GMT

    For a more modern example, look to Pakistan's Misbah Ul Haq. That short term plan is remaining in place a lot longer than any expected.

  • cricketfanwrites on April 23, 2013, 17:29 GMT

    @Peter James Warrington - I am in COMPLETE agreement with you. If Mr. Brettig sources are correct, its fair to say that CA seems to be going backwards. Are they building for the future or selecting a team based on merits. Neither seems to be what they are doing.

    I've said it before and will repeat it here again - CA is making the folks on the West Indies Cricket Board look like geniuses.

    Seems like Khawaja will get punished severely for for the incomplete homework. Watson will benefit from having the VC taken away from him. Johnson's CA career is done - Hello T20 Leagues! Pattinson? - CA NEEDS him.

    If Mr. Brettig's sources are found to be credible, CA will go down to the Englishmen 3-1 or even get White Washed. Hope its not the latter.

  • Batmanian on April 23, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    @Peter James Warrington, the captain's all right, don't you think? The problem is, he has a dodgy back. Wicketkeepers make serviceable VCs, and are defacto VCs without the title, but it seems particularly stupid to pick a wicketkeeper as VC when he might actually have to captain at a crucial juncture. I don't like the idea of Haddin having three big jobs; he can't pick his own shots when it matters, how is he going to set a field? Gilchrist could do it, but Gilchrist could do anything.

  • on April 23, 2013, 12:40 GMT

    can't agree. we went short-term when we brought Martyn back in 06. look what happened. The Doug Walters recall in 80-1. The Ross Edwards recall in 74-5. The Ian Chappell Rick McCosker and Ashley Mallett recalls in 79-80. It destroys renewal. Sets us back years. And can burn the careers of young players.

    If we pick Haddin, with his dodgy keeping and batting - two 50's and no tons in his last 13 tests I think it is - aged 36, because the captain can't hack it, then get a decent captain.

    This is the biggest madness I have ever heard. Sack the Panel if it's true!

  • Meety on April 23, 2013, 12:05 GMT

    @Mitty2 / Jono Makim - won't argue with you on Copeland, however his County performances have been better than what they look. He has been the most economical of the bowlers & reading some of the Match reports - they said he was really testing the batsmen. He has a long stint ahead, if by the end of it, he is only getting 1 fors - I will concede the point, but my gut feel is that he is due a haul soon. Copeland's lack of pace should NOT exclude him from selection, he has a work rate that is (IMO), bigger than Siddle & Harris, & he keeps it VERY tight. Unlike most of the front line Oz bowlers who have low S/Rates, Copeland has a brilliant average but a relatively HIGH s/rate. This means he can get played off, but he'll keep coming. England beat us in the last Ashes & all their bowlers were slower than ours. Anderson isn't faster than him. I must say I thought he would rip thru the County scene so am surprised he has modest returns so far!

  • Meety on April 23, 2013, 11:57 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (April 23, 2013, 7:31 GMT) - my thoughts on Harris is the same as @BehindtheBowlersArm when he wants him to play the 1st, 3rd & 5th Test. You must have doubts about Harris's ability to play back to back tests. So I would be strategic about him. I think that we have enuff quality to select a good attack without him, but @ 100% fit & in form, he is possibly the 2nd best pacer in the world. So is he in the best 3 or 4 pacers - hell yes, but the real question is - how many Tests can he play in the series?

  • on April 23, 2013, 10:42 GMT

    @Daniel91443 Dave Hussey would have been in the Test team if he'd made an impact in any of his ODI appearances..

  • Daniel91443 on April 23, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    What does David Hussey have to do to get a test call up?

  • on April 23, 2013, 8:14 GMT

    @Ozcricketwriter, Ponting and MHussey? It's not October 2012 anymore LOL.

    @Meety, Love your work mate, fine moderating! Still can't agree on Copeland though. Hasn't made much of an impression in his first couple of county games, not with the ball anyway!

    @Landl47, Not sure how big of a threat Swann will be, he didn't have a great series last year against SA. Marlon Samuels dominated him too. He will have pretty limited preperation i'd say. I wouldn't be counting on him, just as i'm not counting on Starc or Bird being 100% ready.

    If only the Aussies had a no.6 bat that could bowl good spin and we could go in with a four pronged pace attack. I find it hard to leave out any of Harris, Siddle, Starc and Patto. Some decent spin from the batsmen would really allow it to happen, not sure it can though. Somehow I think it will be Siddle, Patto, Lyon plus one of Harris and Starc, pretty sure Johnson(wouldn't pick him myself) and hopefully Bird will be there too.

  • vj_gooner on April 23, 2013, 8:07 GMT

    I strongly believe that Bradley Haddin deserves a place in the test team as a batsman too. The man is an amazing leader too.

    And Wade shouldn't be anywhere close to the test scene. Let alone failings in India, he played a role in costing Australia the series against South Africa with his miserable work behind the stumps. His glovemark is nowhere near Oz standards.

  • Mitty2 on April 23, 2013, 7:31 GMT

    @meety, I've heard you say that before, and I can see it, but does that really mean he doesn't need to play the first test? Is it because you dont see him in the best attack?

    He bowled fantastically in the shield final and bowled very long spells with a lot of overs on a sluggish and almost negating pitch - his spell of 4/10 was magnificent - you can tell that he is a workhorse who can bowl for very long (and that's why him and siddle shouldn't be in the same attack). His bowling action seems a bit more fluent than that of past, and maybe it's just me, but it seems that he doesn't currently look susceptible to injury.

    Also, who suggestedthe trundler copeland? He's not Even standing out in division 2... England will be selecting their 130km/h seamers; and I'd prefer if we pushed our advantage by not going back to the days of selecting the successful at state level accurate mediums. An attack of bird, patto, Harris and Lyon yes please. With siddle, starc, mcdermott and SOK as back ups

  • on April 23, 2013, 7:25 GMT

    Bring Brad Hodge into the squad. He can useful in the middle order with his domestic & international experience once again before be quits.

  • handyandy on April 23, 2013, 7:21 GMT

    Fitting Rogers in the top 4 isn't an issue since he is better than any of the batsmen currently occupying those positions. I would probably have him opening with either Cowan or Hughes.

    Watson is only worth considering as an all rounder. Warner would be better down the order a little.

    Squeezing Haddin into the side is a little more difficult. Wade is the incumbent and I am not sure he has done enough to be dropped.

    I agree Harris should be in the team. Probably Pattinson, Siddle and Harris deserve first crack at the POMs.

    Spinning ... well there is only Lyon really. Lets hope he can lift.

  • Aussiesfalling on April 23, 2013, 7:10 GMT

    Makes a change from calls to bring back Shane Warne

  • Flemo_Gilly on April 23, 2013, 7:08 GMT

    By and large I agree with the squad that was picked for India minus a few T20 players who shouldn't be there, and if it was me I'd have Hartley and Paine (in that order) as the squad's wicketkeepers and I probably would have Watson in the squad as an all rounder batting at six and Khawaja at 4 or 5 depending on where Clarke bats. Khawaja has no doubt earned his chance but why are we not talking about D Huss. I'm undecided on Starc v Hilfenhaus for the reasons you've given, but I feel Starc is a more likely match winner.Furthermore, it could mean you have an entirely new opening partnership (Warner and Hughes?) in the middle of the Ashes if Cowan's form doesn't improve.

  • ygkd on April 23, 2013, 6:58 GMT

    cont// Rogers may not fit the team for his slip fielding. But he is experienced and the team lacks that somewhat. So that adds to his plus column. It's a fine argument to get right - the balance between not going overboard on all-round skills and not ignoring other things beyond a player's record with their main skill. The point is that you need a bat who can slip etc, you need some vast experience, you need some exuberance or proven ability elsewhere in the field etc and you'd try & fit that in. And if you get a Mark Waugh type that gives you all that in one go plus a 5th bowling option you thank your lucky stars for it enabling more possibilities elsewhere. Selection is not easy (if one thinks otherwise pick a venue, an opposition & 16 players at random and try and select the best team from them - you may end up leaving out some from the better half because you don't need 8 batsmen - then repeat). It needs consistency too. However, we shouldn't shy from selecting one Test at a time.

  • ygkd on April 23, 2013, 6:37 GMT

    cont/ However, if spin development is important, then he does not fit the team so easily. This is not intended to single him out. Selectors just can't pick the best XI individual players or they might find they have no keeper at all, or no openers. In Tests some degree of specialisation is to be expected. If the 2nd new ball is the most over-rated thing in cricket, then the all-rounder is the most over-done. Sure, if there's a Botham or Kallis out there, they should be encouraged, but like Waugh and Warne they're not all that common. To be correct, it's probably better to look on this as a 5th bowler issue. If a decent enough attack regularly needs 5 bowlers on non-roads, then have a look at the close catching and the keeping and odds are that those are the areas which should be most improved upon. A 5th bowler is just sticking plaster. Then, as the batting has been weakened, the wickie's runs become more important than they should be. Better to have catches taken and no 5th bowler.

  • ygkd on April 23, 2013, 6:25 GMT

    There is too much emphasis on statistics at times. Sometimes, gut feel and instinct must come into play with regard to selections. If that sounds like an endorsement of the pick-'em-young philosophy, then it might be. Sometimes. Warne did not take a bagful straight away. Steve Waugh took time to find his feet. And they were two of the very best of all time. However, by dint of being the very best, it is right to assume that they should have received such treatment. It doesn't necessarily follow that everyone should be treated that way. So a long record should count for something, as should the look of the player - the technique & the temperament; especially, in Test batting, the temperament. It doesn't mean flashy shots. In fact, it doesn't need to be flashy at all. Reliable will do nine times out of ten. How they fit the team should also be considered. If Matthew Wade keeps in a team without real spinners, then he fits the team. If he plays as a bat, then he could fit the team.

  • MacB on April 23, 2013, 5:33 GMT

    Batting - Rogers should be in contention... but surely we are looking for a number 4, not an opening batsman? I'd have Wade over Haddin any day and twice in English conditions...

    I'm not really sure why he is constantly left out - but where is the Hilf in these conversations? Easily our most prolific new ball bowler (takes a wicket in his opening spell more than he doesn't); swings the ball both ways and then gets it to reverse when the ball is old. Spent most of the summer injured, but was our leading wicket taker (or there abouts) for the last 3 years consistently!! Bring back the Hilf!!!

  • Clyde on April 23, 2013, 5:19 GMT

    I have detected in recent years certain remarks in articles that would make a reader think some people thought a team could be selected with the future in mind. If it exists, such a way of thinking reflects another example of the pernicious assumption that it is all right to hide aspects of the game from the public. It is in the same category as the idea that players actions in a game can be the puppets of people who are not on the field during the game. Not only is short-termism good, but it is sad that its argument is taken no further, to reach immediacy, or what is felt at the start of a Test match, when there is the sense anything could happen.

  • Meety on April 23, 2013, 4:42 GMT

    @Behind_the_bowlers_arm on (April 22, 2013, 7:48 GMT) - re: Harris. I would use him a bit differently. Rightly or wrongly - I have it in my head that Harris would be lethal at Lords. So I would NOT play him in the 1st Test, & then play him in the 2nd Test (Lords). From there, if he is 101% fit I'd play him as needed. I think if we were to select Copeland with Siddle - we have two pacers that could take up the slack of an injured bowler, but that would probably mean that one of Patto, Starc & Bird miss out.

  • landl47 on April 23, 2013, 4:41 GMT

    I don't think that Australia is going to be easy to beat. They never have been and hopefully never will be. The bowling is good and if a couple of batsmen get on a roll then they can score enough runs to win. Where England has a huge advantage is that Swann is a great bowler to left-handers and Aus is packed with left-handers (and will have another if Rogers is picked). If England gets a couple of wickets where the ball turns I would expect them to win those matches.

    As for the Aussie side, look at who got central contracts. I'd expect almost all the side to be centrally contracted players, with maybe one batsman added- most likely Smith. Everybody seems to be picking Khawaja, but I think it's doubtful he'll even be in the squad. He's a left-hander, he's had discipline issues, he hasn't played serious cricket for 6 months and Smith was preferred to him in India. He averaged 34 for Derbyshire in Div. 2 of the CC last season. He's not the answer- or if he is, it's the wrong question.

  • Meety on April 23, 2013, 4:36 GMT

    @ygkd on (April 23, 2013, 0:49 GMT) - I like your GPS analogy. I think that Business culture permeates too much in sport. That is where this team-building ethos comes from. To me it is a bit misguided. People sometimes refer to the mid 80s where selectors stuck with players as they thought they were the future, it is NOT true. We churned over heaps of players in that era & ended up with players that were the best of not ideal situation. What was important - was not so much BRINGING in team-centred players, but drilling in work ethics to players coming in. Bobby Simpson hammered the boys with fielding drills & emphasised the advantages of looking for quick singles etc. Apart from early on when Rixon was the fielding coach, I don't see the players really being lifted by hard work - & judging by the Homework saga, they are cutting corners. IMO - the NSP selects the team, it is Arthurs responsibility to create team ethos & Clarke to lead the players to that point & beyond!

  • Meety on April 23, 2013, 4:25 GMT

    @ygkd on (April 23, 2013, 0:24 GMT) - out of genuine curiosity - can you please define what you mean by "... the look of the player & whether he improves the team." I agree with you on the record part, but the "look" of a player sounds a bit dicey &" improves the team" I don't quite get. (Not bagging just interested). I take it that you mean record (agreed), look - meaning technique that is likely to wok at Test level & improve the team - whether they have a skill set that adds to the team. I don't know Rogers personally & only go off whispers - I would agree with on the first two, but am unsure about the 3rd for two reasons - he isn't a good fielder & ?-marks about how he fits in.

  • Meety on April 23, 2013, 4:13 GMT

    @bobagorof on (April 22, 2013, 23:50 GMT) - Haddin's batting was horrendous in that match - but as a score of 47 would suggest, there were 7 others equally culpable. (I won't inc Clarke as he scored a great ton the innings before & Siddle & Lyon saved us some even WORSE embarrassment) At the time I wanted TWO heads on a plate - 1) Langar as batting coach - 3rd time (I think) that Oz got rolled under 100 in his tenure, & 2) Haddin - should of got more from him. I have forgiven what he did as I am assuming that it roughly fits into the timeline of health problems with his kid. I thought that he generally put his head down after that, & has batted well in the Shield. @D-Train on (April 23, 2013, 0:18 GMT) - sorry mate, it's you have the short memory. Haddin was NOT dropped from the Test team. He actually withdrew for family reasons! Batting form NEVER came into it - he was more likely to be dropped for Keeping issues.

  • Ozcricketwriter on April 23, 2013, 4:12 GMT

    Ideal Ashes XI: Shane Watson, Chris Rogers, Ricky Ponting, David Hussey, Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey, Matthew Wade, Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Johnson, James Pattinson, Ryan Harris. Backup players: David Warner, George Bailey, James Faulkner, Jackson Bird, Nathan Lyon. If people are injured or otherwise unavailable, then change team as appropriate. Further backups beyond those: Steve Smith, Adam Voges, Luke Butterworth, Peter Siddle, Steve O'Keefe. I don't think we need to look beyond that for our team.

  • on April 23, 2013, 2:46 GMT

    I am hopeful but pessimistic that the selectors will do the right thing and reward in-form players by giving them a test spot no matter what their age is. The Aussie team has been saddled with plenty of duds over the past 2 - 3 years when all the time veterans like Rogers and Hodge could have been semi-permanent players. From the series in India only Clarke, Siddle and Pattinson earned their berths with a heck of a lot of question marks over the remainder. Hodge must have run over the Chairman of the Selection Board's dog or something but Haddin and Rogers are still outsiders to go to England.

  • on April 23, 2013, 1:44 GMT

    Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith, Bailey, Haddin, Siddle, Pattinson, Harris, Lyon. That's the first test line up. Would also take; Hughes, Voges, North, Wade, Henriques, Starc, Bird, Ahmed, Faulkner. Time to sever ties with Johnson again it seems, he should play 2 tests a year, the Perth and MCG tests. He always performs and dominates them, but at no other ground can he replicate this. Faulkner must start playing tests, his variation and guile would have proven useful in India and he can bat at 7 or 8 to bolster batting and or bowling. North scored over 400 runs and made 2 tons there last time, if they are serious on winning why hasn't his name popped up? I have never been a fan of him I am a fan of smart choices. Come on CA

  • on April 23, 2013, 1:38 GMT

    Everyone seems to have forgotten Tim Paine - could possibly jump the lot, including Clarke. Shame he suffered that badly broken finger otherwise he would have played a dozen or so tests by now.

  • Nightwing32 on April 23, 2013, 1:22 GMT

    Harris is a must. I would have Haddin as keeper but play Wade as batsman. So starting lineup would be the normal top three, young batsman at 4, Clarke at 5, Wade at 6 and Haddin at 7. Or Beef up the top order with Rogers, so Rogers and Warner, Cowan and then Hughes, Clarke and then Young Batsman and then Haddin as VC. But yeah Harris in the bowling is a must. Him, Patto and Siddle with Lyon.

  • Edwards_Anderson on April 23, 2013, 0:57 GMT

    It continues to surprise me when folks talk Siddle down as VC. Do you realise in 2012 he took 41 test wickets at 23.09. In fact across 2009-2012 he took 129 wkts at 27.24.Not bad for a first change bowler without a decent spinner in the line up and Johnson often leaking runs with the new ball.2013 thus far is dominated by bowling 4 tests in India - and for only 9 wkts Siddle was clearly the most consistent bowler at applying any amount of pressure on the batters (i.e. keeping it at all tight). Harris would complement him very well. Khawaja is among our best young talents and will surely come through for us if we give him a real shot in the ashes, his ability to handle swing bowling is something we need to use. And does anyone know how bad Peterson's injury is, is he a certain starter for the ashes.

  • Mary_786 on April 23, 2013, 0:51 GMT

    @Jono_Hakim fair points, but keep in mind that in his last 2 matches for Derbyshire(semis and finals) Khawaja got man of the matches in both matches helping Derbyshire to their elevation to division 1 after a decade of trying. Its all about scoring under pressure and he seems to be very good at that. England's victories were over India in india -- they drew against NZ they didn't lose -- aussies beat Sl a developing test team and lost to SA, when it counted we were utterly outplayed. Anderson will swing the ball in england unlike in NZ and broad is coming back to bowling form -- We need to unite and pick the best players based on performance and not who the favorites are.

  • ygkd on April 23, 2013, 0:49 GMT

    The problem is the team-building mantra. If we just accept that the national Test team is not now as good as it was, nor is it likely to be so again in the near future, then we can just pick the best XI and let them do their best. However, if we deny such manifest truths, then we will remain stuck in the cul-de-sac of our minds, thinking that we only need to pick for the future and, eventually, in the future all will be well. Picking for the future is largely for AFL and NFL clubs and others subject to drafts, lists, annual seasons and salary caps. The national cricket team is not limited by such things. The language that surrounds it should not make it sound like a footy club. That the language so often does, shows that Australian cricket is lost down a cul-de-sac somewhere, clinging to the erroneous belief that its GPS is still functioning correctly.

  • ygkd on April 23, 2013, 0:39 GMT

    So, to go back to the point about Matthew Wade. If Wade was right for the here-and-now, Brettig would not be plumping for Haddin as a stop-gap. Continually saying Wade is the one for the future is denying the claims or future claims of Hartley, Paine, Ludeman and even Triffitt. Or even Handscomb for that matter. Imagine if Paine had not been injured and had been pumped-up as the future to the same degree. That would have denied Wade, as well as all of the others. Part of the problem with Australia of late is that there is too much picking for the future. I could agree with Haddin in the Ashes, which will not happen, but the spots after that should not be decided now. If Wade is to be front-runner in that race he should start about one yard out from scratch, not thirty yards. The same goes for many other players. Clarke is the only one who is already thirty-yards ahead of all rivals in a hundred yard race. All other spots are too close to call and should not be called ahead of time.

  • bobagorof on April 23, 2013, 0:29 GMT

    Charlie101: "Rogers may be a fine player but how can you consider selecting an 35 year old untried player in an Ashes series ??" You've answered your own question: because he's a fine player!

  • ygkd on April 23, 2013, 0:24 GMT

    I disagree with one line line in the article. Matthew Wade is not "the future", or if he is, it is because he will be selected when others will not be. It was exactly thus that Rogers was sent the other way, into the "not the future" camp. Therefore, while I agree with the article and maintain that the author is easily one of the better Australian cricket writers around, I think it is still worthwhile attempting to point out that the expectations involved in labelling players with obvious major faults as "the future" are exactly why Phillip Hughes has been given many more Tests than Chris Rogers ever was. That is not to say that Rogers has no faults of his own. Rather it is to say that they are less manifest & therefore less likely to cause problems when moving up from the First Class scene. There are, as I see it, 3 parts to the selection of a player. There is the players' record, the look of the player & whether he improves the team. Rogers passes on all points. He should be picked.

  • D-Train on April 23, 2013, 0:18 GMT

    People obviously have pretty short memories. Haddin was initially dropped from the test side because his batting was in terrible form. However just because the rest of the Aussie team are batting poorly people somehow think he's going to magically appear and win the series for us. Not gonna happen.

    Harris should be in the team. He's real quality. Rogers maybe. There's still a few months of county cricket/aus a/practice matches to figure out who should be in the team.

  • on April 23, 2013, 0:07 GMT

    Agreed completely. Brad Haddin to come back as vice captain and Chris Rogers to open the batting.

    Increasing number of calls for Warner to move down to #6 and Michael Clarke to come in at #3. So who opens with Rogers? Hughes is the future, but I get the feeling CA are in love with Ed Cowans consistent 30 odds.

    Very interested to see what they actually come up with. Exclusion of Chris Rogers in particular will be seen as being very conservative. I'm not expecting many changes from the fearful lot we sent to India.

  • Rowayton on April 22, 2013, 23:58 GMT

    I'd certainly be picking Harris - his Test record is excellent and he's worth picking even if he only plays two matches. Rogers is worth a go - his record over many years indicates he might do OK, although there is no guarantee. Look at Ramprakash for example. And no matter what the pretentiously named ozcricketwriter might say, Haddin is a better player right now than Wade is. Haddin gets picked on for loose shots, but how many crap shots did Wade play in India? Mind you, neither of them should ever bat higher than 7. And I can't for the life of me understand why people say that Warner has poor technique - technically he's very solid, his feet and hands and head are in the right position when he plays his shots. He just needs to be more selective about which balls to hit - in Test cricket Dave you cannot continually drive good length balls for four.

  • bobagorof on April 22, 2013, 23:50 GMT

    I am mystified how people can extol the virtues of Brad Haddin as a 'leader' and blissfully ignore his batting when Australia was bowled out for 47 by South Africa. In that innings, with Australia 5-18 and just over 200 run lead, and as the last recognised batsmen (Clarke having just been dismissed) he decided not to knuckle down and grind things out but to go for glory. He was out to a reckless shot for 0 off 3 balls. This is not the sort of leadership the Australian team needs.

    Ideally, a team should have a mix of experienced players and youthful ones who will take over the mantle in the future. Unfortunately, by hanging on to both Ponting and Hussey for so long (much as the selectors did with Warne, McGrath, Hayden, Gilchrist and Langer) they prevented themselves from giving young players a decent chance. It's no surprise that there are no experienced replacements and the team is struggling. 13 tough matches would be a good reward for Rogers at the end of his long career.

  • on April 22, 2013, 23:37 GMT

    Why the age debate again??? If someone is in form, and scoring runs then pick them. It's really not that complicated. If someone is averaging 50+ and is 45yo then i'd still have them in my team.

  • Meety on April 22, 2013, 23:16 GMT

    @Blake Houston - you have to remmeber that when Cowan WAS selected, he was enjoying a great a form surge, where he was bringing up tons on a regular basis, some of those were in the Shield, some in Tour games. His average went from low 30s to a shade over 40 & SEEMED to be a case of a bloke being picked at the right time. He hasn't delivered as much in terms of numbers would suggest, but he & Warner at one point had the 2nd best Ozzy opening partnership average of all time. It is still (even after India), one of Oz's best (believe it or not). Their biggest problem is that they aren't going on with it enuff! @SirViv1973 on (April 22, 2013, 10:28 GMT) - re: Harris. He gets talked about, because he is a genuine match winner & IF fit & in FORM, would be the 2nd best pacer in the world behind Steyn. I think if we have heavy clouds at Lord's 1st morning - Harris would be close to unplayable! He does everything Anderson can do - but at about 15kph faster. IMO - that's plenty of reasons!

  • Fareen on April 22, 2013, 22:48 GMT

    What's the point of Ryan Harris? Australia has a bulk of fast bowlers in Starc, Pattinson, Siddle, Cummings, johnson to name a few and i don't think harris should be in the squad. However, with the recent crisis, i do think Rogers will be a better option, though don't think Haddin is good enough to replace the ever inconsistent Wade. Australia should try and go for Paine IMO, he can add some firepower lower down the order. Overall, the best thing for Australia would have been for hussey to come out of retirement, he's been missed sorely.

  • Mitty2 on April 22, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    It's like all my comments since the Indian series made into one article!

    Rogers is an absolute necessity. The reasons for him are obvious and numerous, ive said them so many times and I'm sure someone has already said them. Personally, I'd have him at three. I have said to put Warner at 6 because of mcculum's success, but Warner and cowan's opening average is actually more than decent, and better than any other rivaling partnership, so keep them together, (another reason is we need them more settled in their positions) and put Rogers to three and Hughes to four.

    On the vice captaincy front, I don't really rate haddin, and I'd prefer (if we wanted experience) to put Rogers as VC. If not, because bowlers don't get it, put Cowan as VC IMO.

    Harris, bird, patto and Lyon is our best bowling attack, with siddle and Harris alternating for when Harris inevitably gets "rotated".

    My squad: Cowan Warner Rogers Hughes Clarke khawaja Burns Haddin wade Harris patto bird siddle starc SOK Lyon

  • thegreatwhiteduck on April 22, 2013, 21:54 GMT

    I've always despised the "planning for the future" apology. The present is always more important than the future. Choose your best team to win today. The future can take care of itself.

  • MMahmood1 on April 22, 2013, 21:20 GMT

    The only way the Ashes series can be exciting is if Australia can bring back Hussey, Ponting or Gilchrist/Shane Warne provided they are fit and ready give there best. At number 6 Gilchrist is all time best, let him come back and let him do what he is best at. If they are not 2 of these 4 players England will easily beat Aussies in Ashes both home and Away.

  • Robmac55 on April 22, 2013, 21:01 GMT

    A very interesting article. Experience is definitely something needed and when I read the title of the article I wondered if two of the names that have been synonymous with Australian dominance over the last decade and more in Ponting and Hussey would have been branded about! They seem the two at the moment that are as unlikely to be picked due to retirement as Washbrook was but the only two that I could think could have the same dramatic effect. Hussey the more likely of the two, retiring at the end of a great series against South Africa and Ponting because he's Ponting and finished off Australia's domestic season showing how good he still is. Experience aside, both also show the natural leadership skills and discipline now seemingly lacking with one being dubbed Mr Cricket. All in all, those two names are the two that of any Australian would most unsettle the English camp for another ashes dual!

  • on April 22, 2013, 19:25 GMT

    One bad tour of India on square turners and everybody seems to be writing off the aussies. Time will tell what happens but the devide between the teams is not as great as these articles calling for desperate measues would suggest.

  • glance_to_leg on April 22, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    As an Australian-born Englishman, I am really sad to see Australian cricket in such a state, but really welcome DB's sensible suggestions. It is quite likely that Australia will do badly in England (this is bad for the game, and will not even be relished by English fans ... thumping Australia once gives us enormous pleasure, but there is none at all in seeing Australia capitulate limply). The notion of picking some older players with a bit of backbone is a good idea. If they fail it doesn't much matter. It won't destroy the confidence of young talented players. if they provide some grit, leadership, and runs/wickets around which the young bloods can play, then so much the better. Also a great idea to use of Australians who understand the peculiar conditions in England. I'd even consider the rotund Cosgrove as a wild card. He batted well for Glamorgan, & is a better fielder than his bulk suggests. Fans w'ld love to rib him. Shield Australia's talented but technically weak young openers.

  • AshesErnie on April 22, 2013, 18:50 GMT

    Good article. Hope the Aussies come up with something more worthy of the price of this year's tickets than Smith and Maxwell. And Wade, Watson, Hughes, Johnson, Lyon, Doherty. This role reversal game has gone quite far enough.

  • jplterrors on April 22, 2013, 17:49 GMT

    If they want good starts get Pete Fulton an Australian passport asap, he gets 100s every innings vs Poms.

  • Beertjie on April 22, 2013, 16:36 GMT

    A fine article - I mostly concur. Like @SamRoy on (April 22, 2013, 8:57 GMT) I would have preferred Hartley to Haddin, but with vc job now up for grabs, Haddin it must be. Agree that Paine needs to replace Wade because missing KP off Lyon (Ahmed?) could be the difference between regaining the Ashes or not.@Batmanian (April 22, 2013, 7:17 GMT), your team is mostly good, but it won't be hard to tweak Cowan for Watson on most recent test form. Then as you say anyone found wanting after a couple of games needs to make way for Watson whose bowling will also be needed eventually. Like you @ Fred Stanley (April 22, 2013, 11:40 GMT) I fear for Warner and Hughes which is why Watson replacing either is odds on. Smith too should be in the squad in case of spinning tracks. But as others have said, that will expose Haddin, too, so Paine might be required. Cover all bases and have good back up in the A squad (Cummins, Faulkner, Burns, etc). @jackthelad, if you're right, Argus II before Ashes II!

  • on April 22, 2013, 16:15 GMT

    If I was a Aus selector I would pick Shaun Marsh(Best Player among all young players) , Callum Ferguson(Consistent Performer) & Adam Voges(Red Hot Form) & drop Hughes , Cowan & Khawaja . So my top 6 would be Watson , Warner , Marsh , Ferguson , Clarke & Voges . Haddin would come in as WK & Vice Captain & Siddle , Starc , Pattinson , Lyon would be my bowlers

  • on April 22, 2013, 16:06 GMT

    Brettig is 1000% correct here. I'd even throw George Bailey into the mix as another senior head that should be in the squad

  • Herbet on April 22, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    Its not as if famous sportsmen have never gone back on retirements is it. If I were on the Australian board I would beg, literally beg, Ponting and Hussey to come out of retirement, and even think about asking Warne too. If England were facing a team of Jaques, Rogers, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Watson, Haddin, Harris, Warne, Hilfenhaus, Pattinson I'd be a whole lot more worried than I am now!

  • SirViv1973 on April 22, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    @trevorleesafro, I don't think anyone doubts Rogers is good enough & deserves more than the one cap he has. The question is should Aus pick him at the age of 35?

  • Chris_Howard on April 22, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    Daniel, can't agree more. Rogers should be one of the first picked. And he's probably got a good 2 years in him.

    (It is forgotten how great a loss Phil Jacques was to Australia. If he hadn't screwed his back, we would have been a much better performed side in the last 5 years. Sadly for him and Australia, he never regained good enough form after that to get picked again.)

  • SirViv1973 on April 22, 2013, 14:13 GMT

    @YL89, What is the point in picking a 35 yr old to warm the bench. If you are looking for someone off the filed to support the younger members of the squad then that is what the management and coaches are for. You also have to remember that in terms of test cricket Rogers is an even bigger novice then all of the younger players he would be there to support! He also currently has a contract to play as Middlesex's captain. If he was picked to play in the ashes he would go with their blessing if he goes as an offield mentor I don't think they would be best pleased.

  • on April 22, 2013, 14:03 GMT

    How about an SOS to Simon Katich?! Seriously! The middle order needs some quality! Clarke and the selectors should offer him an olive branch! Problem is he isn't playing first-class cricket in Australia anymore!

  • Ozcricketwriter on April 22, 2013, 13:47 GMT

    Of course Harris should as he is Australia's best bowler. There is no doubt that he will play, injury permitting. The only major issue for Chris Rogers is that there are so many other opening batsmen going around and it would mean a reshuffle to cope with him - not to mention that he has only played 1 international match and may not be good enough at that level. But Brad Haddin? Why on earth are you thinking that Brad Haddin should come ahead of Matthew Wade? If you want to pick another keeper ahead of Matthew Wade, then pick the best keeper in the country in Chris Hartley. Not the 5th best in Brad Haddin. The mind boggles what people are thinking when they consider Haddin ahead of Wade. Do they watch cricket? Know anything about the game?

  • liz1558 on April 22, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    Why Cyril Washbrook? Why not Bobby Simpson as an example? He came back at the age of about 41 - possibly older than Washbrook - during Packer years and lead Australia to victory over a full strength India side. Australia has its own history of picking old-and-past-it types in a crisis. Not to mention Peter Taylor. Pilfer your own history, cobber.

  • on April 22, 2013, 13:18 GMT

    Nice article!! Speaks volumes about the reasons for australia's struggles in india...not only rogers, i would also like to quote Adam Voges who has performed more than decently whenever he has been in the national team....rogers surely deserves more than a lone test cap! However the biggest shock is the case of Brad Hodge...the man has managed to churn out tons of runs year after year across three formats, has a test average of 55 and yet is ignored continuously! In reality, hodge is probably one of the most reliable players in australia...the selectors persist with over hyped players like warner, cowan and maxwell who are yet to show consistency while ignoring the domestic stalwarts who never got their rightful opportunities! Wake up aussies! I am an indian but still i was terribly disappointed to see australia fall so meekly to india!

  • on April 22, 2013, 13:04 GMT

    Australia seriously need to consider Aaron Finch as a potential test batsman . Having seen him play in the ongoing IPL , he is one of those fewer guys in Australia who have a good technique and most importantly play with a STRAIGHT BAT . He should have toured India and the results for Australia wouldn't have been as worse . I can't believe Oz. keeps on playing Warner and Watson like batsman who although are dynamic but have such poor technique . Steve Smith needs to be a regular in the side as I think his technique is a lot improved . Get Paine in who again has a better technique than Haddin . Get a youngster like Will Bosisto or Jordan Silk in the team . Both have better techniques as i have observed . PLAYING XI - 1.Marsh 2.Silk 3.Finch 4.Clarke(c) 5.Khawaja 6.Smith 7.Paine(wk) 8.Starc 9.Siddle 10.Lyon 11.Pattinson Reserves- Bosisto, Cummins, Doolan , Faulkner

  • whoster on April 22, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    There's definitely a case for all three of these players to be Ashes contenders. Haddin has plenty of Test experience, and has performed pretty well with bat and gloves against England in the last two Ashes series. Wade has shown good signs with the bat, but there are big questions over his glovework. Another advantage in picking Haddin is that he's the only genuine candidate the Aussies have for the vice-captaincy. Chris Rogers has performed consistently well on the county circuit in England, and has been unlucky to have been overlooked in recent seasons by Australia. As for Ryan Harris, his toll of career injuries will count against him, but if fully fit, is a quality and hostile fast bowler. All these players are nearing the end of their careers, but with so many inexperienced and unproven players in the Aussie side, the selectors would be daft not to bear these players in mind.

  • YL89 on April 22, 2013, 12:08 GMT

    I agree that Haddin coming in for Wade makes a lot of sense, he's quite simply a better player in both facets at the moment and ads much needed leadership and experience. I'm very skeptical, however, that Ryan Harris' body could stand up to the rigors of a five match test series. I think having Siddle and Hilfenhaus in England would provide sufficient experience in that department to complement the relative inexperience of Pattinson, Starc and Bird. As for Rogers, I think it's a very good idea to have him in the squad to provide advice, experience and leadership, but I would stick with the Cowan-Warner opening partnership for the moment. Rogers as first reserve opener and first drop sounds like a very sound idea.

  • on April 22, 2013, 11:54 GMT

    @Meety, I have little doubt Haddin will tour, but I wouldn´t think he´d do any better than Wade.

    @Dismayed, I agree largely with what you say, but Dave Hussey has zero form and can´t really be picked.

    @Mary_786, i think its something of a misnomer that Khawaja did well at Derbyshire last year. He averaged under 40 in division 2 if i´m not mistaken, not that convincing.

    @JackTheLad, I hope you are wrong!

  • Oldpunk on April 22, 2013, 11:45 GMT

    Agreed. Hope the selectors read this.

  • PrasPunter on April 22, 2013, 11:42 GMT

    @Jediroya, can't agree more with your line-up with one change - Hughes for Smith. Atleast thats what the selectors would possibly opt to. Given how pathetic Warner has been, I would have Hughesy up at 3, Pup at 4 and Khawaja at 5. And none of Beer/SOK/X are going to be picked. It might be Ashton Agar or Fawad if he is available.

  • OneEyedAussie on April 22, 2013, 11:39 GMT

    I would like to see all three (Rogers, Harris and Haddin) play in the Ashes. I think Rogers should have got the nod when Hughes was dropped in '09. I think Wade needs to work on his keeping - right now Haddin or Paine would be better options (possibly Haddin in a VC role). Wade can come through in a few years. And Harris, well, that needs no elaboration.

  • Jediroya on April 22, 2013, 11:21 GMT

    "For the next 12 months, Haddin should don the gloves and the vice-captaincy, in Test matches at least." Thank you Daniel, someone finally has the guts to say publicly what we've all been thinking privately. Nothing wrong with Wade that a couple more first class seasons wouldn't iron out, but in the meantime Haddin deserves the nod as the better gloveman, better leader and better experienced in English conditions.

    For what its worth this would be my Ashes squad: 1. Rogers 2. Cowan 3. Khawaja 4. Warner 5. Clarke (c) 6. Watson 7. Haddin (vc) 8. Siddle 9. Starc 10. Pattinson 11. Lyon. Backups: Bailey, Smith, Wade/Paine, Harris, Bird and one of Beer/O'Keefe/Docherty.

  • Flemo_Gilly on April 22, 2013, 11:11 GMT

    @Mary I'm not too sure whether we really did acquited ourselves well against South Africa. THe only two batsman that consistently did well throughout the series was Clarke and Hussey. Hussey is now retired and so it's just Clarke. Really without Clarke and hussey I could have see Australia losing all three test against South Africa. Khawaja is a bright light and will do well in the ashes but he won't be our saviour. That will require 6 batsman to stand up otherwise we won't win. At this point in time and from what I saw in India iff Clarke doesn't score well this series i think Australia could be in deep trouble as its not a good picture after India, but i don't think turning to a 35 year old is the answer as well, we must show faith in our top 6 batsman.

  • trevorleesafro on April 22, 2013, 10:55 GMT

    On the possible selection of Rogers: before Compton scored all those runs at the beginning of last season who would you consider the better batsman? Obviously Rogers, right? If Compton is opening for England then Rogers is more than qualified to open for Australia. Warner, Cowan or Hughes would be nowhere near the England Test XI, but Rogers would have been snapped up if he declared himself English.

  • hycIass on April 22, 2013, 10:51 GMT

    @huttes96 I didn't know he wasn't a team player, hope you are wrong on that but if its true then it will count against him.

  • Teachers on April 22, 2013, 10:44 GMT

    I agree with jackthelad, the selectors have a long term vision that may conflict with the best options for the immediate future. They are commissioned to go with the Argus review. They were compelled to go with 'in form' players with a view to the future to supplement the team they inherited, but they did not cater for the retirement of Ponting and Hussey, neither did they think that existing players like Watson, Hughes, and Khawaja would not fill in the blanks. To now go against the grain would need a sense of dare. Looks great if it comes off, not so good if it doesn't. They might just keep to the safe option, especially after the unexpected flak they received from the media following the fiasco in India.

  • Paul_Rampley on April 22, 2013, 10:36 GMT

    I would prefer to keep Cowan as opener instead of Rogers. I am a fan of keeping youngsters in the side because in a year's time these guys become our champions. Hughes should stay in the ashes to show what he can do, Khawaja is a must and should be bought in as he will handle the conditions in England well. Smith has earned his spot in the India series and a true test lies in how he handles swing bowling and Waton will be bowling and batting so he comes in as an allrounder. In that we have our top 6 and I am happy with this top 6.

  • Sunil_Batra on April 22, 2013, 10:31 GMT

    If we're to have any chance whatsoever at winning the Ashes, we need technically strong batsmen. So we need an XI along these lines: Hughes Warner Khawaja D Huss Clarke Smith Wade Pattinson Siddle Lyon Bird

    Maddinson is a good addition (he can replace someone as either opener, he certainly has good technique and skill and had a great second half of the Shield), Khawaja(best number 3 in the country and just needs a series to show his class),Watson, Steve Smith, Paine(cover for Wade), Agar, James Faulkner,SOK and Pat Cummins (if fit). Also, I realise I could have put one more specialist, middle-order batsman in there, but nobody jumped out and between Starc, Siddle and Pattison, I figure that's enough cover.

  • SirViv1973 on April 22, 2013, 10:28 GMT

    Aus got the balance of their squad selection for Ind completley wrong & they will need to be careful that they do not do the same here. As the OP touches on the poss inclusion of Rogers would potentially lead to 5 openers in the squad Rogers, Warner, Cowan, Hughes & Watson which would leave Khawlja & Clarke as the only genuine middle order batters. Smith is the other likley inclusion & despite a good effort batting at 5 in Ind it's difficult to see where if at all he fits in to this team. Aus lack of leaders means that Haddin who im sure will make the squad has a good chance of playing espically given Wade's shocking performances behind the stumps in pretty much every test he's played. As for Harris we are constantly being told how great Aus fast bowling resources are so why do they need to go back to a guy in his mid 30's who hasn't played a test in over a year and has little chance if featuing in more than 1 or 2 games in the series?

  • crindo77 on April 22, 2013, 10:22 GMT

    I see no reason why Australia shouldnt be able to wrest the Ashes back. It's true they face an English team that is good, but by NO MEANS unbeatable. Pakistan in patches , SA and lately NZ have all persevered and shown the way. End of the day, KP is still the strongest and perversely the weakest point of the English team, as without his presence , an English win is unlikely, be it against India, England, NZ or SA. Australia don't have a prima donna, just a great batsman as captain. Their bowling attack is excellent, Johnson, Pattinson, Harris and Starc, with Lyons, should be formidable. Warner, Watson, Hughes, Clarke and Steve Smith have the skills to stick it to the best. Ed Cowans survival skills are perfect for irritating the opposition. Australia need to be their old hostile self, with the belief, and they can do the job. As much as I relish India's recent triumph, I feel it was an aberration, just likes India's 0-8 in the previous 2 years. Aussies, dont sell urselves short!!

  • Barnesy4444 on April 22, 2013, 10:07 GMT

    Harris should be in the squad and play if fit with Siddle, Pattinson and Bird in a 4 pronged pace attack. Starc and Cummins should be in the squad too if fit. All different types of bowlers who will complement each other.

    Rogers in the top 3. Haddin with the gloves, batting at 7 and VC. 6 specialist batsmen, 1 'keeper and 4 bowlers.

  • Mary_786 on April 22, 2013, 10:00 GMT

    Two points stand out for me. Firstly we will face good spin bowling in England, unless Swann gets injured. The difference will be that it will only be one quality spinner rather than three, and in conditions somewhat less helpful to spin. Secondly we did do OK against South Africa's attack. The Kookaburra barely swung all summer and when it did, our batting crumbled which means we have to get guys in who handle swing well. 2 guys who handle swing bowling very well are Khawaja and Rogers. Selectors have already stated that Khawaja will be an important member of the batting attack in July and i agree with that but I am not sure whether to bring Rogers in because i am a fan of rebuilding our team rather then getting folks in who are a year from retirement. One thing is for sure and that is the Duke will swing all series and England are correct in believing that Australia struggles against good swing bowling. Basically anything except dead straight is a worry; swing, seam or spin.

  • Amith_S on April 22, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    I like Harris and think he should come in but not sure about the other 2 players. And as for our fast bowling attack you can't argue with some of the figures someone like Bird is producing.Bird averages 19 and has taken 100 wickets in 19 matches.Also his extreme consistency will trouble batsman anywhere, because he doesn't rely on swing or bounce or seam.While the English bowlers struggle to get first class AVGs under thirty, and as shown in New Zealand are incapable to penetrate batting attacks if the pitch is flat.As for our batting this is Watson's last chance as another series failure won't help him and he needs to bowl. Khawaja will fire and is my pick as our best batsman after Clarke in this series as he plays pace bowling really well. For England Broad, Finn are good bowlers but struggle outside of England. I will be looking forward to seeing them in Aus next summer. Anderson on the other hand is a Amazing bowler who has a Ordinary average.

  • Sir_Francis on April 22, 2013, 9:40 GMT

    I agree with Mr. Brettig. However I'd select the 3 as they are better than the incumbants. I'd also select David Hussey.

    However, I am not a selector.

  • on April 22, 2013, 9:36 GMT

    @huttse96 I wish you hadn't started. What Rogers cares about is scoring runs, and winning. Caring about yourself at the crease is a virtue in the game, not a hindrance. Take a look at Boycott, Richards, Lara and Pietersen's records - and the success their teams achieved as a result. Then take a look at the re-emergence of Middlesex in the English County Championship, after the home of cricket elected to make him captain. Hardly smacks of someone who is not good for team morale.

  • Mary_786 on April 22, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    There is no doubt our weakness is our batting but aside from Clarke I expect Warner to stand up and expect Khawaja to play a key role, he played well in County last year and is one of our better players of swing bowling. I am in favor of Harris coming in as he can strengthen our bowling and looked great in the shield final. And keep in mind thatEngland's downs happened against a decent kiwi team while they were minus KP and Swann, swan is better than Monty because he can bowl on all surface even batter friendly ones like in NZ and still get wickets -- Monty is a killer on turning wickets as he proved in India where he outbowled swann -- england are also bringing tremlett along nicely he's bowling first class matches again in SA and is being primed for the ashes home and away like Jones was for 2005 .Bottom line is that we have our work cut out to beat England but if we can get our batting right we can win.

  • Charlie101 on April 22, 2013, 9:27 GMT

    Rogers may be a fine player but how can you consider selecting an 35 year old untried player in an Ashes series ??

  • Dismayed on April 22, 2013, 9:18 GMT

    Seriously how does this guy get a gig commenting on cricket, he wants Cowan as VC when he should not even be in the squad and he wants Haddin in who consistently through his time in the team threw his wicket away at the worst possible time for the side. Paine is the future for the Australian team and steady enough now in all facets, D.Hussey should have been in the team 3 years ago. G.Bailey will be given the opportunity if Mr Clark can allow a strong character into "his " team. S.Smith should be persevered with and S. O'keefe should be the 2nd spinner. Harris must play as many as possible in place of Siddle. With the young guns Starc, Bird, Cummins and Pattinson moving through the team M.Johnson should also be given a tour. Watson has one last chance. Warner, Watson, Hughes, D.Hussey, M.Clark, S.Smith, M.Wade, Starc, Pattinson, Harris, Lyon, Bird, Cummins, Johnson, Paine, Bailey, O'keefe. Henriques unlucky to miss out or replaces M.Johnson in the touring party.

  • huttse96 on April 22, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    Chris rogers! DONT GET ME STARTED, his not a team player is a solo player that only cares about himself! why he never played more for australia

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on April 22, 2013, 9:09 GMT

    I don't understand why Aus. are so reluctant to use different keepers for different formats; England have been doing this for ages, with Prior being first choice for tests (rightly so) and others fighting over the shorter formats. Wade is a waste in tests, and sooner rather than later Aus. need to accept the likes of Haddin and Paine would be better for now. Harris was always going to be in the selectors minds already (barring injury again), and as I've said before I'd love to see McKay given a chance in tests. Warner and Hughes should not play tests, so there are opening slots and positions 3/4 (depending where Clarke wants to slot in) up for grabs still.

  • SamRoy on April 22, 2013, 8:57 GMT

    I think Chris Rogers, Ryan Harris and Chris Hartley (with Paine as back up) are better choices. Haddin was never a good keeper and Wade is a horrible keeper. Everyone in Australia knows that Chris Hartley is the best keeper. Play him at 7. Anyway, if two of Starc, Pattinson and Harris play Australia have a strong tail and even if Hartley averages 20-25 with the bat it won't cost Australia too many runs. Nobody expects 35 year old Haddin to average 45-50 with the bat in the series. Even Gilchrist couldn't do it at that age (after 35). If Hartley is failing with the bat miserably (less than 15 after 3 tests) play Paine for the last 2 tests.

  • jonesy2 on April 22, 2013, 8:22 GMT

    of course harris is going to play a role! hes arguably the best fast bowler in the world and has been for years

  • on April 22, 2013, 8:14 GMT

    Well why wasnt Rogers selected before Ed Cowan?? If he wasnt selected then he wont be selected now, tho he would be better then the current crop of batsman I think

  • mehulmatrix on April 22, 2013, 8:01 GMT

    Very good article. Yes indeed, given the present status of Aussies team, they need atleast Haddin and Rogers. In fact Rogers & Katich should have been given an opportunity before Warner and Cowan. They are very experienced and grown during the time of great players in Australia. Building for future is good, but there should be well matured and players capable to shoulder them. Even i think calling back Katich is not a bad idea at all, if he is active with 4-day cricket. Experienced players can give solid support to team and also guide the youngsters in mean time.

  • Batmanian on April 22, 2013, 7:57 GMT

    @Hari Harasudhan, I agree with your sentiment, inasmuch as it would do wonders for Australia's development if we could just restore some confidence that we can be competitive against England, RSA and India away. We have a few problems, batting-wise, though.

    One, we don't have any really young tyros demanding a place - the youth of such players gives them an edge, as building experience is back-of-mind; Joe Burns at 23 is our best bet. Two, the middle-career stocks aren't great - Doolan's 27 and Khawaja's 25, and they're the best we've got [not counting Warner and Hughes, who seem to be secure]). Henrique's a bitza, but he's still worth considering if he can fight. Three, our older blokes are risky too - Rogers, David Hussey and Haddin. Hussey seems to have lost a bit of his obvious slot-in form. Poor Brad Hodge.

    So, Australia does have to balance youth/mid-career development into any team it might hope can win. England aren't that good either, remember.

  • Behind_the_bowlers_arm on April 22, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    Rogers is a certainty for me and I'd bat him at 3. With the First and Second and then the Third and Fourth Tests being close together I'd be aiming to play Harris in Tests One, Three & Five and hope the series is still alive by the last. Harris is a tough competitor and a good character .... as said this team is in need of those badly. Haddin should be in the squad as back up keeper and an experienced head around the group. There is no obvious vice-captain and someone like Haddin as a sounding board for Clarke and a good influence around the team will be useful.

  • Meety on April 22, 2013, 7:33 GMT

    @Jono Makim - I think Haddin will probably tour, so having in the touring squad should allow him to give some input. I agree with the article that Rogers & Harris should tour, (actually thought Harris is a no-brainer even if he is just brought for Lords). == == == I think that Oz will really need to stack the A-tour with players they expect to be close (or will be in) the Ashes tour (particularly batsmen). The Loss of Hussey has destabilised the Oz-line up even more than previously thought & so any scraps of experience an A-tour can provide will be very important. Hopefully, the NSP (in their infinate wisdom) will NOT use the Champ Trophy as a trial for Tests. It will be handy for blokes like Warner, Clarke & Watto (maybe if he is in the Test squad) - to get exposure. Nothing can be learned from say Maxwell doing well in the Champ Trophy in relation to a potential Ashes birth! (or for that mater DOHERTY!)

  • goldeneraaus on April 22, 2013, 7:30 GMT

    A lot of merit in what Daniel is saying here, the case for youth and long term planning is only appropriate when youngsters are knocking down the door, but as we know this is certainly not the case for Australian batsman. Rogers is a must IN England at the very least while, Harris, forget his age, is the best seamer we have in the country so should play as much as his body will let him. Difficult to consider Haddin as my last memories of him are absurd shot selection and mediocre keeping, and Wade has shown enough promise and results at a young age to evoke the long term thinking argument, particular if Rogers or other older statesmen are selected. Will throw in the name of Ricky Ponting simply because had he known Hussey was going to retire he would never have given it up, because he still has the hunger.

  • venkatesh018 on April 22, 2013, 7:23 GMT

    Add one more name: Mike Hussey.

  • Batmanian on April 22, 2013, 7:17 GMT

    Rogers for Cowan could work, but I have a feeling they're not going to drop Cowan. Watson and Rogers, Warner, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Wade, Pattinson, Siddle, Harris, Lyon is a decent team that might give Watson, Warner, Hughes and Khawaja the chance to shine or otherwise. I would give those players, as well as Rogers, two Tests and drop whoever's not up to scratch. Warner as a first drop and Hughes as second... I quite like the look of that. Have to get some bowling out of Watson, still. I can't see how Rogers can be found a place unless Cowan is bumped.

  • on April 22, 2013, 7:16 GMT

    In the long term we are all dead. While development of players is significant it is more important that we dont forget the present in the hope of a better future. Select players who are in form irrespective of their age.

  • on April 22, 2013, 6:52 GMT

    I can´t agree on Haddin, he even dropped a regulation catch standing back in the odi's. Wadey will be fine in England standing back for the most part and his batting to date has been really quite good.

    Rogers, yes. Proven performer in England. Has been in great touch the last six months and has a great long term record.

    Harris, yes. Can adapt to prevailing conditions quicker than any other Aus quick, he is fresh from a long break and shouldn´t be feeling any niggles and bowling with good pace, has to play.

  • on April 22, 2013, 6:52 GMT

    I can´t agree on Haddin, he even dropped a regulation catch standing back in the odi's. Wadey will be fine in England standing back for the most part and his batting to date has been really quite good.

    Rogers, yes. Proven performer in England. Has been in great touch the last six months and has a great long term record.

    Harris, yes. Can adapt to prevailing conditions quicker than any other Aus quick, he is fresh from a long break and shouldn´t be feeling any niggles and bowling with good pace, has to play.

  • on April 22, 2013, 7:16 GMT

    In the long term we are all dead. While development of players is significant it is more important that we dont forget the present in the hope of a better future. Select players who are in form irrespective of their age.

  • Batmanian on April 22, 2013, 7:17 GMT

    Rogers for Cowan could work, but I have a feeling they're not going to drop Cowan. Watson and Rogers, Warner, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Wade, Pattinson, Siddle, Harris, Lyon is a decent team that might give Watson, Warner, Hughes and Khawaja the chance to shine or otherwise. I would give those players, as well as Rogers, two Tests and drop whoever's not up to scratch. Warner as a first drop and Hughes as second... I quite like the look of that. Have to get some bowling out of Watson, still. I can't see how Rogers can be found a place unless Cowan is bumped.

  • venkatesh018 on April 22, 2013, 7:23 GMT

    Add one more name: Mike Hussey.

  • goldeneraaus on April 22, 2013, 7:30 GMT

    A lot of merit in what Daniel is saying here, the case for youth and long term planning is only appropriate when youngsters are knocking down the door, but as we know this is certainly not the case for Australian batsman. Rogers is a must IN England at the very least while, Harris, forget his age, is the best seamer we have in the country so should play as much as his body will let him. Difficult to consider Haddin as my last memories of him are absurd shot selection and mediocre keeping, and Wade has shown enough promise and results at a young age to evoke the long term thinking argument, particular if Rogers or other older statesmen are selected. Will throw in the name of Ricky Ponting simply because had he known Hussey was going to retire he would never have given it up, because he still has the hunger.

  • Meety on April 22, 2013, 7:33 GMT

    @Jono Makim - I think Haddin will probably tour, so having in the touring squad should allow him to give some input. I agree with the article that Rogers & Harris should tour, (actually thought Harris is a no-brainer even if he is just brought for Lords). == == == I think that Oz will really need to stack the A-tour with players they expect to be close (or will be in) the Ashes tour (particularly batsmen). The Loss of Hussey has destabilised the Oz-line up even more than previously thought & so any scraps of experience an A-tour can provide will be very important. Hopefully, the NSP (in their infinate wisdom) will NOT use the Champ Trophy as a trial for Tests. It will be handy for blokes like Warner, Clarke & Watto (maybe if he is in the Test squad) - to get exposure. Nothing can be learned from say Maxwell doing well in the Champ Trophy in relation to a potential Ashes birth! (or for that mater DOHERTY!)

  • Behind_the_bowlers_arm on April 22, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    Rogers is a certainty for me and I'd bat him at 3. With the First and Second and then the Third and Fourth Tests being close together I'd be aiming to play Harris in Tests One, Three & Five and hope the series is still alive by the last. Harris is a tough competitor and a good character .... as said this team is in need of those badly. Haddin should be in the squad as back up keeper and an experienced head around the group. There is no obvious vice-captain and someone like Haddin as a sounding board for Clarke and a good influence around the team will be useful.

  • Batmanian on April 22, 2013, 7:57 GMT

    @Hari Harasudhan, I agree with your sentiment, inasmuch as it would do wonders for Australia's development if we could just restore some confidence that we can be competitive against England, RSA and India away. We have a few problems, batting-wise, though.

    One, we don't have any really young tyros demanding a place - the youth of such players gives them an edge, as building experience is back-of-mind; Joe Burns at 23 is our best bet. Two, the middle-career stocks aren't great - Doolan's 27 and Khawaja's 25, and they're the best we've got [not counting Warner and Hughes, who seem to be secure]). Henrique's a bitza, but he's still worth considering if he can fight. Three, our older blokes are risky too - Rogers, David Hussey and Haddin. Hussey seems to have lost a bit of his obvious slot-in form. Poor Brad Hodge.

    So, Australia does have to balance youth/mid-career development into any team it might hope can win. England aren't that good either, remember.

  • mehulmatrix on April 22, 2013, 8:01 GMT

    Very good article. Yes indeed, given the present status of Aussies team, they need atleast Haddin and Rogers. In fact Rogers & Katich should have been given an opportunity before Warner and Cowan. They are very experienced and grown during the time of great players in Australia. Building for future is good, but there should be well matured and players capable to shoulder them. Even i think calling back Katich is not a bad idea at all, if he is active with 4-day cricket. Experienced players can give solid support to team and also guide the youngsters in mean time.

  • on April 22, 2013, 8:14 GMT

    Well why wasnt Rogers selected before Ed Cowan?? If he wasnt selected then he wont be selected now, tho he would be better then the current crop of batsman I think