The Investec Ashes 2013 July 1, 2013

Rogers granted his opening

Like Australia coach Darren Lehmann, Chris Rogers has plenty of experience in English conditions. Unlike Lehmann, he will now get to use that knowledge in the Ashes
  shares 44

Darren Lehmann has granted Chris Rogers the opportunity he never had. For all his success at Yorkshire, defined as much by his influence on the culture of the club as 8871 Championship runs at 68.76, Lehmann was never able to use his English expertise on an Ashes tour. Only a week into the job as Australia coach and selector, he has ensured that Rogers will.

Thrust at short notice into a position of enormous influence in Australian cricket on the eve of the Investec Ashes series, one of Lehmann's very first decisions was to inform certain key players of the roles he had identified for them against England. Among the players spoken to last week was Rogers, who alongside Shane Watson will form an opening combination that boasts a wealth of local knowledge and the capacity to take the game away from Alastair Cook's team.

While Watson is returning to the top of the order for the simple reason that it is the place he has enjoyed most success, Rogers is ideally placed to be a "batting captain" of sorts. Experience of English conditions has made him an example for all in the squad to follow, particularly when confronted with the new, swinging Dukes ball. Like Lehmann at Leeds, Rogers has excelled as a mentor at Lord's, taking on the Middlesex captaincy. He is now intent on leading the line as a Test batsman.

"The thing I try to do as a captain is lead from the front and that is the role of an opener anyway," Rogers said. "If I can do that for Australia, hopefully I can set the game up for the middle-order to play expansively and take the game away from the opposition. For that to happen we need a solid start.

"The Dukes ball is different. I think you need to get a real feel for it, particularly as an opening batsman. The ball is going to do some crazy things at times. With my experience, I can be fairly comfortable with my knowledge of that. It's still going to be a huge challenge because I think the English bowlers are exceptional. If I do well then I can be very satisfied."

Rogers said he had entered the Australia squad with similar intentions to those subsequently shown by Lehmann - providing calm, knowledge and a sense of humour at the right times. This was typified by his wry observation that even though he has only played one Test, a chaotic affair against India in Perth five years ago, Rogers has now been addressed by three Australia coaches.

"It's been interesting but I guess it's been offset by the fact that Lehmann is such a calm character, who has really set us at ease and that's helped," Rogers said. "Maybe I was a bit curious about what was going to happen, but after this last week I think everyone is quietly confident.

"I think the character I am, too, I can pass on these kinds of things. This first Test is still going to be a bit of an unknown for me and I have to deal with those things. But I do see my role as passing on some information to the young guys. I enjoy that."

State and county team-mates of Rogers know his value, opening the batting and providing a reliable link in the dressing room chain of command. James Pattinson said his fellow Victoria Bushranger was among the hardest men to dislodge from the batting crease, even if merely having a net.

"It's the tough edge that he brings to the team. He's a very hard man to dismiss in the nets," Pattinson said. "He puts great value on his wicket then will capitalise once he gets in. You know he'll go out there and score runs. He's got a great wealth of knowledge in cricket circles, he knows the conditions well and, playing with him for Victoria, around the dressing room he's fantastic. He brings that relaxed sort of approach.

"The big thing about him is that he knows his game so well and he's very good at coaching others so he'll bring that to a lot of other batsmen as well. I've noticed over the years he's spent a lot of time with the younger guys from Victoria. He'll give some great insights into batting and how to about the conditions over here."

The one question to be raised of Rogers is how his batting will stand up to the mess and noise of an Ashes series, having played so many matches in front of sparse audiences. He has prepared as best as possible.

"I was fortunate enough that the selection happened a couple of months ago," he said. "Every time I have gone out to bat I have been putting myself under as much pressure as I can, trying to lift the intensity because I remember what it was like in that first Test and it's far different to what you experience in domestic cricket."

Though the Ashes tour always did remain elusive, Lehmann's autobiography was called Worth The Wait. Should Rogers succeed, he might just start thinking about pinching that title for his own.

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

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • rich26 on July 2, 2013, 2:58 GMT

    I agree this is the best opening combination. But No.3? Australia loves to have a dominating strokeplayer at 3 but Ponting is gone and I think an solid accumulator like Cowan will be a good choice there in the mould of Dravid, Kallis and Trott (albeit averaging 33 not 50 at this point). Wouldn't mind seeing Warner at 6 and I could see him and Haddin punishing England if the top order set a good platform and get the bowlers tired.

  • popcorn on July 2, 2013, 2:40 GMT

    I am really happy for Chris Rogers.I hope this is the beginning of The Argus Review really taking shape wherein Performance, not Flash in the pan is rewarded. I sm reminded of how Damien Martyn was banished from Test Cricket for a silly reason after we lost to South Africa in 1994 and recalled after 6 years. And how he performed thereafter! Similarly, Chris Rogers was given out lbw when he was not - in the onlyTest he played. Michael Hussey had to wait for a Test place till he scored 10000 first class runs!

  • ScottStevo on July 4, 2013, 8:45 GMT

    ....My point being on that thread, if our results of recent times had been so poor, how is it we were even in a position to go into the #1 spot if we'd won that series against SA?

  • ScottStevo on July 3, 2013, 21:22 GMT

    @Greatest_Game, so almost winning 2 test matches out of 3 is nowhere? Are you saying that Aus weren't in strong positions to win both the first 2 test matches? I wouldn't say choked as SA pulled off some miraculous feats and I wouldn't be dismissive enough not give them ample credit for their work and to conclude that's why they're #1 and we're not. Your point being that we were so far away as we needed to win 2 tests, well we were all over SA in the first 2 tests. The first where SA were effectively 50-5 in their second innings and a day of rain most likely saved their blushes. In the second they pulled off the near impossible, not to win mind you , just to survive - which was by far the less likely outcome. Almost as miraculously, you seem to disagree with this? So again I ask, what series were you watching? Why don't you provide your analysis of the series. At any rate, my original point you referred to I was stating that our results aren't lean compared with others besmirched...

  • Greatest_Game on July 2, 2013, 21:16 GMT

    @ ScottStevo wrote "not sure which test series you were watching, but I watched the series were in the first 2 test matches played, Australia could've (probably should've) won the first and definitely should've won the second."

    Could have, should have, most likely, might have, every chance - those don't win test matches or a test series. You wrote that Aus "almost" got to #1. They were, however, 2 test wins short at the end of the series. That is not "almost," that is nowhere! You can say "could have, should have" about the India tour, World Cup, World T20, Champions Trophy, the last Ashes ... but the fact is that Aus did not win them. Not even "almost."

    SA "might have" won the World Cup by now. They have not. They could have, & certainly should have, but they did not, and earned the title of "chokers" instead. That is what happens when a team "should have," but did not win. Are you saying that Aus choked? That is what it sounds like! Are Aus now the Test Chokers?

  • on July 2, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    Rogers's selection is a good decision for a number of reasons. Experience in English conditions over a number of years, the maturity of age and leadership, he's waited ages for this - he'll make it count, and he has been getting decent scores recently under pressure (Champions Trophy). However, we should not compare he and Watson to Hayden/Langer. That era of Australian cricket has gone, it may never be repeated. To expect current players to replicate those performances is unrealistic and damaging. The best we can hope for is some Marsh/Boon fight, plain old hard work - and lots of it - just to get an average score.

  • Mitty2 on July 2, 2013, 12:07 GMT

    I pleaded and pleaded for Rogers to be selected when the squad announcement was coming up and boy was I relieved when he was selected. That squad announcement was one of the only good things that had happened in that post-Indian series to now purely for his inclusion and maxwell's exclusion. I brought up a million reasons - primary ones obviously being experience and performance (argus) In a side devoid of both - for his selection and I don't need to repeat them now. I'll just be content that we have a much more solid batting line up with Rogers virtually replacing Warner... Yay!

    But of course, that brings up the issue of number 3. For stability - which is what we need more than anything - we simply have to have Rogers and Cowan in the top 3. Cowan at 3, Hughes and khawaja at 4 and 6 (not fussed who goes where). C'mon boys, let's go for a massive upset! I need repayment for watching the majority of the Indian series!

  • on July 2, 2013, 12:07 GMT

    About time, too. How does a guy with FC of 50 get over looked all these years?

  • ScottStevo on July 2, 2013, 10:35 GMT

    @GreatestGame, not sure which test series you were watching, but I watched the series were in the first 2 test matches played, Australia could've (probably should've) won the first and definitely should've won the second. So 2 out of 3 tests we most likely shoud've done better in and completed victories, against the one poor test we played to lose the whole series as we didn't finish off the job in the first 2. Yes, I think you'll find we had every chance to win that series and go #1. Also, Ponting did voluntarily retire, only after our media had been hounding him for around 3-4 years. @Others, we will see. FC runs aren't the same as test match runs. I really hope he does well, for numerous reasons, but personally, I think we should've looked at bringing in middle order players that we can get use out of for more than a series; and that those guys don't end up in the same predicament as Rogers in 5 years time whereby we're selecting them @ 35 asking why they weren't selected beforehand

  • ravi_hari on July 2, 2013, 8:54 GMT

    With a batting average of over 50 in first class cricket, he is a luxury to have in a team which has many new comers. He could be another Hussey if he succeeds and can play for atleast 2 to 3 years, before Aussies find the right 'opener'. Rogers' English experience will definitely help him guide the yound batting side and if he can score as well, it will be double yammy. Any cricket match is about good starts. If Watson and Rogers open for Australia, we could see a repeat of Hayden-Langer era. However, for that to happen, both have to play beyond their abilities and have to take their roles very seriously. Watson in particular can impact the whole series, if he can score a quickfire 100 in the first test. That will surely unsettle the Englishmen who will have to change tactics to counter the onslaught. The best thing for Aussies with Lehmann is that they will get back the aggressive attitude on the field as they will be free from dressing room fears. All are eagerly awaiting the Ashes.

  • rich26 on July 2, 2013, 2:58 GMT

    I agree this is the best opening combination. But No.3? Australia loves to have a dominating strokeplayer at 3 but Ponting is gone and I think an solid accumulator like Cowan will be a good choice there in the mould of Dravid, Kallis and Trott (albeit averaging 33 not 50 at this point). Wouldn't mind seeing Warner at 6 and I could see him and Haddin punishing England if the top order set a good platform and get the bowlers tired.

  • popcorn on July 2, 2013, 2:40 GMT

    I am really happy for Chris Rogers.I hope this is the beginning of The Argus Review really taking shape wherein Performance, not Flash in the pan is rewarded. I sm reminded of how Damien Martyn was banished from Test Cricket for a silly reason after we lost to South Africa in 1994 and recalled after 6 years. And how he performed thereafter! Similarly, Chris Rogers was given out lbw when he was not - in the onlyTest he played. Michael Hussey had to wait for a Test place till he scored 10000 first class runs!

  • ScottStevo on July 4, 2013, 8:45 GMT

    ....My point being on that thread, if our results of recent times had been so poor, how is it we were even in a position to go into the #1 spot if we'd won that series against SA?

  • ScottStevo on July 3, 2013, 21:22 GMT

    @Greatest_Game, so almost winning 2 test matches out of 3 is nowhere? Are you saying that Aus weren't in strong positions to win both the first 2 test matches? I wouldn't say choked as SA pulled off some miraculous feats and I wouldn't be dismissive enough not give them ample credit for their work and to conclude that's why they're #1 and we're not. Your point being that we were so far away as we needed to win 2 tests, well we were all over SA in the first 2 tests. The first where SA were effectively 50-5 in their second innings and a day of rain most likely saved their blushes. In the second they pulled off the near impossible, not to win mind you , just to survive - which was by far the less likely outcome. Almost as miraculously, you seem to disagree with this? So again I ask, what series were you watching? Why don't you provide your analysis of the series. At any rate, my original point you referred to I was stating that our results aren't lean compared with others besmirched...

  • Greatest_Game on July 2, 2013, 21:16 GMT

    @ ScottStevo wrote "not sure which test series you were watching, but I watched the series were in the first 2 test matches played, Australia could've (probably should've) won the first and definitely should've won the second."

    Could have, should have, most likely, might have, every chance - those don't win test matches or a test series. You wrote that Aus "almost" got to #1. They were, however, 2 test wins short at the end of the series. That is not "almost," that is nowhere! You can say "could have, should have" about the India tour, World Cup, World T20, Champions Trophy, the last Ashes ... but the fact is that Aus did not win them. Not even "almost."

    SA "might have" won the World Cup by now. They have not. They could have, & certainly should have, but they did not, and earned the title of "chokers" instead. That is what happens when a team "should have," but did not win. Are you saying that Aus choked? That is what it sounds like! Are Aus now the Test Chokers?

  • on July 2, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    Rogers's selection is a good decision for a number of reasons. Experience in English conditions over a number of years, the maturity of age and leadership, he's waited ages for this - he'll make it count, and he has been getting decent scores recently under pressure (Champions Trophy). However, we should not compare he and Watson to Hayden/Langer. That era of Australian cricket has gone, it may never be repeated. To expect current players to replicate those performances is unrealistic and damaging. The best we can hope for is some Marsh/Boon fight, plain old hard work - and lots of it - just to get an average score.

  • Mitty2 on July 2, 2013, 12:07 GMT

    I pleaded and pleaded for Rogers to be selected when the squad announcement was coming up and boy was I relieved when he was selected. That squad announcement was one of the only good things that had happened in that post-Indian series to now purely for his inclusion and maxwell's exclusion. I brought up a million reasons - primary ones obviously being experience and performance (argus) In a side devoid of both - for his selection and I don't need to repeat them now. I'll just be content that we have a much more solid batting line up with Rogers virtually replacing Warner... Yay!

    But of course, that brings up the issue of number 3. For stability - which is what we need more than anything - we simply have to have Rogers and Cowan in the top 3. Cowan at 3, Hughes and khawaja at 4 and 6 (not fussed who goes where). C'mon boys, let's go for a massive upset! I need repayment for watching the majority of the Indian series!

  • on July 2, 2013, 12:07 GMT

    About time, too. How does a guy with FC of 50 get over looked all these years?

  • ScottStevo on July 2, 2013, 10:35 GMT

    @GreatestGame, not sure which test series you were watching, but I watched the series were in the first 2 test matches played, Australia could've (probably should've) won the first and definitely should've won the second. So 2 out of 3 tests we most likely shoud've done better in and completed victories, against the one poor test we played to lose the whole series as we didn't finish off the job in the first 2. Yes, I think you'll find we had every chance to win that series and go #1. Also, Ponting did voluntarily retire, only after our media had been hounding him for around 3-4 years. @Others, we will see. FC runs aren't the same as test match runs. I really hope he does well, for numerous reasons, but personally, I think we should've looked at bringing in middle order players that we can get use out of for more than a series; and that those guys don't end up in the same predicament as Rogers in 5 years time whereby we're selecting them @ 35 asking why they weren't selected beforehand

  • ravi_hari on July 2, 2013, 8:54 GMT

    With a batting average of over 50 in first class cricket, he is a luxury to have in a team which has many new comers. He could be another Hussey if he succeeds and can play for atleast 2 to 3 years, before Aussies find the right 'opener'. Rogers' English experience will definitely help him guide the yound batting side and if he can score as well, it will be double yammy. Any cricket match is about good starts. If Watson and Rogers open for Australia, we could see a repeat of Hayden-Langer era. However, for that to happen, both have to play beyond their abilities and have to take their roles very seriously. Watson in particular can impact the whole series, if he can score a quickfire 100 in the first test. That will surely unsettle the Englishmen who will have to change tactics to counter the onslaught. The best thing for Aussies with Lehmann is that they will get back the aggressive attitude on the field as they will be free from dressing room fears. All are eagerly awaiting the Ashes.

  • on July 2, 2013, 7:36 GMT

    I'm starting to see the method in Lehmanns 'madness' and it is clear that he is not all beer and smokes but also a ruthless and fair operator.Both Siddle and Khawaja have played not only the county game but also in the A games and therefore have been given enough games to prove themselves.Siddle has cruised through all these games with no injury concerns like Harris and Bird and has coasted with no Intensity whereas Bird and Harris have bought their bodies back from Injury and have bowled with enough intensity under pressure to say that they helped to win the A game against Ireland.Now Harris and Bird will have all of the new ball and the bulk of the middle overs to prove themselves for that one remaining seamers spot behind Starc and Pattinson. Starc's showed real menace in his first 4 day game and Lehmann is obviously confident in bringing out his best and would probably be castigating every one of his loose balls in Practice. Khawaja's is 90% there but Cowan has a li'l window.

  • TheBigBoodha on July 2, 2013, 6:38 GMT

    Watson and Rogers are our best bet as openers, and our best chance to build a match winning partnership at be top of the order. As for number 6, Warner is worth a shot if the track is solid, but Smith will be better if they lay a dustbowl for Swann. Lets face it. As soon as Warner steps out of the sheds, they will bring Swann on, and he's much better against pace.

  • on July 2, 2013, 6:37 GMT

    This is an excellent decision. Rogers has scored heavily at Middlesex and gives the Aussie top 6 a far more solid look. We (England) aren't anywhere near as stable up top as we like to think, highly dependent on Cook and Trott. So I don't think it's quite the lock a number of my fellow countrymen seem to imagine. I DO think it'll be an absolutely cracking series, though.

  • stag42 on July 2, 2013, 6:36 GMT

    With Rogers and Watson at the top, Cowan will have a hard time proving his worth to the team unless he makes a hundred in the game against Worcs. Lehmann could appreciate his fight though, but he'd have to make runs as well as fight for that to happen.

    At this point, I'd also have to say the pace attack is becoming clearer, though an outstanding performance against Worcs could change that again.

    My XI: 1. Watson 2. Rogers 3. Khawaja 4. Clarke 5. Hughes 6. Smith 7. Haddin 8. Siddle 9. Pattinson 10. Harris 11. Lyon 12. Starc

  • on July 2, 2013, 5:55 GMT

    It is indeed a bold move by Lehman. Since Warner is out of contention for this test, I thought they will keep Ed Cowan to open along with Watson. This new arrangement could even make English think tank to re-do their calculations and workings. Where Ed Cowan will go from here. May be, he could come in the Middle Order. I dont know whether Hughes will be moved down the order and Ed Cowan will come in his place. What about the bowling options. By having Pattinson in the squad, the bowling depart seems strong with Starc, Siddle, Lyon, Harries and Faulkner. My team for the first test will be: Rogers, Watson, Hughes, Clarke, Cowan, Khawaja, Haddin, Pattinson, Starc, Siddle and Lyon.

  • Mary_786 on July 2, 2013, 5:54 GMT

    Sunil well said. I have been saying for a while this series will be closer than people think, England aren't travelling brillaintly if you look back over their past few series.If you look at Englands performance in their warm up match you will see their top order failed similar to how ours have, we are still in with a shot, Boof is bringing our guys together and is sorting the batting, i like having Rogers and Watson at the top with Khawaja at 3 and Clarke at 4 and Hughes at 5. Its coming together well.

  • on July 2, 2013, 5:43 GMT

    I'm starting to get an India vibe leading into this first test, everything seemed set now bits and pieces players are once again coming into contention ala faulkner(i like him but he is just not ready), Smith (Good choice ,but not before a real squadmember), I hope I am proved wrong but damn, i see no changes. If they pick Smith ahead of Khawaja again after being brought in as so called "cover" (like india) then for god's sake drop Khawaja, what's the point in dangling a carrot in front of a player for so long if you are never going to give him a bloody shot. People are basing everything on these warmup games and forgetting that we havn't actually given some people a chance at test level.

  • KhanMitch on July 2, 2013, 5:22 GMT

    @HycIass well said mate. Lehmann has said Rogers will partner Watson to open. With two fifties that means Khawaj ais front runner for the 3 spot given he top scored last game and is not playing this one, i also think he is our best number 3. Assume Clarke at 4 and Hughes at 5. I hope boof does not cut the number of batsman, watson is bowling now and so we can have 6 batsman and we should. Smith has more runs in the last few representative matches than Warner does. So if you pick on form why not Smith for 6.

  • vetty4ever on July 2, 2013, 5:16 GMT

    Moving Warner down the order could be a masterstroke... but i still think Watto should play @ 5... Bailey has to be drafted into the test squad as he has the temperament and can grind it out !! What happenned to Eddie cowan ?

  • hotcric01 on July 2, 2013, 4:43 GMT

    1. Rogers 2. Watson 3. Khawaja 4.Clarke 5. Hughes 6. Haddin 7.Faulkner 8. Starc 9. Siddle/Harris 10. Pattinson 11. Lyon.Aussies will win this time.

  • on July 2, 2013, 4:39 GMT

    I would love to hear Simon Katich's take on this. Poor bloke. If Harris is fit I cannot see how you could leave him out. He might only last two tests but will give us every chance of being 2-0 up.

  • on July 2, 2013, 4:38 GMT

    ideal aussie 11 for 1st test : 1. Rogers 2. Watson 3. Hughes 4. Clarke 5. Smith 6. Wade 7. Haddin 8. Starc 9. Siddle 10. Harris 11. Pattinson

  • dunger.bob on July 2, 2013, 4:35 GMT

    Chris wants to lead from the front and see off the new ball, then cash in, score heaps of runs and set up a platform. While he's at it he's going to be a daddy figure for the other blokes and help Boof keep things nice and calm blue ocean like. .. Oh well, why not? ..

    The guy is already under enormous pressure and doesn't seem to mind piling a bit more on himself. If he's up to it, it's something the team sorely needs, but he just painted a great big target onto himself, if there wasn't one there already... Good luck to him of course, if it all works out the team will benefit a lot.

    Ps. What will happen if he fails in the tour game ?

  • on July 2, 2013, 3:24 GMT

    Excellent and well deserved. He is going to have a great series - will do a much better job than Cowan, no question.

  • Greatest_Game on July 2, 2013, 2:48 GMT

    @ Cyril_Knight ScottStevo is clearly not a fan of Rodgers. I can't say who he favours, but I did try reminding him of Baslil D'Oloveira, whose test career started at 35 (officially, or 37 as D'Oloveira later admitted.) Dolly had waited a long long time, and walked out to his 1st test with experience and immense motivation - a very powerful combination. If Rodgers brings the same, Aus could do a lot worse. (Like Warner opening?)

    ScottStevo does have 'interesting' opinions. He's convinced Ponting was "hounded out" & did not voluntarily retire, & recently, commenting on an Ed Smith piece (Mickey's Problem, Jun 26) wrote "I think there are too many out there who only seem to recollect one series, played 2 months ago and have such minimal brain capacity to recollect that we challenged SA at home not so long ago and almost went to #1 due to it." Aus needed to win the series, won nothing, & somehow, says Scott, "almost went to #1!" (What brain capacity is required to make that leap?)

  • on July 2, 2013, 2:42 GMT

    My Aussie playing 11: Watson, Rogers, Cowan, Clarke, Hughes, Faulkner, Haddin, Starc, Harris, Pattison, Lyon

    Bird unlucky. Love Siddle but for others have more talent.

  • Haiphong on July 2, 2013, 2:41 GMT

    Finally...some sanity prevailing! Lehmann is who Australia needed. First instilling confidence in Watson (and being instantly rewarded) and now pairing him with Rogers. I just hope that the Warner-Hughes circus has come to an end. Add Khawaja to the line-up and with the quicks we have a game... Go Aussies!

  • Barnesy4444 on July 2, 2013, 1:48 GMT

    That will be the opening pair for the first test, thankfully. Cowan is out, averaging 30 with a good score being 45 is never going to win a test match. 3 Hughes, 4 Clarke, 5-6 Khawaja/Warner/Smith, 7 Haddin.

  • on July 2, 2013, 1:37 GMT

    A great decision by Lehmann, will solidify the line-up and can bat all day. I'm more optimistic about our chances as every day and every good decision passes..

  • hycIass on July 2, 2013, 1:25 GMT

    Good article , i am also a fan of Rogers and i think we need him, if i had my lineup i would have in this order Watson, Rogers, Khawaja, Clarke, Hughes, Warner, Haddin. This allows our 2 best openers to open, Khawja is a successful 3 for the Bulls and Blues in shield and will do very well if given a chance and Clarke moves up with Warner destructive at 6 like Gilly was.

  • Sunil_Batra on July 2, 2013, 0:49 GMT

    I think its a good move to have Rogers and Watson open with Khawaja at 3, Clarke at 4 and Hughes at 5. In one way, you'd think with PSiddy struggling they'd give him another bowl. However, Harris and Bird had to bowl, and in the end they've rested all 3 of Starc, Patto and SIds.

    Batting wise, Smith could certainly force his way in with a good knock. If Ed fails, I think Smith could bat at 6. Warner is also only a chance for no.6.Also, Wade not even being given a run.

    So I think the batting order is looking like this

    1. Rogers locked in 2. Watson locked in 3. Khawaja locked in 4. Clarke locked in 5. Hughes locked in 6. Smith or Cowan or Warner for a middle order stabiliser role 7. Haddin

  • Meety on July 2, 2013, 0:27 GMT

    @ScottStevo on (July 1, 2013, 19:04 GMT) - reasons why Rogers should be considered in the top 3 - 1) About 10,000 runs @ over 50 average in County cricket, 2) One of the leading runscorers in the Shield, 3) A player that knows his game inside out & is still near the peak of his game. 4) Hit 2 County tons this season 5) More FC tons this calendar year than the rest of the Oz batsmen barring Clarke combined (nearly).

  • Chris_P on July 2, 2013, 0:17 GMT

    @ ScottStevo . He IS the form batsman of the Australians. If not form, by what other criteria should we select players? Age is not factor if the form is there, whether it is too young or too old. With his age, it counts against him only if he doesn't deliver.

  • on July 1, 2013, 23:52 GMT

    Rogers, Watson, Khawaja, Clarke, Hughes, Haddin, Faulkner, Starc, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon.

    I don't want Lyon in the side, but let's face it, we have no other spin alternatives (they will never give O'Keefe his shot). Siddle is a warrior, even though he isn't bowling that well, you need him because he will always give it his all.

  • prosanto on July 1, 2013, 23:26 GMT

    i will go like....

    1. Rogers 2. Watson 3. Khawaja 4.Clarke 5. Smith 6. Warner 7. Haddin 8. Starc 9. Siddle 10. Pattinson 11. Lyon

    let me explain.. by far this look a solid team. Smith will bring surly a good spin combination with Lyon. He is very handy with bat who can give a partnership with Clarke. for Khawaja he is the best for no 3 so far for Australia.

  • on July 1, 2013, 22:55 GMT

    Watson, Rogers, Khawaja, Clarke, Hughes, Warner, Haddin, Siddle, Starc, Pattinson, Lyon with Bird or Faulkner 12th man

  • NewYorkCricket on July 1, 2013, 22:31 GMT

    Why is Simon Katich not being called back? Never imagined the batting cupboard will be so empty. Never seen an Aussie team with such poor technique.

  • on July 1, 2013, 21:36 GMT

    You took the words right out of my mouth Cyril_knight. Thanks :-)

  • pat_one_back on July 1, 2013, 21:11 GMT

    I think you're pretty close there Darsh007, I can see Khawaja who Lehman knows well slotting in for Cowan, Siddle needs a strong warm up showing or he'll give way to Harris or Bird as an outside possibility. We look so much deeper with Haddin in for Wade, tempting to leave Warner out and squeeze in an extra aforementioned quick, Starc is a presentable no 7 after all. Aussies looking better by the day, let's get into it!!!

  • Cyril_Knight on July 1, 2013, 20:55 GMT

    @ScottStevo "Shouldn't be in the side" explain why please and explain who Australia have who is better. Rogers has a solid technique, can score quickly and will not be phased by facing quality bowling. Can you say the same of any other available opening batsmen?

    You will never convince anyone who has watched County Cricket that Warner, Hughes or Cowan could do a better job.

  • PFEL on July 1, 2013, 20:54 GMT

    Well that pretty much confirms Cowan is out. He never had a chance of playing as anything but opener.

  • on July 1, 2013, 20:42 GMT

    I thought he would have batted down the order a bit to provide some stability if Aussie lose early wickets, but oh well good luck to him.

  • Darshi007 on July 1, 2013, 20:35 GMT

    My Aussie playing 11 for the 1st test

    1. Rogers 2. Watson 3. Cowan 4.Clarke 5. Hughes 6. Warner 7. Haddin 8. Starc 9. Siddle 10. Pattinson 11. Lyon

  • ScottStevo on July 1, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    Shouldn't be in the side, but I hope he does well. Maybe Boof recalls being left on the sidelines and knows some of Rogers pain. Can't really think of any other reason why we bring in a 35 year old rookie to an Ashes series then ask him to open. Oh well, best of luck to him and for all our sakes, hope he does well.

  • ScottStevo on July 1, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    Shouldn't be in the side, but I hope he does well. Maybe Boof recalls being left on the sidelines and knows some of Rogers pain. Can't really think of any other reason why we bring in a 35 year old rookie to an Ashes series then ask him to open. Oh well, best of luck to him and for all our sakes, hope he does well.

  • Darshi007 on July 1, 2013, 20:35 GMT

    My Aussie playing 11 for the 1st test

    1. Rogers 2. Watson 3. Cowan 4.Clarke 5. Hughes 6. Warner 7. Haddin 8. Starc 9. Siddle 10. Pattinson 11. Lyon

  • on July 1, 2013, 20:42 GMT

    I thought he would have batted down the order a bit to provide some stability if Aussie lose early wickets, but oh well good luck to him.

  • PFEL on July 1, 2013, 20:54 GMT

    Well that pretty much confirms Cowan is out. He never had a chance of playing as anything but opener.

  • Cyril_Knight on July 1, 2013, 20:55 GMT

    @ScottStevo "Shouldn't be in the side" explain why please and explain who Australia have who is better. Rogers has a solid technique, can score quickly and will not be phased by facing quality bowling. Can you say the same of any other available opening batsmen?

    You will never convince anyone who has watched County Cricket that Warner, Hughes or Cowan could do a better job.

  • pat_one_back on July 1, 2013, 21:11 GMT

    I think you're pretty close there Darsh007, I can see Khawaja who Lehman knows well slotting in for Cowan, Siddle needs a strong warm up showing or he'll give way to Harris or Bird as an outside possibility. We look so much deeper with Haddin in for Wade, tempting to leave Warner out and squeeze in an extra aforementioned quick, Starc is a presentable no 7 after all. Aussies looking better by the day, let's get into it!!!

  • on July 1, 2013, 21:36 GMT

    You took the words right out of my mouth Cyril_knight. Thanks :-)

  • NewYorkCricket on July 1, 2013, 22:31 GMT

    Why is Simon Katich not being called back? Never imagined the batting cupboard will be so empty. Never seen an Aussie team with such poor technique.

  • on July 1, 2013, 22:55 GMT

    Watson, Rogers, Khawaja, Clarke, Hughes, Warner, Haddin, Siddle, Starc, Pattinson, Lyon with Bird or Faulkner 12th man

  • prosanto on July 1, 2013, 23:26 GMT

    i will go like....

    1. Rogers 2. Watson 3. Khawaja 4.Clarke 5. Smith 6. Warner 7. Haddin 8. Starc 9. Siddle 10. Pattinson 11. Lyon

    let me explain.. by far this look a solid team. Smith will bring surly a good spin combination with Lyon. He is very handy with bat who can give a partnership with Clarke. for Khawaja he is the best for no 3 so far for Australia.