The limpet Rogers ended his final Test series top of the batting averages and a smidgen behind Steven Smith on total runs. Much was made of his experience of English conditions, and for the most part, he did precisely what he was supposed to, which was to hang in, see off the new ball, and protect the fallible middle order. He disappointed on day one at Trent Bridge, where Australia needed him most, but little blame can be attached to that miss, after his single-handed effort at Edgbaston saved Australia from the ignominy of a double-digit total.
A relatively quiet series for him, controversy-wise, but a productive one in conjunction with Rogers. If Buck failed, Warner normally stepped up. No centuries, but five fifties underlined his importance at the top of the order. A Lord's century was for the taking until he overplayed his hand against Moeen Ali.
England saw frustratingly little of this young world-class batsman, or too much, depending on the degree of one's partisanship. Williamson set up and top-scored with 132 in New Zealand's imposing first-innings total at Lord's, but faced less than four overs' worth at Headingley. We can only guess at what he'd have produced in the non-existent decider.
One fifty and an average under 40 may admittedly sound underwhelming. McCullum's value, however, cannot be overestimated, with his fearless attitude - he set the tone with his first-ball six off Broad at Headingley - combining with level-headed humility. No wonder the English spectators warmed to him. No question either that he leads this hypothetical XI.
The vice-captain of the XI, Smith had a summer of extreme peaks and troughs: a double-hundred, a hundred, and a fifty in his three innings in London were combined with… well, virtually nothing: two inconsequential scores of 33 in Cardiff, and four single-digit scores in the Midlands. Although England will privately feel the No. 1 ranking flatters him, his wicket will be the most prized in this XI.
You probably wouldn't have guessed that average-wise, Bradley-John Watling was streets ahead of every other batsman this summer, whether from New Zealand, Australia or England. Deserved his Man-of-the-Match award for the pugnacious second-innings 120 from 163 balls in early-season Leeds, but even at Lord's he made two forgotten fifties. Didn't take the gloves in Leeds, but would still be worth his place as a specialist batsman.
Out, in, in, out, in. Decide for yourself whether that's a description of Marsh's selection or batting. While his batting talent failed to show up, his bowling made more of an impact, proving good enough to remove each of Cook, Bell, Root, and Stokes (twice). Hindsight suggests he should have played in Nottingham; however, Australia weren't really in need of an extra bowler.
The superhero bowler of the World Cup wound up less Tony Stark, more Sssshtarc. Eighteen wickets sounds reasonable, but Starc was often wayward, conceding nearly four runs an over. With his ability to intersperse his spells with magic deliveries, though, and with Trent Boult keeping the runs down at the other end, Starc would be well placed to play the Mitchell Johnson role of old: pace and wicked swing, as Ian Bell discovered to his loss on a couple of occasions.
Left-armers are definitely "in", and Boult fights off competition from Johnson and Tim Southee (and if I had to choose between them, I'd have him ahead of Starc, as well) - without too much difficulty, it has to be said. His 13 wickets - in just two matches - came at a better average and economy rate than every other specialist bowler this summer, the anomalous Siddle aside. An entry on the Lord's honours board was some consolation, possibly only bettered by the prestige of taking the new ball for my XI.
Another pick from that irritating back-seat selector Mr Hindsight. Top of the bowling averages on the strength of just one Test, all Australian (and quite a few English) supporters were asking where he'd been for the other four. Perhaps he wouldn't have been able to avert 60 all out in Nottingham, but one suspects he might have provided the control Australia so badly needed and lacked at Edgbaston. Or he might have been eternal-justice-sledgehammered by Bell. Who knows?
May never be properly rated by English crowds - and maybe not Australian ones, either - largely for the crime of not being Shane Warne. Lyon easily outbowled every other spinner this summer, and while he was fortunate with a couple of his wickets - which bowler isn't? - he offered more control than most of his team-mates, proving the most economical (again, excepting Siddle). His top-order wickets at Edgbaston briefly threatened to restore some parity to the contest.
Liam Cromar is a freelance cricket writer based in Herefordshire, UK @LiamCromar