Chris Rogers

[GuyFromLancs]

Hughes didn't fail, the selectors just panicked massively because his technique isn't textbook. It's ****ed up his career.

I think it was a rare case of all their fears being realised at once.

People over here pre-09 Ashes were talking about this wonderkid who could hit square through the offside like Brian Lara, but who may be susceptible to the short ball. Lo and behold, Flintoff gives him some early treatment when the series comes around, and Australia drop him for (and admittedly then impressive) looking Watson.

Not being a big watcher of State cricket, I can't comment on the extent of Hughes' weakness against the short stuff. Whether it's wholly real, or partly because his confidence has been dented by people insisting on it.

 

[Furball]

I think it was a rare case of all their fears being realised at once.

People over here pre-09 Ashes were talking about this wonderkid who could hit square through the offside like Brian Lara, but who may be susceptible to the short ball. Lo and behold, Flintoff gives him some early treatment when the series comes around, and Australia drop him for (and admittedly then impressive) looking Watson.

Not being a big watcher of State cricket, I can't comment on the extent of Hughes' weakness against the short stuff. Whether it's wholly real, or partly because his confidence has been dented by people insisting on it.

If Hughes had a textbook technique then he would never have been dropped in 2009.

 

[NUFAN]

They've shielded Khawaja from opening in First Class cricket as much as they can really, and I think North is only opening because Marsh is trying to push for the #6 spot and no-one else wanted to so he took one of the team.

WA do have several options as openers, but I seriously believe that JL believes North can do a Rogers. What about Maddinson and Hughes sudden decision to open again this year? Last year all the young talent were trying to take the number 3 spot for Australia, now perhaps they feel as though opener is the answer.

 

[steds]

It's quite obviously illegal to compete for the spot that Shane Watson is in possession of.

 

[Riggins]

I feel like Hughes in particular only moved into the middle order because that's where he was batting for Australia. Once he got canned he decided to go back to his natural position.

 

[Black_Warrior]

But he wasn't overlooked for those less skilled than him FFS. He got overlooked for Jaques originally, which at the time was an entirely good call. Then when his back gave out, Katich was making runs. Hayden retires, and the incredibly promising Hughes (averaging 50ish and being 10 years younger than Rogers) was brought in. Hughes got dropped for Watson because the latter was in the squad, and he acquitted himself well and rightfully stayed in that position for a while. Only a desperation call-up in England 2009 was a road in for Rogers, and I have NFI what his form was like at the time.

While I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but on both those decisions, I am not sure it was as clear cut.
Jacques over Rogers after Langer -
Hughes over Rogers after Hayden

Not obviously in hindsight its easier however Rogers has been a proflic run scorer at FC for a while and he should be been picked at least once during those two scenarios.

And the third one - Watson as an opener.
I was never in favour of Watson opening the batting and this was the easiest one.. Rogers should definitely have been picked at this stage.

 

[benchmark00]

Jesus Christ, you're having a laugh.

 

[hendrix]

Watson opening was a terrible idea and a few fifties hasn't changed that. Long term it's been detrimental to the team, IMO. I usually am not in on the Watson hating but he's quite clearly a number 6 who was having a good run of form.

They could've had an established opener there by now.

 

[Maximas]

I realise this is all in hindsight, but perhaps Rogers should have been picked ahead of Cowan despite the form Cowan was in before Boxing day 2011/12

 

[hendrix]

heart Cowan. Should still be in the team IMO.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Agreed.

Warner
Rogers
Cowan
Clarke
Watson
Smith

 

[Red Hill]

I thought it was a pretty bad call to pick Hughes ahead of Rogers when Hayden retired at the time. It Would've been interesting to see how Hughes's career developed if he didn't debut then, and it could've drastically changed Watson's career too because it was Hughes's subsequent failure that meant Watson was slotted in as emergency opener. Picking Hughes then really was such a massive call when you consider everything that's happened since; only took them four years to backtrack on it...

Watson's selection as an opener was basically to cover the fact that Johnson was bowling ****.

 

[Prince EWS]

Watson's selection as an opener was basically to cover the fact that Johnson was bowling ****.

This is a myth IMO considering Watson barely bowled in that series anyway. Watson was picked as an opener because the selectors had lost faith in Hughes and Watson was the reserve batsman.

 

[uvelocity]

Jesus Christ, you're having a laugh.

actually i forgot how bad you're gonna taste another rogers ton here boi

 

[GIMH]

This is a myth IMO considering Watson barely bowled in that series anyway. Watson was picked as an opener because the selectors had lost faith in Hughes and Watson was the reserve batsman.

It's not a myth, Ponting said so himself, and the reason Watson hardly bowled is because when Ponting threw him the ball at Edgbaston he got absolutely plundered

 

[Red Hill]

This is a myth IMO considering Watson barely bowled in that series anyway. Watson was picked as an opener because the selectors had lost faith in Hughes and Watson was the reserve batsman.

Nah, no myth. They were that desperate to shoehorn an allrounder into that team that Hughes had to make way.

And he was pretty hard done by seeing he'd just slaughtered South Africa.

All this said, I'm not even a fan of Hughes, but I was staggered when he was dropped in 09 in England. Really undeserved.

 

[the big bambino]

Ponting was captain then and had a big say in dropping Hughes. Probably expected him to get angry, make a ****load of runs and burst back into the team like - well a young Ricky Ponting did. But all he may have done is projected his own experience onto Hughes who didn't react in the way Ponting expected.

 

[marc71178]

All this said, I'm not even a fan of Hughes, but I was staggered when he was dropped in 09 in England. Really undeserved.

The way the bowlers had his number, I think it was a sensible call regardless of his exploits in SA.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Nah, no myth. They were that desperate to shoehorn an allrounder into that team that Hughes had to make way.

And he was pretty hard done by seeing he'd just slaughtered South Africa.

All this said, I'm not even a fan of Hughes, but I was staggered when he was dropped in 09 in England. Really undeserved.

It was cruel. But I think it's because exactly what predicted would happen, happened. Flintoff would bowl short, and Hughes wouldn't like it. Like a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Perhaps a bit like Johnson and Trott.

 

[archie mac]

Still not impressed with him tbh, struggles outside his off stump. Hope he proves me wrong but not Test standard despite his fine FC average