Before this Australia-India series even began, some people were very down on Chris Rogers. Too old, too slow, too close to the end.
Before this Australia-India series began, some were very down on Rohit Sharma. Too young, too fast, never likely to make a beginning.
Two Tests have provided differing fortunes. A run of fifties has seen Rogers’ critics reluctantly withdraw, still muttering, though half-centuries only ever keep the jackals at the edge of the firelight.
Rohit, meanwhile, was dropped for the third Test in Melbourne starting on Boxing Day, leaving his detractors free to bask in the post-gorge glow of perceived vindication.
Media reporting drives a lot of this, or at least provides its genesis. Unsubtle conclusions are too often drawn from limited evidence, packaged credibly and distributed in bulk. Commentators tie off a simple contention with a plausible causative link. Punters pick up on these themes or have their existing ideas confirmed. The conclusions of the few become the truisms of the many.
This guy’s too old. That guy’s a slogger. This one can’t play the short ball. It matters not whether the claim stands up to scrutiny as long as it can bear a glance. Such conclusions are held to be self evident, which is often when conclusions are at their most misleading.
Take the idea of Rohit as a Test prospect. After home centuries in his first two Tests as the scene-stealer in Sachin Tendulkar’s farewell anticlimax against a barely conscious West Indies, Rohit’s other seven Tests have all been overseas. He had two poor games in South Africa – hardly the first Indian to suffer that fate – then made 72 and 31* beside two failures in New Zealand.
So ended that run. Later he returned for a single Test in the middle of five against England, then got games in Adelaide and Brisbane. Those last three each yielded a start (28, 43, 32) plus some handy overs and a couple of bonus wickets. On that basis, according to the many-strong voices of the digital void, his cards have been marked ‘unworthy of Tests’.
How Rohit looked at the crease isn’t my concern. Whether he’ll make it as a Test player isn’t my argument. But insisting that he won’t make it on the none-too-damning evidence of seven scattered Tests is an exercise in self-importance over substance, the exorcism of a clamouring need to be heard.
Where the tension in Rohit’s story is over potential, Rogers’ tale is already written. The man is closing on 300 first-class matches. He has scored 71 first-class centuries, five or six times the tallies of most of his Australian teammates. He could not be any more proven.
Of course anyone must adjust to Test cricket, however experienced. But even before this series, Rogers had played 16 Tests for four centuries and four fifties. He’d made two hundreds in the 2013/14 Ashes, then another in the 2014 trip to South Africa. He went on to two county double-centuries in that off-season, including 241 not out as Middlesex pulled off a fourth-innings miracle of 472 at Lord’s.
Then came a run of 38, 43, 5 and 2 against Pakistan. Never mind that 38 and 43 are solid scores. Nor that those innings spanned 130 and 131 balls respectively, his wicket falling in the 38th and the 41st overs. Never mind that an opener’s focus is first to see off the new ball, negotiate early pitch gremlins and tire the bowlers. Never mind that Rogers was brought in as a steady hand, a foil to more attacking teammates. Never mind that Rogers did his job.
One poor Test, and we were back to talk that he was playing for his place. The only rationale behind the chatter, of course, was that Rogers is 37 years old.
A tedious mental rigidity says that no one past a certain age is really capable of playing, despite those very evidently doing so. Misbah-ul-Haq, after all, smashed the equal-fastest Test century of all time in November this year, at well past the age of 40. Rogers was an unenthusiastic spectator in the field.
“That was pretty impressive,” he said. “I remember when I went out after that I didn’t feel like I could score one.”
Self-deprecation is not required. Rogers is playing as well as ever in his career, and having waited so long for his chance at Tests, is hungry in a way unknown to those who start young. Especially with more Ashes on the horizon, Rogers is a compulsory selection.
In cricketing terms he’s practically English. He’s played 128 county matches, more than in the Sheffield Shield. He lives in London half the year. Of those 71 first-class centuries, just over half were made in England. He’s played 28 games at Lord’s alone, site of what will be Australia’s key Ashes battle. Yet all of that can be disregarded in the space of two poor innings.
There’s no ill-feeling, at least not publicly. Said Rogers after Day 1 of this third Test, “That’s the nature of the beast. It’s a tough business, and you guys have got things to write about. You try and avoid it but you know you’re going to come under criticism, particularly at my age if you’re not scoring runs.”
Except he’s making excuses that we don’t deserve. The petty need to fill a column can snowball. Other media figures take up the topic, which gets fans talking, which ends up putting pressure onto players themselves, on the selectors who pick them and the management looking after them.
As per that popular concept in physics, the act of observing a thing is enough to change the thing itself.
I only wish we had more patience, a preparedness to take the longer view. Even if Rogers made no runs this series, his attributes are well and truly proven.
There is an incredible arrogance that people who may have watched a couple of innings over a couple of televised Tests can think that qualifies them to comment on a man’s skills or form. In a world where too much is being said, we puff ourselves up to become human megaphones. When we feel like broadcasting something, it’s worth a thorough check that we’re not just adding to the din.
This article was originally published on Wisden India.
Bearfax
Guest
Finally displaying the 50 odd first class average pedigree. About time. Knew he had it in him. Seems nerves must have got him off to a slow start. Now he is the opener we have sorely needed to support Warner.
pegleg
Guest
rogers last five scores 55,55,57,69,95.
Bugs
Guest
Your comment that "Haddin is the best gloveman in the country" is a case in point of what Geoff said in his article. The media say / write something and off people go believing it, despite evidence to the contrary. Haddin is not the best gloveman in the country, despite Channel 9's commentary team saying so yesterday. Yes, he took two blinders, but he dropped a sitter the day before and didn't go for the one Watto dropped, which was closer to him than both the two blinders. Good judges who are not emotionally engaged when asked to nominate the best gloveman in the country do not pick Haddin. Most pick Hartley. 10 years ago, they almost all nominated Darren Berry.
cowcorner
Roar Pro
Absolutely right Geoff. Rogers would be one of the first picked in my Ashes team. His English experience and great combination with Warner is a terrific asset and he has played more against the England bowlers than any other Australian batsman. As an old bloke myself, I get really annoyed at the constant references to him as a veteran. His age is irrelevant--he can bat really well, fields well and I imagine is a terrific team player!
13th Man
Roar Pro
Agree Rogers has done enough to go to England as has Haddin who has been great behind the stumps. There is a run of easier tests after this against New Zealand where we can blood a new opener and keeper. The same cannot be said for Shane Watson, he just isnt good enough to be a number 3. Either play him as a genuine all rounder at 6 or drop him for the younger players Mitch Marsh (if fit) or Faulkner. Also S Marsh is not test quality. Replace him with Voges or Clarke (if he comes back).
The Magic Man
Guest
I agree... Rogers is in my team too man. Everyone has strengths. You see, I'd also keep Watson in the team... if nothing else Watto looks in mighty fine touch hitting the ball in the locker room for those Brut commercials. That kind of off field form surely will translate into double tons, without running singles, against the Duke ball under overcast skies.
Craig
Guest
Marsh is an all rounder and not an opener - hardly relevant. It's simple - rogers gets runs, he stays.
Clavers
Guest
When a first-class average of 29 is enough to earn a Test debut (for Mitchel Marsh), a Test 50 shouldn't be sneezed at.
Clavers
Guest
Too slow and not prolific enough? Just compare him with Shaun Marsh. He not only has a higher Test average than Marsh, but a higher strike rate. For mine, and especially since the tragic loss of Hughes, Rogers still belongs in the top six.
davros
Guest
What irked me was Cowans shameless as usual selfpromotion in the guise of an article expressing his support for the "underseige" Buck Rogers. Of course he then went on to talk himself up about how well he (Cowan ) has been playing and how much better a player he was than previously. Knowing full well that all the while his article continued to stir the pot ...on what to me was a complete beat up by people with a vested interest in seeing him fail.
pjm
Roar Rookie
You're part of the problem if you think 1 big score every so often secures a players place.
Justin from Canberra
Guest
A poignant, insight-rich article Greg. "Accentuate the positive." A refreshing principle you point out with 4 centuries in his first 15 Test matches. This in itself when viewed historically among debutants equates to an outstanding cricketer. Outstanding. Forget his age. Think about achievements and the balance he brings to the Australian team. The worlds foremost batsman right now recently turned 37 years, Kumar Sangakkara. I would be surprised if any Sri Lankan followers are calling for younger blood to replace him. Minimising the negative, as a continuation of the song, an opening batsman has the most difficult of tasks and all who bat below him would be thankful for his graft, and it would be foolish to think he is easily replaced. I expect his average to steadily increase if shown confidence. He has earnt his position and deserves our respect and support.
Rob McHugh
Roar Guru
Only player to score 2000 first class + international runs in 2014. Sure, 1300 of those came in county, but that just underlines his pedigree in England. Barring some monumental collapse in form and class before England (unlikely because there's basically one test left before then) he's on the plane.
JMW
Guest
Another nicely written, immaculately opined article by you Mr Lemon. I'd be happy if Watson accepted mentoring from Rogers whose performance is superior rather than retreat into his own mind! I couldn't believe it when I read that quote from Watto! What would Rogers' record look like if he'd played in the 41 tests Watson was gifted in the top 3? I suspect his valuable 50s would have been transformed into hundreds at a very acceptable rate.
b
Guest
Stats tell part of the story, but watching both players Clarke is a class above Rodgers. In this series Rodgers has only just outscored Clarke, with a lower average, and Clarke has only played one test, on one leg. Even on a good day Rodgers seems to work hard for his runs, and that is why there is not the same speculation regarding both players future. Also Rodgers is just a batsman, Clarke is an exceptional captain.
b
Guest
Good points. Performance at county/shield level does not mean test success, and with Rodgers' experience and record he should have been making a Husseyesque start to his test career, not a rookie start. Rodgers has done a capable job, but he has not impressed, and the thing that is keeping him in the side is not his own performance, but the lack of pressure from below, and the failure of others to take advantage of opportunities when presented. The first young opener to get a chance and score some runs will end Rodgers' career, but until then let's hope he can keep going, and maybe even do a bit better.
b
Guest
50 for Haddin is good, but he is there to keep and is the best gloveman in the country. Watson is number three, but performs like an allrounder/tailender. Does anyone actually expect Watson to ever reach three figures? He can score 100, but so can Johnson, and Johnson and Harris are capable of picking up 30's and 50's, just like Watson. An occasional 50 is not good enough for a number three batsman, the fact Watson yet again failed to follow through on a start is proof his time is well and truly up at the top of the order. Watson should be coming in ahead of Haddin, Smith should be number three with the likes of Marsh, Burns and others filling in the middle order.
Alexander Bonacci
Roar Rookie
Buck is a must in this team. As others have mentioned his the man that would be helping Warner not get too over the top when his on fire to ensure he doesn't go on to to something silly to give his wicket away. Plus too me he is a vital to us winning in England next year as he would have to be the most experienced player we have of English conditions and has the record to back him up.
Razor
Guest
He has actually been as mediocre as his captain has been for the year (Clarke). Both have averaged 35 this year however Clarke only has 3 scores over 25 and has 8 of 14 innings 10 or under. Without his 161 no. in SA it would have been a very mediocre year. Despite the same average, media, and keyboard speculation around Clarke has only really been on his fitness. If I was purely looking at numbers as some here drag out all the time then we should have been asking why Clarke was even starting the series the same as Rogers. Two top 4s with averages 29 (Clarke - the now carrying a constant serious injury concern and incidently only just higher than Watto) and 33 (Rogers - the old) for the calender year. Something tells me there is more to selecting a team then the last years numbers. As for childish nicknames, SIR (well you are a Lord are you not???), LordBrucie would look much better as, well, Bruce.
LordBrucie
Guest
He is total mediocrity but there is no one else. He is only being made to look half decent by a totally average Indian attack. What's with the childish nicknames? His given name is hardly long!