“When I heard that news [of Ajmal’s suspension], I was pretty elated for about 48 hours. I had my own troubles with Graeme Swann, so I didn’t know how I was going to go against Ajmal. That might prolong my Test career a little bit longer.”
— Chris Rogers.
Honestly, if you think one bowler can put in danger your WHOLE test career, I don’t think you even deserve to be called a test player.
rogers being real childish right now
My pro-Aussie bias is well and truly on display here, but - in a little bit of context - it’s important to remember that Rogers is 37 years old (yet still only has a somewhat fledging Test career) in a highly competitive Australian set-up. While, as kibids referenced, his viewpoint is pretty simplistic and perhaps not particularly well thought out, it is, in my opinion, nonetheless valid.
While one bowler can’t (as Rogers was probably implying) end a Test career directly, one bowler can result in a number of dismissals, most likely for lower scores (if it is the same bowler getting the same batsman out in the same way early on in the bowler’s spell). A series of low scores can put pressure on a batsman’s (especially a non-bowling opener) position in the team. Pressure on a batsman’s position in the team can result in that batsman’s omission from the team, especially when there are a number of ready replacements knocking on the door. Being an older batsman, in Rogers’ specific case, omission from the team is a more serious situation than for a younger batsman (Phil Hughes, etc) as there is an underlying awareness that the particular batsman probably won’t be still around in five years or so.
Of course, this flow-on effect of one bowler on one batsman doesn’t occur every time one bowler dominates a particular batsman. Of course, it doesn’t mean that Rogers’ comments were particularly clever (for lack of a better term). However, I believe that the underlying point that I believe he was attempting to make still carried merit.
P.S. My personal interpretation of Rogers’ comments was that the specific word ‘elated’ that he used could easily be swapped with ‘relieved’. I may be looking at it all wrong, but if Rogers had said ‘relieved’ instead of ‘elated’, it probably would have come across a bit better than was was actually said.
Re the last sentence of the quote, refer to my first paragraph - the older guys in the Aussie team (who I reference specifically due to the high number of them and the perception of older cricketers amongst the Australian cricketing public and media as opposed to the perceptions of older cricketers in other cricketing nations) are literally getting by series by series, we have to face that fact. Cricketers like Rogers, Haddin, Harris etc will be valued assets to the Australian team as long as they are adding significant benefits to the team, which - at the moment - they are. However, being in their mid-thirties means that they will ultimately get less chances than the younger guys like Hughes, Smith, Lyon, Starc etc.
Bowlers he referenced are doing their jobs, Rogers should do his. I don’t think it’s that complicated. So circumstances dictate that his seniority means his time in the team is limited - and what? Anyone’s place in the team is subject to form and situation. It’s all conditional. Whether or not a particular player will see your downfall is a matter reserved for future autobiographies and tell-all interviews.
I’m sure he said it all good-naturedly but the Ajmal context is problematic in so many levels and he should know better. A lot of people think he’s unrightfully suspended by BCCI lackeys who are ban-happy. The sudden clampdown on bowling is what is making cricket fans unhappy and Rogers’ comments are imo, in bad taste.
He can get turnt up and pop bottles all he wants for 2 days, doesn’t concern me. But I’ll still call him out.
Here is the complete article where Rogers said what he said. And he really did not have nice things to say. Rogers also said this, "I played with Eoin Morgan, and he’s a tremendous player of spin, but he still says Ajmal ruined his Test career."
"You can’t have a guy who is exceeding the rules, or not playing to the rules, who’s affecting other people’s careers. And that’s what it comes down to,"
I am sure Morgan must have said Ajmal is hard to play but he would not say that Ajmal ruined his test career. Lemme tell you something about Morgan, in his 12 innings against Pakistan, Ajmal has got the wicket of Morgan ONLY 3 TIMES. I am sure Ajmal’s mystery spin was not the reason why he is not in test team anymore but more of his inconsistency.
Like Kerri said, bowlers were doing their job and batsmen should do theirs too. If they are afraid of a few bowlers then they should not even be in playing XI with the shaky confidence.
Rogers’ comments about Ajmal were really uncalled for. In 2009, Saeed Ajmal did get his action checked and he was CLEARED to bowl and apparently everyone has forgotten about that. Ajmal always bowled with the action he was cleared with and now its pretty shocking that all of a sudden Ajmal bowls with a flex of 42 degrees instead of allowed 15 degrees (IF THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT BIG, HOW COULD IT BE MISSED IN INITIAL TESTING???)
I really don’t want to get into a debate of BCCI led ICC and their sudden crackdown against spinners but I would really suggest everyone, who is interested, to read these 2 articles regarding chucking and the new testing methods. This and this. UWA, ICC’s sole center to develop models and protocols to test illegal bowling actions for last 20 years has raised some SERIOUS concerns about ICC’s new SUPER SECRET testing methods. According UWA, even the tiniest mistakes and miscalculation can yield a wrong result and it gotta leave everyone wondering, what really is ICC up to?
I am not saying Ajmal had a legit bowling action, its up to testing centers to decide but I won’t accept the fact that Ajmal’s flex was 42 degrees when only a few years back he was cleared to bowl. ICC really need to come up with a clear action procedure which is open and not secret.
And now, back to Rogers, he targeted Ajmal as someone who bowled illegally, which is a pretty controversial issue and he should have stayed away from that. There are always 2 ways to say something, a nice way and an ass way. Rogers took the ass way when he said(pretty much this is what he meant) Ajmal is ruining test careers with his “illegal” action.