The Alphabet Game

[Dr Cricket]

Mark Richardson is very underrated because of his strike rate, would prefer him over rogers who only really got picked becuase Australia had less option.
Also think Richardson done more in test matches.
always thought of rogers of a bit like voges not done much to win test series where aus are expected to lose or a tough test. Felt he scored easy runs.

[Arthur Crabtree]

On batting, Rahim has the best record out of any options. Average 35.6 is quality for a keeper. Russell was 28, Richardson 24.

Lots of people rate Russell as a keeper (I don't and tend to suspect those who rate him of a bit of keeper-batter bias given the argument of the time in which he faced off against the batter-keeper Alec Stewart (who I think was a better keeper and batter)). And JR played a few legendary backs to the wall knocks fondly remembered by men of a certain age.

But Russell was certainly a high class stumper standing up in limited overs games.

I'd pick Rahim. As long as the keeper isn't incompetent at the keeping bit (Geraint Jones) I'd always take the better batter over the flashier keeper.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'm inclined to go Mark Richardson too. See if we get any other views.

[Arthur Crabtree]

always thought of rogers of a bit like voges not done much to win test series where aus are expected to lose or a tough test. Felt he scored easy runs.

Rogers had a very good Ashes record.

[Dr Cricket]

Rahim isn't a great keeper he actually quite poor.
Probably the worse keeper by a mile in international cricket.
Issue is do take his runs and hope he takes chances or take an average keeper that probably drop most or some of the same chances Rahim does but scores less runs.
From the options would take Rahim.
But if he was facing stronger opposition Rahim would probably lose out.

[Dr Cricket]

always thought of rogers of a bit like voges not done much to win test series where aus are expected to lose or a tough test. Felt he scored easy runs.

Rogers had a very good Ashes record.

TBH don't remember him doing much outside the ashes and barring the Durham games they all came at home which really shouldn't count for Australia now.
If roger played earlier or more longer in test I might have voted him ahead of Richardson.
But from the options Richardson looks stronger.

[Dr Cricket]

Rogers mostly failed abroad outside the ashes and only actually scored runs at home or lords.
Only really Durham or the sa knock was worry and in the sa series he failed and was found out.

[Dr Cricket]

Only issue I have with rice being in the team is that if he getting picked on first class stat and very likely to be a top test player and then why pick Rhodes who no one ever seen and only really got good stats because only two or three teams play and the standard of international cricket is low

[Dr Cricket]

Especially when earlier we basically picked players because they had decent bowing or test averages but no one really knew them.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'm with you on Richardson, but we've had some support for Rogers, so if there's another view we can go that way. If no one speaks up, maybe go with the stats (MR). Richardson did pretty well in Asia I reckon, and did have a much more substantial career than Rogers.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Especially when earlier we basically picked players because they had decent bowing or test averages but no one really knew them.

Well, being a legend will get you in the team (we didn't pick Grace though, or Lohmann, with the best stats of all). It's based mainly on the impression we have.

[Dr Cricket]

Surprised lohmann didn't get picked considering he got bradman type myth about him.
Hard to pick grace with g being a strong team.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Nineteenth century stats don't really make sense against the game played from WWI onwards. I'm not sure we've picked anyone who played all their cricket before WWI.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Apart from SF Barnes.

Who feels more of a Bradman of bowlers. But no one seems to be sure what he bowled.

[Dr Cricket]

I will go further and say after world war 2.
I only really accept stats around George headley time.