PaddyO
Cancelled
There's no reason for Warner's lack of success in ODIs, considering his test and T20 record.
I'd play him in ODIs, over Hughes.
I'd play him in ODIs, over Hughes.
Australian ODI Squad - 2014/15
- Thread starter Ian Dargie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #302
Based on what?
PaddyO
Cancelled
I think he is a superior batsman to Hughes, with a more rounded game, who is more adaptable to different conditions.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #304
And what about actual performance?
PaddyO
Cancelled
It's very important. Although Hughes and Warner have fairly similar ODI stats.
The issue with Hughes is the flaws he has in his game. Warner's game will succeed more consistently in more conditions.
I rate Hughes, but I think he should only open in either tests or ODIs, and not bat 3 or middle order. He needs to start against pace. Will probably replace Rogers in the test side in the next year or 2, but will probably be third string to Finch and Warner (and Watson) as an ODI opener.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #306
Did you check that or are you guessing?
Hughes' ODI average is a respectable 37. Warner's is an inadequate 31. Is that similar?
The difference is even more pronounced at domestic level. Hughes 47, Warner 36.
So who has been better performed?
Again, not based on actual performance.
Strike rate comes into it as well, come the WC if warner hughes finch and watson are all in decent form then hughes would likely be squeezed out due to scoring rates.
Still lots of odi cricket between now and the WC so i don't think hughes or warner should be ruled out of a spot this far away from the cup.
Still lots of odi cricket between now and the WC so i don't think hughes or warner should be ruled out of a spot this far away from the cup.
Last edited:
PaddyO
Cancelled
It doesn't matter who's better performed to this point. Warner is the better, more complete batsman. The selectors realise this, and the reason that they haven't picked Hughes for the ODIs is because they want Warner to open in the WC, prob with Finch.
I hardly think 37 is "respectable" but 31 is "inadequate". Especially when Warner has a superior strike rate.
No issue if you think Hughes is better, it's not unreasonable at all. But I think long term, the selectors have this right.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #309
Previously you said performance is "very important". Now that it's been pointed out that Hughes is actually better performed than Warner at both international and domestic level, you say it doesn't matter.
Are you seriously saying performance is not a factor in selection?
Do you accept that their statistics do not support this assessment?
OK. How would you characterise it?
You said they were "fairly similar". In fact, Hughes' average is significantly higher. Is that fair?
I think Hughes is better performed to date. And, unlike you, I think that counts for something.
PaddyO
Cancelled
And on that,
Your opinion doesn't count , neither does mine.
The selectors seem to favour Warner. Why do you think that is?
Your opinion doesn't count , neither does mine.
The selectors seem to favour Warner. Why do you think that is?
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #311
That seems like a strange attempt to gloss over the inherent contradictions in your argument.
Do you accept that Hughes has been better performed than Warner?
Test form.
PaddyO
Cancelled
Well, Hughes has a higher average, but a lower strike rate. What do you think?
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #313
What do I think? I think Hughes is better performed. Weird question given I've said that repeatedly.
Do you accept that Hughes has been better performed than Warner?
PaddyO
Cancelled
So do you disagree with the national selectors on this? Do you think Hughes should've been selected instead of Warner for this coming ODI series?
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #315
I think Hughes is unlucky to be overlooked. And those making the case for Warner should acknowledge that his performance in ODIs hasn't been anything special.
Do you accept that Hughes has been better performed than Warner?
PaddyO
Cancelled
Hughes has a higher average, but a lower SR. I'd say they'd be on about par in terms of performance, but it's not an issue to me. Warner is a better batsman so he should be picked. I agree Warner's performance in ODIs hasn't been special, but I think he contributes more than Hughes to the team and I think he'll make runs. I suspect this is also the selectors thinking. Based on raw stats, I can understand why someone would disagree with Warner's selection, but I think long term he'll be a better option. I know this is speculation, and I'm ok with being called out on that. Just my opinion.
I'm curious as to who your 11 would be for the WC if you had to pick it now Ian Dargie? You like to argue with everyone's opinion as to who they would have in but you rarely give a firm answer to whether or not you would have them in yourself.
It reminds of the 7 pages of you arguing why Faulkner should bat at 6 ahead of Watson before finally conceding that you wouldn't even have him in your squad... But you did have Watson....
It reminds of the 7 pages of you arguing why Faulkner should bat at 6 ahead of Watson before finally conceding that you wouldn't even have him in your squad... But you did have Watson....
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #318
Performance is not an issue?
Not based on performance.
Not based on performance.
Yeah, based on performance.
PaddyO
Cancelled
What do you want me to say? That you are right and Hughes has performed better than Warner in ODIs? Ok.
As I've said, based on stats, Hughes has a higher average than Warner in ODIs. But I personally think Warner is a better batsman and he should be in the ODI team ahead of Hughes. I'm speculating. I know. I'm basing this on what I've seen across a couple of forms of cricket, and not just ODIs. I basically think that Warner is a better batsman than Hughes. Warner is also a much better fieldsman than Hughes.
I can see you want an argument. That's ok with me. I'm not really fussed either way. I like Hughes as a bloke better than Warner, but I just feel that Warner is a better option AND I KNOW THAT HUGHES' RECORD IN ODIs AND LIST A GAMES IS SUPERIOR TO WARNER'S...
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #320
Why is this necessary? What exactly would it resolve? Would it give me greater license to question other people?
That aside, it seems to me that your idea of a "firm answer" is one completely devoid of nuance that makes no allowance for the fact that some questions remain open. Why is that so appealing to you?
The reality is that some positions in the XI are not yet settled. In particular, the top three. I'd suggest Watson and Finch will be there and then you can take your pick from Hughes, Marsh and Warner. At the moment, it looks like Warner will get the nod, probably to open with Finch, bumping Watson down to No.3. Now, that may be the most likely outcome but I question the rationale, when Warner hasn't delivered at ODI level and Watson has excelled as an opener. Based on performance, Watson and Finch should open, with one of Marsh and Hughes installed at No.3.
After you resolve the question of the top three, it's Clarke, Bailey, Maxwell, Haddin, Faulkner, Johnson, Starc, Lyon.
It reminds you of an exchange you have imagined?
My view on Watson's position in the Test side remains unchanged. My recollection of that conversation entails people willfully ignoring Watson's lack of runs and overstating the importance of his few good scores. As usual, the facts are on my side.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #321
Why did you spend so much time denying it?
So, like I said, Hughes has been better performed.
PaddyO
Cancelled
Wanna grab a lager sometime? I'd love that.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #323
You'd spend the whole time insisting the lager was in fact orange cordial. Then, when showed the label identifying it as lager, you'd change your mind and say it doesn't matter anyway. And you'd probably sign for the check all in bolded caps.
PaddyO
Cancelled
Might be true. Haha. Can't wait. When are you free?
Cheeky bastard to assume I'm picking up the check though, mate!
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #325
It's the least you can do in return for having me educate you.
Similar threads
