Endless Summer of Cricket

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
CrowBloke said:
Very good article (below) on Warner's knock, summarising exactly what we've been discussing. Makes the sound point that a triple-ton at Test level, no matter the conditions or opponent or indeed the character of the batsman himself, is veryVERY difficult to do.
www.abc.net.au

David Warner's triple ton answers the critics — even if their hits keep coming

David Warner may not be a batsman who can travel the world, dominating Tests in all conditions. His sublime triple century in Adelaide shows that doesn't have to matter, writes Geoff Lemon.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Very good article. To put it in another context, 300+ in Test matches is much harder and rarer than a hole in one!
 
John Who said:
Very good article. To put it in another context, 300+ in Test matches is much harder and rarer than a hole in one!
Click to expand...
+
Peter J said:
Warner’s was an excellent innings no question. There’s nothing wrong with contextualising it though.
Click to expand...
Yep:
"As of the end of that evening, there had been 94,951 individual innings in the men's game. There are reasons why 94,941 of them never topped 335, but chief among them is that it's bloody difficult. "
(https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019...even-if-hits-keep-coming/11754436?pfmredir=sm)
In that context alone, a triple-ton (27 in total) happens once in around 3500 innings o_O .
Great knock; an exercise in grit, application, concentration and batting power, as all 300+ knocks are. You don't snick/edge/false shot all the way to 335*.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cap said:
Why do people care about 334? Hayden went past it years ago.
Click to expand...
Because people just can't get past their dislike towards Warner.
 
CrowBloke said:
+

Yep:
"As of the end of that evening, there had been 94,951 individual innings in the men's game. There are reasons why 94,941 of them never topped 335, but chief among them is that it's bloody difficult. "
(https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019...even-if-hits-keep-coming/11754436?pfmredir=sm)
In that context alone, a triple-ton (27 in total) happens once in around 3500 innings o_O .
Great knock; an exercise in grit, application, concentration and batting power, as all 300+ knocks are. You don't snick/edge/false shot all the way to 335*.
Click to expand...
Well you do need some luck along the way. He was out off a no ball...again.

The chances also increase when it’s in friendly conditions against a poor attack. There’s nothing wrong with setting the context of the innings.
 
kirky said:
Nah, please by all means be rude - I don’t waste 5 days of my life watching a game that possibly and all likely ends up in a draw. Those are 5 days you don’t get back. I tend to find that those that love test cricket tend to say NFL is boring because it goes too long and too slow. Say what!
Click to expand...
No one says that?

"I don't read books much"

"I couldn't really get into The Wire"

"Test cricket is so boring"

Go hand in hand
 
Peter J said:
Well you do need some luck along the way. He was out off a no ball...again.
The chances also increase when it’s in friendly conditions against a poor attack. There’s nothing wrong with setting the context of the innings.
Click to expand...
I've been agreeing with you :thumbsu: :) . This article sums it up really well, please read:
"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-02/david-warner-criticism-may-not-be-entirely-fair/11755036"

(Edit: might be some kind of Karma suggesting all is forgiven?
Out off a no-ball, again = terrific luck. The bowler can cop the blame for that (maybe some bookies too? :rolleyes: :D).
Friendly conditions + poor attack = goodonim for taking full advantage. Burns' 4 is the other end of the spectrum.
It takes immense will, focus, fitness and ability to bat for 9 hours.
My highest-ever score was 54 @ #10, batted for about 2 hours in a 100+ partnership with our Keeper, for the ninth wicket. He was 30+ when I came in and said "Mate, I'll try to stick around so you can get your 50". I'm pretty sure my previous highest score was 11*, so no surprise when he laughed at me, and no offence taken. He got out before me, around 80-odd. I was dropped THREE times, twice --- sweeping --- by the same bloke, both dollies.
54 @ #10 sounds pretty good, but there was some "context" lol. Arse-not-class, in my case)
 
Last edited:
The fact is that both are true...

Warner's achievement in scoring 335* is truly outstanding. Very few players achieve that, even on batsman friendly wickets and against sub-standard bowling. The Lampshade scored 150+ in both of his innings this series, but never looked like making a triple century in either. Steve Smith, the world's #1 batsman, hasn't made it to 40 yet in this series - and he's never scored a triple century. Warner's triple century was a little fortunate (caught off a no-ball), but it was still a master class in batting and deserves to be remembered as such.

Also true is the fact that Warner is a cashed up bogan, and a bully, who struggles to make double digit scores outside of Australia.

Both of these are true.
 
Peter J said:
Warner’s was an excellent innings no question. There’s nothing wrong with contextualising it though.
Click to expand...
Excellent innings from a campaigner?
 
Vader said:
The fact is that both are true...

Warner's achievement in scoring 335* is truly outstanding. Very few players achieve that, even on batsman friendly wickets and against sub-standard bowling. The Lampshade scored 150+ in both of his innings this series, but never looked like making a triple century in either. Steve Smith, the world's #1 batsman, hasn't made it to 40 yet in this series - and he's never scored a triple century. Warner's triple century was a little fortunate (caught off a no-ball), but it was still a master class in batting and deserves to be remembered as such.

Also true is the fact that Warner is a cashed up bogan, and a bully, who struggles to make double digit scores outside of Australia.

Both of these are true.
Click to expand...
I just want to add further I truly doubt any 300+ inning would be devoid of luck or chances. Even in a typical 100-run inning, there would be at least a chance or two to be nearly bowled or get caught out (often dropped catch or ball narrowly missing the fingertips of the fieldsmen).

335 score is now in the top 10 of best Test batting performances, which would make the performance in relative terms akin to the rarity of a bowler getting 9 wickets in an inning or 15+ wickets for a match. Bottom line, no matter the luck, that s**t is hard to achieve!
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

According to this article, Warner ran 20.921km during his monumental innings on Friday & Saturday. I cannot, for the life of me, think how they came up with this figure.

Warner scored 335 runs. The length of the pitch is 20m, so that equates to 6,700m. However, Warner scored 39x 4s and 1x 6 - a total of 162 runs in boundaries. Thus, he only scored 173 runs by scarpering up & down the pitch - a total of 3460m.

Of course, Warner wasn't only running for his own scores - he also ran whenever the Lampshade, Smith, or Wade scored runs (Burns' runs came from a single boundary). Warner's partners scored 246 runs (including 6x leg byes), of which 118 came in boundaries, leaving a total of 126 runs (2520m).

By my maths, that's a total distance of 3460+2520 = 6,080m.

Obviously he will have run while the ball was on its way to the rope for many of those boundaries. Let's assume he runs one run for each of the 4s. Yes, he'd then have to return to the strikers end, but that is done at a walking pace and the 20.9km claimed is for distance covered at a run. I'm assuming he didn't run for the 6s. At 1 runs per 4, we need to add a further 67 "runs", or 1340m.

At worst, he should have covered only 7,420m while running. That's roughly 800m per hour of his innings.

Can anyone suggest how the hell Cricket Australia came up with a distance of 20.921km, at a running (or jogging) pace? What am I missing, that 2/3 of this distance remains unaccounted for? Has he done a pair of 5km cool down jogs around the parklands, after stumps had been called, which CA has included in the tally?
 
Vader said:
According to this article, Warner ran 20.921km during his monumental innings on Friday & Saturday. I cannot, for the life of me, think how they came up with this figure.

Warner scored 335 runs. The length of the pitch is 20m, so that equates to 6,700m. However, Warner scored 39x 4s and 1x 6 - a total of 162 runs in boundaries. Thus, he only scored 173 runs by scarpering up & down the pitch - a total of 3460m.

Of course, Warner wasn't only running for his own scores - he also ran whenever the Lampshade, Smith, or Wade scored runs (Burns' runs came from a single boundary). Warner's partners scored 246 runs (including 6x leg byes), of which 118 came in boundaries, leaving a total of 126 runs (2520m).

By my maths, that's a total distance of 3460+2520 = 6,080m.

Obviously he will have run while the ball was on its way to the rope for many of those boundaries. Let's assume he runs one run for each of the 4s. Yes, he'd then have to return to the strikers end, but that is done at a walking pace and the 20.9km claimed is for distance covered at a run. I'm assuming he didn't run for the 6s. At 1 runs per 4, we need to add a further 67 "runs", or 1340m.

At worst, he should have covered only 7,420m while running. That's roughly 800m per hour of his innings.

Can anyone suggest how the hell Cricket Australia came up with a distance of 20.921km, at a running (or jogging) pace? What am I missing, that 2/3 of this distance remains unaccounted for? Has he done a pair of 5km cool down jogs around the parklands, after stumps had been called, which CA has included in the tally?
Click to expand...
Usually in a quick single, there’s follow-through running/jogging. So you’re often running 1 and a half distance between the 2 wickets.

Also, even if there are no runs, there would likely be a few metres running down the pitch.

Then there would be those sprint and jump he does during the milestones.
 
John Who said:
Usually in a quick single, there’s follow-through running/jogging. So you’re often running 1 and a half distance between the 2 wickets.

Also, even if there are no runs, there would likely be a few metres running down the pitch.

Then there would be those sprint and jump he does during the milestones.
Click to expand...
OK, I can buy that... there's also short repeated running whenever he's backing up at the non-striker's end.

That means singles equate to 1.5 runs, 2s are 2.5, and 3s are 3.5. Not unreasonable. Unfortunately, cricinfo doesn't have that level of breakdown, so I'll have to make some assumptions. Assumption: 1s, 2s & 3s are scored in the ratio 5:2:1. Run-throughs are not required when scoring a boundary.

So.. total runs scored by running between wickets = 173+118 = 291
Total 1s: 182
Total 2s: 37
Total 3s: 12

Total extra distance = 2310m

Factoring in run-throughs, we're now up to 9,730m. That still leaves us more than 50% below CA's total.

Surely he didn't run 10.5km just backing up the dot-balls, at the non-striker's end?
 
Last edited:
Vader and John Who
I suggest he was wearing a GPS tracker.
You're both forgetting the distance he covers walking out of the crease and back to undo and redo his gloves, plus drinks breaks, plus walking on and off the ground.
Then I reckon he gets on a jogging machine at Lunch and Dinner breaks, to inflate the Kms and mess with Vader's head.
 
Bit of a shame that Head didn't get the chance to bat in front of his home crowd. His is the only spot in the side that is in any doubt for the rest of the summer.

Langer really has done a superb job taking over a side in disarray.
 
CrowBloke said:
Vader and John Who
I suggest he was wearing a GPS tracker.
You're both forgetting the distance he covers walking out of the crease and back to undo and redo his gloves, plus drinks breaks, plus walking on and off the ground.
Then I reckon he gets on a jogging machine at Lunch and Dinner breaks, to inflate the Kms and mess with Vader's head.
Click to expand...
They specifically said running, so I've excluded the time he spent walking - out to the crease & back again at the start/end of each session, returning to the striker's end after hitting a boundary, etc.

I think he was just jogging on the machine at lunch time... ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Competitions Crouch's Lock of the Week Game
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
5K
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top