Warner and where is he amongst great openers

[ManOfClay]

Being fair, he did cop a good one.

 

[wagstaff]

Warner shouldn’t worry; when he scores another run-a-ball century in a dead rubber SCG Test next summer the Ch 9 comms will continue to treat him as if he’s as good as Smith.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Warner shouldn’t worry; when he scores another run-a-ball century in a dead rubber SCG Test next summer the Ch 9 comms will continue to treat him as if he’s as good as Smith.

You forgot that they would bring out some memorabilia too!

 

[DrEvil_]

Just his natural game. Oh did I mention his natural is just a bogan bully?

 

[TW Sherrin]

in terms of Australian openers...."Davey" Warner is probably on a par with Graham Wood.

 

[scottywiper]

The most stupid mantra in cricket is that you always need to play your natural game. Sometimes the situation of the game demands you temper your approach to suit the conditions. That is what makes a great batsman. Which Warner is not.

 

[frankrizzo]

natural game is an excuse for flawed players who can't adapt, an example i like to use is ab de villiers i mean what is his natural game?

Ab can play a typical test knock or he can shut down and just bat for a day or he can go totally berserk and destroy attacks, his natural game is adapting to the conditions and the match and series situation.

 

[SherbertLemon]

I could never get over 10 runs playing cricket.

I wasn't a spud tho, I just played my natural game.

 

[Power Raid]

Until we find a better replacement, warner is as good as we get (other than the man currently at the other end)

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I could never get over 10 runs playing cricket.

I wasn't a spud tho, I just played my natural game.

Me too. My natural game was knick the wide ones, miss the straight ones, and at the non-striker's end call for singles that werent there.

 

[JG22]

It's not like Warners been going out there slogging or going at 80SR or something.

He's batted slowly but just can't play spin for s**t

 

[Gough]

I'd consider him equal to a guy like Graeme Wood considering the disparity in the types of bowling they faced.

 

[psychobrown]

Yeah, The Reverend just needs to learn the value of a good long mass

 

[The Swans Blog]

Hits another 50 and I'd say his tour has been ok. Will finish with a decent average where many others have failed. Did well with Smith for the 2nd wicket partnership.

 

[Lebbo73]

I'd consider him equal to a guy like Graeme Wood considering the disparity in the types of bowling they faced.

Yeah. At least Graeme Wood had the respectable excuse of saying that he faced Holding, Garner, Roberts and Marshall on pitches that gave bowlers a chance most of the time. I used to have nightmares about these legends. Imagine what Graeme Wood would have had!

 

[Blue1980]

Yeah. At least Graeme Wood had the respectable excuse of saying that he faced Holding, Garner, Roberts and Marshall on pitches that gave bowlers a chance most of the time. I used to have nightmares about these legends. Imagine what Graeme Wood would have had!

Graeme Wood was more like Shaun Marsh. Could make 100s against the best but no consistency

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Hits another 50 and I'd say his tour has been ok. Will finish with a decent average where many others have failed. Did well with Smith for the 2nd wicket partnership.

You are kidding yourself. His tour has been anything but ok. Not only did he fail to do anything match-defining with the bat, he was a complete butter fingers for most of the tour. I hope he has some reason for his shite fielding.

 

[Scotland]

It's not like Warners been going out there slogging or going at 80SR or something.

He's batted slowly but just can't play spin for s**t

Still striking at 62 with no other Aussie batsman except Maxwell was striking over 50. Smith, Wade, Handscomb all in the 40s, Renshaw 38 and Marsh 29.

Agree he is clueless against spin, though. Can't seem to go more than an over or two just seeing off Ashwin/Jadeja without finding a way to get out.

 

[NTRabbit]

Still striking at 62

Quite possibly the most irrelevant stat for a test batsman, and it's even worse when combined with a series average of 24.12

Highlights that he's never been anything more than a limited overs slogger, never has had, and never will have the brains or temperament to be a good test opener.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Quite possibly the most irrelevant stat for a test batsman, especially when combined with a series average of 24.12

Highlights that he's never been anything more than a limited overs slogger, never has had, and never will have the brains or temperament to be a good test opener.

5400 runs at 48 puts him clearly above the 'good' Test opener category.

He's flawed, as are most players.

 

[NTRabbit]

5400 runs at 48 puts him clearly above the 'good' Test opener category.

He's flawed, as are most players.

He slogs on roads at home, can't bat on actual pitches in varying conditions away, and is totally incapable of changing his game under shifting game circumstances, like genuinely good test batsmen can do. He is not a good test opener, he is a bad test opener.

 

[footyfan1978]

Warner is blessed to be playing in a time where the bats made now are so effective it can make a good player look sensational.
He is a good attacking player but he is far from a great opener. He failed for mine in Ashes series at crucial moments when a player that some, want to label great, did not stand up when it counted. That is a long way from great. It was a real downer to see him let us down. He's human, fails at times and comes off plenty of times too. Hyperbole to suggest he is amongst the greats. Greenidge for mine probably best opener I seen in my time. I hate to think how far over the fence he would have hit it often with his power plus the bats they use now. Warner one of 20 or so that good effective openers after this. Where he rates I will think about it maybe 3 or 4 years time but he certainly has a long, long way to go to be considered a great. I don't think he ever will be in that category. Great is a name like Ponsford or Arthur Morris that are names considered greats well before any of our times and none of us saw but the people that did relay stories about them suggest they were special. I doubt even, Hayden, Simpson, Langer, Taylor, Slater, Wessels or Laird are in the Ponsford class. These others guys are good to very good but I do not throw the term great around loosely. Hyperbole is rampant. Every second player is great or superstar nowadays in our sports. Just ask the Luke Darcy's of the sporting commentator boxes. They will tell us and the lemmings will lap it up and believe the hype.

Think he has been around long enough to judge.

Trying to think of all the openers I seen for Aussies since started watching cricket as a kid.
Rick McCosker was before my time but probably saw his last year or two in World Series Cricket and maybe one more year after WSC players returned to Test arena. Then there was Stumpy Laird. Rate him better than Warner. He played at height of West Indies power at 4 fast bowlers and won their admiration like few others at the time. We also had guys like Graeme Wood, Julien Weiner, Andrew Hilditch and Rick Dyson in and out of Test side both before and after WSC elite players returned. All had their moments but happy not to revisit that batch. Wood flawed as compulsive hooker and terrible runner between wickets. Dyson just boring and not quite up to it. Hilditch had a few good games but never stayed in side for extended time. Laird was best of this time and then Kepler Wessels joined him as opener in WSC side but when WSC players returned to ICC cricket arena, Wessels not eligible to play for Australia until he played a few more years for Queensland in Sheffield Shield. When he did 162 on debut. Had his limitations due to weird stance but was probably better than Warner when all context of quality of pace bowling at the time. Laird and Wessels ahead of Warner for mine but do not remember those two firing at same time too often. Tougher to open in their era. They faced West Indies a lot. If you averaged much over 30 as opener against them you were not doing too bad actually , imo.
That is how good they were to face as a pace quartet. After that guys like Wayne Phillips and Steve Smith got one or two goes as openers around mid 1980s.

Phillips got wrecked when they tried to make him keeper at same time. Never really was same bat after that but was real entertainer and excellent one day batsmen for a few years. Tom Moody was tried once or twice and others in Border captaincy era. Think guys like Dyson still got a run around those times too. We really struggled to find good opening pair until Geoff Marsh and David Boon paired up around 1986 or 87 possibly. Then Mark Taylor came along about 1989 and he partnered Marsh and Boon to first drop I think. This was not a bad era for our openers and when we started to win a few more Tests and win back Ashes in 1989. Taylor not as attacking or entertaining as Warner but more rounded. Marsh decent but not as good as Warner. Great gully fielder though and team player. Slater when he came along probably the best since Wessels and Laird but more entertaining. Had his flaws and strengths. Rate just above Warner as an opener. Not great but very good. Then came Matthew Elliott briefly. He was seriously good to watch play pull shot off guys like Allan Donald when Donald at his quickest. Sadly Mark Waugh and him had a collision and do not ever remember Elliott being same player again. Hayden seen to get his s**t together as an opener some time around this time but think Slater got dropped for Langer in England. Before that Langer never opened but adjusted his game and made it his own. Hayden joined and rest is history. Slater or Elliott never got back even though both very talented. Also think Greg Blewett opened in late 90s once or twice with maybe Slater or Taylor but not really an opener. More fill in when someone injured much like Katich or Hussey did a decade or so later.

After Langer retired and whenever Hayden did we had a few tries. Katich, Watson, Quiney, a different Phillips, Jacques, Cowan, Hughes, Warner, Joe Burns and Rogers. Rogers like Geoff Marsh decent for a few years but only good, not very good.

I do not know whom is best on stats, probably Hayden but all things being considered of context of when they played and whom they faced I say Warner is behind Langer, Hayden, Slater, Taylor, Laird, Elliott and Wessels but overall have him just above Boon, Rogers, Greame Wood and Geoff Marsh as an Aussie opener.
Wayne Phillips a bit stiff been thrown the gloves in mid 1980's but probably was more a late order batter than opener, like Hussey whom was late order bat than a true opener but could do it if asked.
I probably missed some names but they are what I can recall from top of my head.

Now over to the stats nerds.

 

[Hellgood]

Think he has been around long enough to judge.

Trying to think of all the openers I seen for Aussies since started watching cricket as a kid.
Rick McCosker was before my time but probably saw his last year or two in World Series Cricket and maybe one more year after WSC players returned to Test arena. Then there was Stumpy Laird. Rate him better than Warner. He played at height of West Indies power at 4 fast bowlers and won their admiration like few others at the time. We also had guys like Graeme Wood, Julien Weiner, Andrew Hilditch and Rick Dyson in and out of Test side both before and after WSC elite players returned. All had their moments but happy not to revisit that batch. Wood flawed as compulsive hooker and terrible runner between wickets. Dyson just boring and not quite up to it. Hilditch had a few good games but never stayed in side for extended time. Laird was best of this time and then Kepler Wessels joined him as opener in WSC side but when WSC players returned to ICC cricket arena, Wessels not eligible to play for Australia until he played a few more years for Queensland in Sheffield Shield. When he did 162 on debut. Had his limitations due to weird stance but was probably better than Warner when all context of quality of pace bowling at the time. Laird and Wessels ahead of Warner for mine but do not remember those two firing at same time too often. Tougher to open in their era. They faced West Indies a lot. If you averaged of 30 as opener against them you were not doing too bad actually , imo.
That is how good they were to face as a pace quartet. After that guys like Wayne Phillips and Steve Smith got one or two goes as openers around mid 1980s.

Phillips got wrecked when they tried to make him keeper at same time. Never really was same bat after that but was real entertainer and excellent one day batsmen for a few years. Tom Moody was tried once or twice and others in Border captaincy era. Think guys like Dyson still got a run around those times too. We really struggled to find good opening pair until Geoff Marsh and David Boon paired up around 1986 or 87 possibly. Then Mark Taylor came along about 1989 and he partnered Marsh and Boon to first drop I think. This was not a bad era for our openers and when we started to win a few more Tests and win back Ashes in 1989. Taylor not as attacking or entertaining as Warner but more rounded. Marsh decent but not as good as Warner. Great gully fielder though and team player. Slater when he came along probably the best since Wessels and Laird but more entertaining. Had his flaws and strengths. Rate just above Warner as an opener. Not great but very good. Then came Matthew Elliott briefly. He was seriously good to watch play pull shot of guys like Allan Donald when Donald at his quickest. Sadly Mark Waugh and him had a collision and do not ever remember Elliott being same player again. Hayden seen to get his s**t together as an opener some time around this time but think Slater got dropped for Langer in England. Before that Langer never opened but adjusted his game and made it his own. Hayden joined and rest is history. Slater or Elliott never got back even though both very talented. Also think Greg Blewett opened in late 90s once or twice with maybe Slater or Taylor but not really an opener. More fill in when someone injured much like Katich or Hussey did a decade or so later.

After Langer retired and whenever Hayden did we had a few tries. Katich, Watson, Quiney, a different Phillips, Jacques, Cowan, Hughes, Warner, Joe Burns and Rogers. Rogers like Geoff Marsh decent for a few years but only good, not very good.

I do not know whom is best on stats, probably Hayden but all things being considered of context of when they played and whom they faced I say Warner is behind Langer, Hayden, Slater, Taylor, Laird, Elliott and Wessels but overall have him just above Boon, Rogers, Greame Wood and Geoff Marsh as an Aussie opener.
Wayne Phillips a bit stiff been thrown the gloves in mid 1980's but probably was more a late order batter than opener, like Hussey whom was late order bat than a true opener but could do it if asked.
I probably missed some names but they are what I can recall from top of my head.

Now over to the stats nerds.

Interesting post and appreciate the history coming from your perspective, however:

- I reckon Rogers was definitely very good.
- Elliott disproportionately high in that list I can't see on any basis how he's better than Boon, Rogers, Marsh, Wood and Warner.
- Think your getting Hussey's career the wrong way around, he was developed as an opening batsman who as time went on found success down the order in the shorter formats which translated to doing the same in test cricket.
- Jacques could have been quite high on the list if injury permitted

 

[footyfan1978]

Interesting post and appreciate the history coming from your perspective, however:

- I reckon Rogers was definitely very good.
- Elliott disproportionately high in that list I can't see on any basis how he's better than Boon, Rogers, Marsh, Wood and Warner.
-

I could be biased in favour of Elliott. Anybody that can play a pull shot like him gets big thumbs up from me in terms of just watching elite cricket against serious fast bowlers like Donald.

 

[PhatBoy]

The home-away thing counts against Warner big time but in isolation you can still say 'well at least he's a gun at home.'

But I'd love to see some figures on how many runs he scores when his team is well on top going into the third innings, or his scores when he comes out to bat after Australia has rolled the visitors for not many in the first innings.

Maybe I'm totally wrong but I have a suspicion that these instances inflate his figures a lot further still. Compare that to say, when he comes out to bat at home facing a big first innings total from the opposition or a major deficit going into his team's second innings. I'd love to see what the numbers show.