Dave Warner in 100 years

[LosBeatles]

100 years from now if t20 is the only cricket to exist, will people look back at dave warner the way we look at Bradman?

Bradman's average is like 40 % better than his nearest challenger, warner is IMO at least 40 % better than the next best t20 player. He has 3 centuries in a row, while other superstars like chris gayle do it once in a blue moon.

 

[Blessed]

In 100 years time, T20 cricket will be seen as old hat. The human concentration span will be even lower.

It will be 5 over cricket by then. It will be played by human clones artificially enhanced so the average bowling is 1,000 km an hour and the average six travelling 5 km in distance.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Say what? Dan Harris > Dan Warner. Nuff said, doesn't get recognition because he's not a poster boy.

 

[Grimwood]

A good player, but his T20I record isn't anything out of the ordinary...

 

[Underarm]

Lulwat?

you seriously comparing D. Warner who has been around for 3 years to the Don who proved his craft for 20? ask again in 15 years, though the answer will still be "Fck no".

 

[Blessed]

I reckon Don Bradman would have struggled at T20 compared to
Test cricket. A little known fact is; he only hit 6 sixers in his test career. He liked to hit the ball along the ground and considered any shot in the air as a miss hit.

The Don would have only averaged about 70 in T20.

 

[LosBeatles]

Haha yeah i know this thread is kinda out there.. But there's 4 days until the boxing day test and im bored

I was just wondering if bigfooty existed in 1920 what people would have said about Bradman when he first appeared

 

[Ducky Tie]

100 years from now if t20 is the only cricket to exist, will people look back at dave warner the way we look at Bradman?

Bradman's average is like 40 % better than his nearest challenger, warner is IMO at least 40 % better than the next best t20 player. He has 3 centuries in a row, while other superstars like chris gayle do it once in a blue moon.

He hasn't hit three centuries in a row.

 

[potatomasher]

I reckon Don Bradman would have struggled at T20 compared to
Test cricket. A little known fact is; he only hit 6 sixers in his test career. He liked to hit the ball along the ground and considered any shot in the air as a miss hit.

The Don would have only averaged about 70 in T20.

Bradman got a double century at the Oval in 1934 off 240 balls. He didn't hit the ball in the air because he didn't need to.

 

[jo172]

Bradman hit 309 in a day without a 6 or field restrictions.

Thinking he would have adjusted to this T20 caper.

 

[eddiesmith]

100 years from now if t20 is the only cricket to exist, will people look back at dave warner the way we look at Bradman?

Bradman's average is like 40 % better than his nearest challenger, warner is IMO at least 40 % better than the next best t20 player. He has 3 centuries in a row, while other superstars like chris gayle do it once in a blue moon.

Yet he only averages 26 with 5 half centuries in 29 innings...

 

[thecatattack]

Bradman once hit 100 off 22 balls.

Over the next three overs Bradman's scoring shots were:
1st Over 6 6 4 2 4 4 6 1 (33)
2nd Over 6 4 4 6 6 4 6 4 (40)
3rd Over 1 6 6 1 1 4 4 6 (27) & 2 to Wendell Bill.

He ended up scoring 256 including 14 sixes and 29 fours.

Who said he doesn't hit it in the air?

 

[Jimthegreat]

Bradman got a double century at the Oval in 1934 off 240 balls. He didn't hit the ball in the air because he didn't need to.

"The Don would have only averaged about 70 in T20."

Think Blessed's comment above told me there was some pi$$taking too.

 

[Icanwalk]

Warner and Bradman should not be mentioned in the same sentence. FFS

And I thought the suggestions of Warner as Australias next test captain were unbelievable. Is this honestly what Australian cricket has come to?

Go India, show us how test cricket is meant to be played. Can only hope we learn a few lessons and rid our team of these T20 amateurs and boy celebrities.

 

[Blessed]

If Warner even gets good enough to lick Bradman's shoes, he will be a very good player.

 

[Smoooothy]

bradman only hit 2 sixes in his career i beleive

edit - apologies he only hit 6. still from 7000 runs to only score 36 runs from miximums is phenonimal!

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Bradman once hit 100 off 22 balls.

Over the next three overs Bradman's scoring shots were:
1st Over 6 6 4 2 4 4 6 1 (33)
2nd Over 6 4 4 6 6 4 6 4 (40)
3rd Over 1 6 6 1 1 4 4 6 (27) & 2 to Wendell Bill.

He ended up scoring 256 including 14 sixes and 29 fours.

Who said he doesn't hit it in the air?

The story I heard, was that this innings came after a journalist criticised Bradman for his inability to hit sixes. The Don basically went out with a point to prove.

Absolutely no doubt, the guy could have hit sixes if the occasion called for it.

 

[coolio]

don't forget the skinny bats and boundary fences back then. In today's age their bats are like trees and the boundary comes in quite a fair way. The wickets are probably way advanced too.

 

[Blessed]

Yeah, the batsmen of today would struggle to hit the ball to square leg with the bats they used to have, they were like tooth picks.

Imagine Bradman with one of today's big bazookas which had a sweet spot the size of a pumpkin. He may have killed someone who fielded at short leg.

 

[ioppolo]

Yeah, the batsmen of today would struggle to hit the ball to square leg with the bats they used to have, they were like tooth picks.

Imagine Bradman with one of today's big bazookas which had a sweet spot the size of a pumpkin. He may have killed someone who fielded at short leg.

Imagine him in India with a road to play on and those tiny grounds that the smaller cities have.

 

[jo172]

Imagine him in India with a road to play on and those tiny grounds that the smaller cities have.

Hell, just consider Adelaide Oval where Sir Don played alot of his cricket and where the boundaries are in 1935 and where they are now.

The man is a freak and trying to put an adequate explanation as to just how phenomenal his exploits are is a waste of breath.

 

[The Passenger]

everyone from now on will be known as the next dave warner.

got it when he was 16.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88150&highlight=dave+warner&page=2

And even deeper (altough now my knowledge is only limited to NSW), watch out for Dave Warner (left handed aggressive batsmen) and Moses Henriques (quickie). Both 16 years old and already playing first grade in Sydney.

i'll claim that one

4/7 for test cricket

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I reckon Don Bradman would have struggled at T20 compared to
Test cricket. A little known fact is; he only hit 6 sixers in his test career. He liked to hit the ball along the ground and considered any shot in the air as a miss hit.

You really have no idea have you? Hitting the ball in the air is not good batting. The only reason Bradman would have struggled in T20 is because the game would have bored him to tears.

 

[Blessed]

You really have no idea have you? Hitting the ball in the air is not good batting.

AH, read again. Sarcasm.

 

[Ill Chicken]

don't forget the skinny bats and boundary fences back then. In today's age their bats are like trees and the boundary comes in quite a fair way. The wickets are probably way advanced too.

The boundaries back then were roughly the same size and just as quick. Because they're shortened now by a couple of metres, makes stuff all difference in the long run. Not every ground is the same. Players back then didn't dive or field anywhere near as well as today, so how do you calculate that in?

As for this whole bat scenario, nothing has changed. The top players always had the best bats. I don't remember ever coming across a good player that didn't have a great bat be it either 1985 or 2005. The difference between players from 1930 and 2010 is that humans in 2010 are a hell of a lot stronger and fitter, have better techniques and play a lot more cricket.

Take David Warner as he is now back to 1930 and he'll average 200. Take someone like Kallis or Tendulkar and they won't have an average.