David Warner

[Rumblah#16]

Did U not see my post with his FC scores of late, plus his profile which list his FC strike rate. Or the fact that in the longer version he bats completely different, right down to the stance. Check into it, bound to be a video around of it. Once again people not looking past a so called short form specialist when he actually is a pretty decent bat, and the only bloke under 25 who seems to regularly come out and state how bad he wants a baggy green. Runs speak volumes and he recently scored a bunch of them.

Yeah Warner and Haddin surviving a day 5 pitch is likely. They're sure to be a formidable combo at 6 and 7 hey? Bowlers all around the world are licking their lips at the potential of two easy wickets every innings.

You're using an innings from an unofficial first class game, that means less than nothing.

 

[red+black]

Koala should have been 1st drop for the 1st Test and should stay there.

I recall a fellow called Katich used to play alright and should be given an aplogy and a call up.

 

[The Governor]

Gee, David Warner was selected to replace Ricky and it does not make sense at all!! Replacing a number 3 with an opener?

David Warner had an exceptional Australia A series in Zimbabwe and he impressed Gregory Stephen with his ability to build a long innings.

I am prepared the selectors have got it wrong by picking Hughes ahead of Warner. Phil Hughes will continue to struggle at test match level and his technique does not cut it at test match level. If Phil Hughes can play test cricket, any grade cricketer with a dodgy technique can get a game for Australia.

I would drop Hughes for Warner and play Khawaja at 3.

Watson
Warner
Khawaja
Clarke
Hussey
Marsh
Haddin
Johnson
Lyon
Harris
Copeland

 

[krisholio14]

Gee, David Warner was selected to replace Ricky and it does not make sense at all!! Replacing a number 3 with an opener?

David Warner had an exceptional Australia A series in Zimbabwe and he impressed Gregory Stephen with his ability to build a long innings.

I am prepared the selectors have got it wrong by picking Hughes ahead of Warner. Phil Hughes will continue to struggle at test match level and his technique does not cut it at test match level. If Phil Hughes can play test cricket, any grade cricketer with a dodgy technique can get a game for Australia.

I would drop Hughes for Warner and play Khawaja at 3.

Watson
Warner
Khawaja
Clarke
Hussey
Marsh
Haddin
Johnson
Lyon
Harris
Copeland

He did, and the Zimbots have shown since they are not a laughing stock ATM.

 

[aussie1st]

cox has quit

As with Hilditch, Chappell and coach Tim Nielsen, who must reapply for that job, Cox will stay a selector until the new panel is in place.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...re-apply-for-job/story-fn2mcu3x-1226128282247

 

[Hellgood]

I don't get why some are making a huge deal of this, he's not going to play! If he was picked this time last year, I would have exactly the same opinion of some of the poster in this thread, but clearly since then, he's worked on his game, and has proven he can play the longest form successfully at domestic level. Now, I will be pissed off if he is put into our ODI side, since he has done absolutely nothing to deserve selection in that format, but look at his first class record before you make assumptions about his suitability for test cricket.

 

[Blue Dimension]

Good selection considdering his form.

 

[no_remorse28]

Yeah Warner and Haddin surviving a day 5 pitch is likely. They're sure to be a formidable combo at 6 and 7 hey? Bowlers all around the world are licking their lips at the potential of two easy wickets every innings.

You're using an innings from an unofficial first class game, that means less than nothing.

So you just looked past the 120 V south africa A, or the 211 in the official game Vs Zimbabwe test XI, the same side the un official 152 came against, fact is he hit a heap of runs. He didn't go out there all guns blazing your just another blinded by T20. People can adapt to different forms mate, Including Mr Warner. Why the hell do we have an "A" side if the best performed in it isn't worthy of a call up to be a reserve batsmen. People keep using the Marsh argument that he has averaged near 50 in FC in the last 2 years, well he averages 45 and only in 14 games over the last 2 years, wow a massive 5 games more then Warner.

 

[no_remorse28]

So you just looked past the 120 V south africa A, or the 211 in the official game Vs Zimbabwe test XI, the same side the un official 152 came against, fact is he hit a heap of runs. He didn't go out there all guns blazing your just another blinded by T20. People can adapt to different forms mate, Including Mr Warner. Why the hell do we have an "A" side if the best performed in it isn't worthy of a call up to be a reserve batsmen. People keep using the Marsh argument that he has averaged near 50 in FC in the last 2 years, well he averages 45 and only in 14 games over the last 2 years, wow a massive 5 games more then Warner.

And just on that, with Marsh converting a whopping 6 inning's into 100's in FC cricket im sure he is a rock in there to who we could rely on

 

[Rumblah#16]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...re-apply-for-job/story-fn2mcu3x-1226128282247

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/530852.html

 

[Rumblah#16]

So you just looked past the 120 V south africa A, or the 211 in the official game Vs Zimbabwe test XI, the same side the un official 152 came against, fact is he hit a heap of runs. He didn't go out there all guns blazing your just another blinded by T20. People can adapt to different forms mate, Including Mr Warner. Why the hell do we have an "A" side if the best performed in it isn't worthy of a call up to be a reserve batsmen. People keep using the Marsh argument that he has averaged near 50 in FC in the last 2 years, well he averages 45 and only in 14 games over the last 2 years, wow a massive 5 games more then Warner.

So you don't think that experience is crucial in batting at #6? I'd take Marsh's 61 matches in 10 years over Warner's 9 matches in 5. Is Warner the best #6 in the country? No. Is Warner the best replacement for the #6 in the country? No.

Therefore it's a bad selection.

 

[krisholio14]

So you don't think that experience is crucial in batting at #6? I'd take Marsh's 61 matches in 10 years over Warner's 9 matches in 5. Is Warner the best #6 in the country? No. Is Warner the best replacement for the #6 in the country? No.

Therefore it's a bad selection.

Warner is a unique talent and should have had more exposure to the longer forms of the game than he has. Now that he's had that opportunity, he's made a mountain of runs, and he's done it overseas too.

He's probably not going to play anyway, but I can't see there being any problem with him being brought in for a taste. He has been in rare form of late.

 

[aussie1st]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/530852.html

Cox also faced criticism over a potential conflict of interest, as he juggled the selection role with his full-time job as South Australia's director of cricket. By declaring he won't reapply for one of the two part-time positions on the new selection panel, Cox has ensured Australia can make a clean break from the Hilditch era, although he will stay on until the new panel is appointed.

There you go, aka he was part of this decision.

 

[damochandler]

Gee, David Warner was selected to replace Ricky and it does not make sense at all!! Replacing a number 3 with an opener?

David Warner had an exceptional Australia A series in Zimbabwe and he impressed Gregory Stephen with his ability to build a long innings.

I am prepared the selectors have got it wrong by picking Hughes ahead of Warner. Phil Hughes will continue to struggle at test match level and his technique does not cut it at test match level. If Phil Hughes can play test cricket, any grade cricketer with a dodgy technique can get a game for Australia.

I would drop Hughes for Warner and play Khawaja at 3.

Watson
Warner
Khawaja
Clarke
Hussey
Marsh
Haddin
Johnson
Lyon
Harris
Copeland

ah his name is gregg chappel and he wouldn't know talent if he fell over it. warner has the same problem as hughes and all teams have figured both of them out

 

[Heisenberg_]

I will throw up if he plays a Test match this year.
We have see what an abysmal batsmen at international cricket when be has tombuild an innings with his ODI average of 15.

 

[The_Panther]

Just a story i heard from a mate;
there was an AUS U19 game against India in India. Also playing were Henriques, Finch and Usman.

Warner Batted middle to lower order in that series and was given one of the biggest sprays of all time by the Coach who accused him of batting too slow/ batting for himself.

How opinions have changed!

 

[no_remorse28]

I will throw up if he plays a Test match this year.
We have see what an abysmal batsmen at international cricket when be has tombuild an innings with his ODI average of 15.

Once again two completely different forms of the game. Blewett only averaged 20 in ODI's and forged a decent FC and Test career. Really can people not see past the short forms and realize he just hit a heap of runs for our national 2nd XI.

And No I Dont think Marsh's experience is worth a cent more then Warner's. If he was in peak form reeling off decent scores one after the other then I could see the argument, But here is a fun fact, Cam White averages more in FC cricket, Has played more games, hit a hell of a lot more hundreds. Are you gonna tell me You want him over Marsh because he has more experience, Dont think so.

Marsh's First Class record speaks for itself, wasted talent with poor concentration and an inability to hit the big score. So No i guess I wouldn't want his failed efforts at no.6

 

[no_remorse28]

ah his name is gregg chappel and he wouldn't know talent if he fell over it. warner has the same problem as hughes and all teams have figured both of them out

I guess that's why he has been making so many runs

 

[Rumblah#16]

I guess that's why he has been making so many runs

You really think a Zimbabwe XI is world class? Really?

I pose this question to you again. Is Warner the best #6 in the country? Is he the best #6 replacement in the country?

Oh how we have fallen.

 

[no_remorse28]

You really think a Zimbabwe XI is world class? Really?

I pose this question to you again. Is Warner the best #6 in the country? Is he the best #6 replacement in the country?

Oh how we have fallen.

Is Marsh ? And you can write Zimbabwe off at your own peril, they are a far better unit then the shambles that exited test cricket, world class No, decent opposition yes.

Ur case for Marsh being the best no.6 to select is ???

 

[Heisenberg_]

Different formats between 50 over and Test match, point still stands however, has looked extremely average/shithouse when facing international standard attacks when you actually have to bat properly.
Scoring against Zimbabwe isn't enough to change MT opinion. Is a long way off being a Test calibre player and probably never will be good enough.

 

[Rumblah#16]

Is Marsh ? And you can write Zimbabwe off at your own peril, they are a far better unit then the shambles that exited test cricket, world class No, decent opposition yes.

Ur case for Marsh being the best no.6 to select is ???

No, I don't think Marsh is. From the squad we have picked, he is the most likely to succeed though.

In a perfect world, Khawaja moves to 3 and Ponting drops to 6. That means Khawaja can continue to develop at 3, where he will bat long-term. Punter drops to six and can concentrate on building the innings, with hopefully a bit less stress.

That's in a perfect world, unfortunately we do not live in one. I agree they're a better unit, that's obvious. My problem is with Warner being in the squad, it signals that they think he's a prospect for the future, which includes Ashes and series against South Africa.

I just don't see him as the guy to save us being 5 down for peanuts, that's all.

 

[damochandler]

I guess that's why he has been making so many runs

are zimbabwe south africa or sri lanka or anyone else? no. when was the last time they had a bowler that bowled a dry line.

 

[no_remorse28]

Different formats between 50 over and Test match, point still stands however, has looked extremely average/shithouse when facing international standard attacks when you actually have to bat properly.
Scoring against Zimbabwe isn't enough to change MT opinion. Is a long way off being a Test calibre player and probably never will be good enough.

Shield Final. Hit 90 I think, stance is different, temperament is far different. doesn't open himself up any wear near as much, granted that Zimbabwe is what they are, he also made runs V south Africa A and my point really for the argument really is that Whilst he is probably not the best batsmen outside the test squad, there are a few older compatriots that spring to mind, he is the bloke who dominated the recent "A" series, basically our second XI. So what is the point of that squad if the runs dont get rewarded. He wont play barring Injury, but it is reward for being the best at the second tier level. Which I agree with

 

[no_remorse28]

are zimbabwe south africa or sri lanka or anyone else? no. when was the last time they had a bowler that bowled a dry line.

Granted, but as I have been saying why have an "A" squad if the best performed doesn't get rewarded