Warner and where is he amongst great openers

[Outshined]

He's absolutely a home-track bully and I don't have any faith that he'll ever be anything but.

In saying that, you really can't discount the fact that in Australia he's a massive asset. Averages 50 against India, 58 against England and 93 against New Zealand (avg does drop to 40 against RSA, but that's respectable against the likes of Steyn, Philander, Rabada etc).

Regardless of the context those runs are scored in, ultimately you can't ignore the numbers.

The bigger issue IMO is whether you consider dropping the vice captain for the next away series.

 

[Scotland]

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.

It's a valuable stat if you make runs. If you don't then it's irrelevant. Strike rate is the statistical measure that sets apart Adam Gilchrist.

A keeper coming in at #7 and averaging 48 is fantastic. A keeper doing that and striking at 82 is just remarkable. Being able to score quick runs is a valuable skill.

Warner's problem is that he's firmly in the hit out or get out mold. His lowest strike rate for any 100 is 61. He's made two 50s striking under 50. He's batted 119 innings and got out before facing 10 balls 22 times. He's faced fewer than 50 balls 68 times. His strike rate in these innings is still 80, he just doesn't have the Rogers/Renshaw mode of grinding out an innings when scoring is tough.

Strike rate is also more prevalent due to T20. Guys who can score at 150 are sought after even if they only make 20-25 an innings because the game is short and there are usually batsmen in the sheds.

 

[PhatBoy]

He's absolutely a home-track bully and I don't have any faith that he'll ever be anything but.

In saying that, you really can't discount the fact that in Australia he's a massive asset. Averages 50 against India, 58 against England and 93 against New Zealand (avg does drop to 40 against RSA, but that's respectable against the likes of Steyn, Philander, Rabada etc).

Regardless of the context those runs are scored in, ultimately you can't ignore the numbers.

The bigger issue IMO is whether you consider dropping the vice captain for the next away series.

He's an asset but you can't dismiss context.

For example: he's hit 4 third innings hundreds in Australia.

The game situations?
116 vs NZ, started the innings with a lead of 239
112 vs England, started the innings with a lead of 134
124 vs England, started the innings with a lead of 159
102 vs India, started the innings with a lead of 73.

Now it must be said, at home Australia mostly lead on first innings. But what the above highlights is how much better he is when there's not a skerrick of pressure.

Now let's look at his first or second innings hundreds in Australia.

He has 9 of them.
The first was 180 against India at Perth, out of 369. No other player made or made near a century.

The knocks since then:
119 out of 550, two other centuries
145 out of 517, two other centuries
101 out of 572, one other century plus a 90 and an 80
163 out of 556, one other century
253 out of 559, one other century
122 out of 3-176 - on day five against the West Indies after West Indies batted through 4 days of rain
144 out of 624, one other century
113 out of 538, two other centuries.

Now obviously it's not Warner's fault if someone else performs. Can't hold that against him. Shows pretty plainly though that he thrives on conditions and circumstances where clearly, batting isn't terribly hard for any of the home team. He deserves credit as an opener for helping his side into a position to make those big scores.

Of those 9 centuries, 6 came in the first innings of the match. No scoreboard pressure from the other team. No threat that a poor start leaves Australia 2-down and 400 behind or something.
The 3 second innings hundreds came after India were skittled for 161, said day five scenario vs the West Indies, and last Boxing Day in the face of a big score against Pakistan.



What all of the above points to is that in addition to the struggles he has when the ball moves either because of spin or seam. Or swing for that mater, it's fair to say that he is a player who almost exclusively performs when the pressure gauge is at its lowest. Hobart vs NZ is the one shining exception, and to a lesser extent Melbourne in his last test there.

 

[Blue1980]

I think rating Warner below slater is a bit stiff. Slater wasn't any good in India either, but was Warner is more dominant at home than slater was

 

[PhatBoy]

I think rating Warner below slater is a bit stiff. Slater wasn't any good in India either, but was Warner is more dominant at home than slater was

Slater was good in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as SA. He was a more rounded player than Warner.

 

[Outshined]

PhatBoy

Liked that post for the effort put in as much as the story it tells!

My point about context was that although you can argue some runs are more valuable than others, the weight of runs he's scored still deems him one of the first picked at home. It's still a legitimate role to be the second innings aggressor who puts the game well beyond the reach of the opposition. We mock him for 'hundred in a session' line that Slater and co always tow, but he's still capable of completely demoralizing a visiting side in home conditions in the space of 2-3 hrs.

I do agree he's the type of batsmen who excels when there's not a whole lot of pressure and I'd never back him to bat us out of a large first innings deficit.

 

[PhatBoy]

PhatBoy

Liked that post for the effort put in as much as the story it tells!

My point about context was that although you can argue some runs are more valuable than others, the weight of runs he's scored still deems him one of the first picked at home. It's still a legitimate role to be the second innings aggressor who puts the game well beyond the reach of the opposition. We mock him for 'hundred in a session' line that Slater and co always tow, but he's still capable of completely demoralizing a visiting side in home conditions in the space of 2-3 hrs.

I do agree he's the type of batsmen who excels when there's not a whole lot of pressure and I'd never back him to bat us out of a large first innings deficit.

Thanks mate.


It's unarguable that he plays a role at home. No matter how much I talk him down he can have a big impact on his opposition and must be a nightmare to bowl to when he's hitting the ball well. I just question whether it's a job that Warner and only Warner could do, and does the importance of that job outweigh the importance of the jobs he doesn't get done.

In other words, is there a player out there who can maybe do a far better job under the pump, who, while maybe not as devastating as Warner, can also drive home an advantage pretty well.

 

[Outshined]

Thanks mate.


It's unarguable that he plays a role at home. No matter how much I talk him down he can have a big impact on his opposition and must be a nightmare to bowl to when he's hitting the ball well. I just question whether it's a job that Warner and only Warner could do, and does the importance of that job outweigh the importance of the jobs he doesn't get done.

In other words, is there a player out there who can maybe do a far better job under the pump, who, while maybe not as devastating as Warner, can also drive home an advantage pretty well.

Gunna be an interesting one, especially if he has a poor home summer against England. It's hard to imagine given how entrenched he's become in the first XI, but the knives will be out if we don't regain the Ashes. Ideally you'd need significant pressure coming from the domestic scene and as far as I know while there are a few promising openers (Bancroft, Harris etc) there's aren't any you could justify replacing him with.

I'd just like to have seen some kind of indication that he's willing to change the way he plays depending on the conditions. You can't play every innings like it's a flat MCG drop in that's not going to seam, swing or spin in any meaningful way.

 

[JG22]

He's absolutely a home-track bully and I don't have any faith that he'll ever be anything but.

In saying that, you really can't discount the fact that in Australia he's a massive asset. Averages 50 against India, 58 against England and 93 against New Zealand (avg does drop to 40 against RSA, but that's respectable against the likes of Steyn, Philander, Rabada etc).

Regardless of the context those runs are scored in, ultimately you can't ignore the numbers.

The bigger issue IMO is whether you consider dropping the vice captain for the next away series.

3 centuries, 2 fifties in 3 matches away in South Africa a few years ago to win man of the series.
Over 400 runs in the last ashes at an average of 46.

Not exactly a flat track bully, just useless in sub-continent.

 

[JackOutback]

3 centuries, 2 fifties in 3 matches away in South Africa a few years ago to win man of the series.
Over 400 runs in the last ashes at an average of 46.

Not exactly a flat track bully, just useless in sub-continent.

I remember him being quite average in England; if I recall correctly, he padded his stats with a century in the last (dead) Test.

 

[Lebbo73]

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.

Hilditch would have nearly been the best in the last 40yrs if he wasn't a compulsive hooker. Give him modern day bats and it wouldn't have mattered.
Elliott was very good until that collision with Mark Waugh. As you stated.
Hayden dominated once Ambrose and Walsh lost a yard of pace.
Warner is only a flat track champion. I imagine he would have been impossible to dismiss on the synthetic wickets.

 

[JG22]

I remember him being quite average in England; if I recall correctly, he padded his stats with a century in the last (dead) Test.

Not quite, he made 3 50s and often frustrated by repeatedly going after Moeen Ali and getting out to him

 

[StingBitten]

Should only play in home series.

 

[to1994]

I remember him being quite average in England; if I recall correctly, he padded his stats with a century in the last (dead) Test.

His average output was also overshadowed by Michael Clarke having a putrid tour which took the pressure off. This time around he was the truly senior player and was awful, can't hide from that now. If memory serves he's played 8 Test Matches in England so will be again expected to do pretty well in 2019.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Warner's issue overseas is he doesn't go on to get the big 100s. He just has the 4 centuries overseas but 15 50's. At home he has 14 centuries and just 9 50's, so the difference is he converts there. So taking into account the inevitable failures every batsmen suffers it hurts the overseas average when he doesn't go on. The last two Tests in Sri Lanka he made 68, 42 and 41, decent scores, good starts but not converting again. As for India it's a country where he plays s**t but he's not on his own there.

If one really put a spin on things he has 23 scores over 50 in Australia, 19 scores of over 50 overseas. Conversion overseas is his big issue.

 

[PhatBoy]

I can't believe there's anyone mounting any sort of defence for him

 

[Jimthegreat]

Not quite, he made 3 50s and often frustrated by repeatedly going after Moeen Ali and getting out to him

Actually made five 50's last tour of England, two scores in the 80s and one in the 70s.

 

[G Mus]

He's an asset but you can't dismiss context.

For example: he's hit 4 third innings hundreds in Australia.

The game situations?
116 vs NZ, started the innings with a lead of 239
112 vs England, started the innings with a lead of 134
124 vs England, started the innings with a lead of 159
102 vs India, started the innings with a lead of 73.

Now it must be said, at home Australia mostly lead on first innings. But what the above highlights is how much better he is when there's not a skerrick of pressure.

Now let's look at his first or second innings hundreds in Australia.

He has 9 of them.
The first was 180 against India at Perth, out of 369. No other player made or made near a century.

The knocks since then:
119 out of 550, two other centuries
145 out of 517, two other centuries
101 out of 572, one other century plus a 90 and an 80
163 out of 556, one other century
253 out of 559, one other century
122 out of 3-176 - on day five against the West Indies after West Indies batted through 4 days of rain
144 out of 624, one other century
113 out of 538, two other centuries.

Now obviously it's not Warner's fault if someone else performs. Can't hold that against him. Shows pretty plainly though that he thrives on conditions and circumstances where clearly, batting isn't terribly hard for any of the home team. He deserves credit as an opener for helping his side into a position to make those big scores.

Of those 9 centuries, 6 came in the first innings of the match. No scoreboard pressure from the other team. No threat that a poor start leaves Australia 2-down and 400 behind or something.
The 3 second innings hundreds came after India were skittled for 161, said day five scenario vs the West Indies, and last Boxing Day in the face of a big score against Pakistan.



What all of the above points to is that in addition to the struggles he has when the ball moves either because of spin or seam. Or swing for that mater, it's fair to say that he is a player who almost exclusively performs when the pressure gauge is at its lowest. Hobart vs NZ is the one shining exception, and to a lesser extent Melbourne in his last test there.

Not dismissing your analysis but there's probably a trend that most centuries are first innings, and that most openers centuries are accompanied by at least one other player down the order making a score as well as the opener has lifted the pressure a bit

There's a good chance that he's a great exponent of those trends however

 

[PhatBoy]

Not dismissing your analysis but there's probably a trend that most centuries are first innings, and that most openers centuries are accompanied by at least one other player down the order making a score as well as the opener has lifted the pressure a bit

There's a good chance that he's a great exponent of those trends however

It's not so much what he does, it's what he doesn't do. Where are the centuries in the 200-400 scores. Where are the centuries in replies to big opposition scores. Where are the centuries when Australia are trailing?

Tomorrow I'm gonna check how many of those scores came when Australia were in top or middle order trouble as well.

The guy gets more luck than nearly any batsman I've ever seen (seriously, how many times does he get dropped in the first five overs of an innings) and in all honesty has enough power and shots to be a genuine jet but he just plain and simply goes missing whenever things aren't perfect for him.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Warner's issue overseas is he doesn't go on to get the big 100s. He just has the 4 centuries overseas but 15 50's. At home he has 14 centuries and just 9 50's, so the difference is he converts there. So taking into account the inevitable failures every batsmen suffers it hurts the overseas average when he doesn't go on. The last two Tests in Sri Lanka he made 68, 42 and 41, decent scores, good starts but not converting again. As for India it's a country where he plays s**t but he's not on his own there.

If one really put a spin on things he has 23 scores over 50 in Australia, 19 scores of over 50 overseas. Conversion overseas is his big issue.

He usually edges his way to those 50s away from home though, rarely looks comfortable.

 

[Doss]

I can't believe there's anyone mounting any sort of defence for him

Defence for him in what sense?

His record in Australia can't be denied. Just as his record overseas can't be denied.

It is what he is. He's no good away from Australia. Doesn't make him a dud, it just lays bares his technical and temperamental limitations and means he should not sit among the great openers.

 

[PhatBoy]

Defence for him in what sense?

His record in Australia can't be denied. Just as his record overseas can't be denied.

It is what he is. He's no good away from Australia. Doesn't make him a dud, it just lays bares his technical and temperamental limitations and means he should not sit among the great openers.

Wrapping him on his efforts in Australia is like wrapping a bowler who has a good record because they keep picking up numbers 9, 10 and 11. His record might be ok but it has more holes than a wheel of Swiss cheese.

 

[Doss]

Wrapping him on his efforts in Australia is like wrapping a bowler who has a good record because they keep picking up numbers 9, 10 and 11. His record might be ok but it has more holes than a wheel of Swiss cheese.

It's not really like getting number 9,10 an 11 out at all. He is opening the batting and facing opening bowlers when the ball is new and swinging. Even allowing for the roads we often serve up, it's not like anyone can just rack up an average of 55 (or whatever it is he averages in Australia) at the drop of a hat. If it were that easy Joe Burns would be averaging 50.

He's a good player with an exceptional eye, with limitations in situations which demand a tighter technique.

 

[Richard Pryor]

First rate destroyer of second rate attacks.

 

[JackOutback]

It's not really like getting number 9,10 an 11 out at all. He is opening the batting and facing opening bowlers when the ball is new and swinging. Even allowing for the roads we often serve up, it's not like anyone can just rack up an average of 55 (or whatever it is he averages in Australia) at the drop of a hat. If it were that easy Joe Burns would be averaging 50.

He's a good player with an exceptional eye, with limitations in situations which demand a tighter technique.

To be fair, Burns got off to a flyer in Australia.