Warner and where is he amongst great openers

[woota]

Why do we even bother with averages, strike rate is the only thing that matters. That, and selling TVs.

Nah, many things matter and Warner comes out on top in every single measure of a batsman (apart from Border/Waugh's slightly higher average, which is negligible). Warner is the quintessential opening batsman.

 

[JackOutback]

Nah, many things matter and Warner comes out on top in every single measure of a batsman (apart from Border/Waugh's slightly higher average, which is negligible). Warner is the quintessential opening batsman.

He's not even as big a campaigner as AB or Waugh, so definitely not the quintessential Aussie cricketer.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Nah, many things matter and Warner comes out on top in every single measure of a batsman (apart from Border/Waugh's slightly higher average, which is negligible). Warner is the quintessential opening batsman.

And, you know, simply not being as good as Border. Especially when the chips are down.

Warner cashes in more when things are going his way, and on pure talent certainly edges out S Waugh amd maybe Border as well.
But better than Border? Not yet, and even with recent events taken into consideration still not likely.

 

[woota]

And, you know, simply not being as good as Border. Especially when the chips are down.

Warner cashes in more when things are going his way, and on pure talent certainly edges out S Waugh amd maybe Border as well.
But better than Border? Not yet, and even with recent events taken into consideration still not likely.

I'm tipping that Warner will eclipse both Waugh and Border's average by the end of the next Ashes series. He is that good, he has matured as a batsman which we've just seen in the Bangladesh series. And these comparisons are only applicable to test cricket. In limited overs cricket, there's obviously no contest.

 

[PhatBoy]

LOL loser, are border and s.waugh considered all time greats? Because IMO Warner is a more talented batsman and better performer than both of them.

Post.
Of.
The.
Year.

My hat is off.

'Oh well this bloke can play twenty20 and bash six shades of f*** out of the ball so he must be better than the bloke who singlehandedly shouldered Australia's batting for six years at a time when it seemed every attack in the world was full of guns except his own. Oh, and that other bloke who smashed three centuries in his debut Ashes tour and then played the key part in Australia making it to number one and being the first team to beat the West Indies in 15 years. Yeah nah mate, that Davey Warner he scores rapid, he's a jet mate, way better than those other guys. I bet they couldn't come in with a lead of 200 on the board and slap 100 at a run a ball against a shithouse attack on a practice wicket.'

 

[PhatBoy]

ROFL, the difference in their averages is negligible. Warner has scored those runs at a strike rate of 77, compared to Waugh's 48 and Border's would be very similar to Waugh's (they didn't record SR back in Border's day). Waugh and Border don't even come close to Warner in his ability to dominate bowling and put pressure on the opposition by scoring really fast. Warner is one of only a handful of aussie batsman to have scored 100 runs in a session. No f*cking way Border or Waugh could do that even on their best day. Also, Warner is an opener who has to face bowlers at their freshest, while Border and Waugh came in much further down the order at no. 5 and 6, which means they got a lot more not-outs in their career which contributed to their higher average.

Shivnarine F***ing Chanderpaul has scored a century off 69 balls.
Brendan McCullum has scored one off 55 balls.

So Warner can score fast - big f***ing deal.
Sehwag came along and did it before him anyway - and much better, bigger, and away from home.

 

[PhatBoy]

Nah, many things matter and Warner comes out on top in every single measure of a batsman (apart from Border/Waugh's slightly higher average, which is negligible). Warner is the quintessential opening batsman.

Every single measure, except all of them. Bar all important strike rate of course
Tipping he wouldn't eclipse your stroke rate though...

 

[JackOutback]

And, you know, simply not being as good as Border. Especially when the chips are down.

Warner cashes in more when things are going his way, and on pure talent certainly edges out S Waugh amd maybe Border as well.
But better than Border? Not yet, and even with recent events taken into consideration still not likely.

It sounds like you think he might end up better than Waugh; doesn't have half the determination and commitment to end up half as good as Waugh.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

It sounds like you think he might end up better than Waugh; doesn't have half the determination and commitment to end up half as good as Waugh.

Ability might overcome that, or he might get his head together (problem with that option is he seems to have the intelligence of a Dutton, so its seems unlikely). He'll never be a fighter in the way that S Waugh was, but maybe his superior talent alone can get him there. I have doubts but its certainly possible.

 

[JackOutback]

Ability might overcome that, or he might get his head together (problem with that option is he seems to have the intelligence of a Dutton, so its seems unlikely). He'll never be a fighter in the way that S Waugh was, but maybe his superior talent alone can get him there. I have doubts but its certainly possible.

Didn't realise he was 31; probably has four or five years left. Not getting any smarter, that's for sure, but could get his head together. Would need to be quick.

 

[roscreasl98]

LOL loser, are border and s.waugh considered all time greats? Because IMO Warner is a more talented batsman and better performer than both of them.

I was almost on your side, until you posted this...............

 

[Kram]

Geeez some of you guys take the bait way too easy!

 

[big_e]

I'm tipping that Warner will eclipse both Waugh and Border's average by the end of the next Ashes series. He is that good, he has matured as a batsman which we've just seen in the Bangladesh series. And these comparisons are only applicable to test cricket. In limited overs cricket, there's obviously no contest.

Assuming ten dismissals in the Ashes, he would need 820 runs at 82 to get to AB's average and 883 at 88.3 to match Steve Waugh. Would be one hell of a series if he did that.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I'm tipping that Warner will eclipse both Waugh and Border's average by the end of the next Ashes series. He is that good, he has matured as a batsman which we've just seen in the Bangladesh series. And these comparisons are only applicable to test cricket. In limited overs cricket, there's obviously no contest.

Can i buy some crack off you?

 

[Slax]

Two blokes that have 10,000+ test runs at an average above 50.

Border: 11,174 runs @ 50.56, 27 tons
Waugh: 10,927 runs @ 51.06, 32 tons
Warner, 5,709 runs @ 47.94, 20 tons

The other two also have excellent records overseas. Warner averages less than 40 overseas.

If all you look at is averages then you're an idiot. What you've actually quoted helps the argument that Warner is better if you understand how batting averages work.

Opening batsmen will have lower batting averages than other players in the top 6 for two main reasons, they face the new ball every time and they also don't benefit from the not out factor boosting their average.

So lets look at it on a basis of runs per actual innings and ignore the not outs. Facing the new ball offsets coming in later.

Warner 46.2
Border 42.2
S. Waugh 42.0
Ponting 46.6
G. Chappell 47.1

You then mention centuries. Border and Waugh both played over 150 tests, Warner has played 66. So based on his current conversion rate he will end up with close to 50 test centuries if he plays a similar number of test matches to them.

Warner doesn't get the applause he deserves, the best way to judge is to look at what other in the era they played in averaged. This puts Steve Waugh into perspective and it shows he wasn't the player some think he was, 51 in his era was equal 48 in Border's and 45 in Chappell's. We are actually entering a period more akin to Border's era or even Chappell's when the battle between bat and ball is more even. Only 4 current test players average over 50 (Smith, Root, Pujara & Williamson)

 

[The_Reaper]

If all you look at is averages then you're an idiot. What you've actually quoted helps the argument that Warner is better if you understand how batting averages work.

Opening batsmen will have lower batting averages than other players in the top 6 for two main reasons, they face the new ball every time and they also don't benefit from the not out factor boosting their average.

So lets look at it on a basis of runs per actual innings and ignore the not outs. Facing the new ball offsets coming in later.

Warner 46.2
Border 42.2
S. Waugh 42.0
Ponting 46.6
G. Chappell 47.1

You then mention centuries. Border and Waugh both played over 150 tests, Warner has played 66. So based on his current conversion rate he will end up with close to 50 test centuries if he plays a similar number of test matches to them.

Warner doesn't get the applause he deserves, the best way to judge is to look at what other in the era they played in averaged. This puts Steve Waugh into perspective and it shows he wasn't the player some think he was, 51 in his era was equal 48 in Border's and 45 in Chappell's. We are actually entering a period more akin to Border's era or even Chappell's when the battle between bat and ball is more even. Only 4 current test players average over 50 (Smith, Root, Pujara & Williamson)

Steve Waugh was one of three batsmen to average 50 in the 90s.

 

[JackOutback]

If all you look at is averages then you're an idiot. What you've actually quoted helps the argument that Warner is better if you understand how batting averages work.

Opening batsmen will have lower batting averages than other players in the top 6 for two main reasons, they face the new ball every time and they also don't benefit from the not out factor boosting their average.

So lets look at it on a basis of runs per actual innings and ignore the not outs. Facing the new ball offsets coming in later.

Warner 46.2
Border 42.2
S. Waugh 42.0
Ponting 46.6
G. Chappell 47.1

You then mention centuries. Border and Waugh both played over 150 tests, Warner has played 66. So based on his current conversion rate he will end up with close to 50 test centuries if he plays a similar number of test matches to them.

Warner doesn't get the applause he deserves, the best way to judge is to look at what other in the era they played in averaged. This puts Steve Waugh into perspective and it shows he wasn't the player some think he was, 51 in his era was equal 48 in Border's and 45 in Chappell's. We are actually entering a period more akin to Border's era or even Chappell's when the battle between bat and ball is more even. Only 4 current test players average over 50 (Smith, Root, Pujara & Williamson)

Swings and roundabouts. Waugh also had to bat with a crumbling tail and would often have take more of the strike or push the runs before the final wicket fell. You're picking one thing that favours Warner while ignoring others that don't.

 

[big_e]

If all you look at is averages then you're an idiot. What you've actually quoted helps the argument that Warner is better if you understand how batting averages work.

Opening batsmen will have lower batting averages than other players in the top 6 for two main reasons, they face the new ball every time and they also don't benefit from the not out factor boosting their average.

So lets look at it on a basis of runs per actual innings and ignore the not outs. Facing the new ball offsets coming in later.

Warner 46.2
Border 42.2
S. Waugh 42.0
Ponting 46.6
G. Chappell 47.1

You then mention centuries. Border and Waugh both played over 150 tests, Warner has played 66. So based on his current conversion rate he will end up with close to 50 test centuries if he plays a similar number of test matches to them.

Warner doesn't get the applause he deserves, the best way to judge is to look at what other in the era they played in averaged. This puts Steve Waugh into perspective and it shows he wasn't the player some think he was, 51 in his era was equal 48 in Border's and 45 in Chappell's. We are actually entering a period more akin to Border's era or even Chappell's when the battle between bat and ball is more even. Only 4 current test players average over 50 (Smith, Root, Pujara & Williamson)

Opener also gets more time at the crease in an incomplete innings (ie declaration, completed run chase, draw) which offsets the not outs argument.

 

[Cleavy]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20727319/big-four-ought-five-warner-there

Chappelli says in top 5 batsman in the world.

 

[to1994]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20727319/big-four-ought-five-warner-there

Chappelli says in top 5 batsman in the world.

While I don't agree that Warner belongs in a potential 'top 5' he has a point that Kohli doesn't really belong with Root/Smith/Williamson. He's a great of the shorter formats but he's overrated at Test level. His hundreds in the last Australia tour came on the flattest pitches possible and he flopped horribly in England, seems to be suspect against all forms of high quality bowling in the Test arena too IMO. I wouldn't even say he's the best Test player in their team, I rate Rahane and Pujara above him for now.

It'll of course sound biased but it's hard to say anyone other then Smith is the best Test batsman right now. He was guilty of flopping in the high pressure/tougher pitch situations as shown by the 2015 Ashes but he turned a corner after that especially in India and against South Africa when it was needed. Williamson could potentially do the same but I just don't think New Zealand play enough Test cricket to really prove that which is unfortunate. Hopefully that changes soon. As for Root his inability to turn 50s into hundreds is starting to become a real problem IMO. Something he'll need to turn around in The Ashes if they're going to have a good chance.

 

[frankrizzo]

It's so hard to have a rational discussion about kohli because his many many fans seem to shift the goalposts to suit their argument.

Kohli is an amazing limited overs player and well above smith and the others but why that so often gets dragged into it when talking about tests is beyond me, we have never judged these formats as equal so this whole kohli is the overall best in the world simply because he's a great odi player makes no sense, in test cricket he really isn't in the discussion for best around.

From an aussie pov i could say that starc is the best fast bowler in the world because of his amazing limited overs stats and solid test stats but reality is he isn't even the best test bowler in his own team.

 

[PhatBoy]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20727319/big-four-ought-five-warner-there

Chappelli says in top 5 batsman in the world.

I'm surprised he hasn't put each of Smith, warner, Khawaja, Handscomb and Renshaw in there. With Les Favell at 6.
I'd probably have him opening in a world XI (provided there was no pressure involved) alongside Cook but there are a multitude of players better than him. Root, Williamson, Amla, probably Kohli if he can find some runs in england or SA, Smith, de kock who scores at the same rate only he seems to come good when the going is tough more regularly than Warner.

 

[frankrizzo]

Chappelli is full of it anyway, this isn't ponting who failed in india but scored vital tons in asia and elsewhere, this is a bloke who has struggled in plenty of places.

 

[Kram]

Kohli is an amazing limited overs player and well above smith and the others but why that so often gets dragged into it when talking about tests is beyond me, we have never judged these formats as equal so this whole kohli is the overall best in the world simply because he's a great odi player makes no sense, in test cricket he really isn't in the discussion for best around.

These days ODI cricket apart from the World Cup is just so meaningless, should hardly be put in the conversation all.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Ball moving around. Failed.
Inspires confidence for 2019.