Warner

[The Swans Blog]

That was not the point I was making. You were making him out to be the best player around at the moment but the stats aren't a great indicator due to the amount he has played.

I'm not and I don't think he's in great form, but you take the good with the bad because he's just as liable to make 18 as 145. He sets the tone and the pace, just like Hayden used to. He doesn't lose us test matches, but he can bloody well win them.

Just go back and look at the centuries he's made and how many matches we've won, or just good innings. Even a quick fire 50 is enough to disrupt the opposition.

Phatty with his irrelevant and biased stats would have you believe that he's just an ordinary plodder that slogged his way to the top and Humpty Dumpty will undoubtedly usurp him.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah ok let's just start chopping shall we? Ashes - doesn't matter we were humiliated. SA? Nah, our leading batsman that series, **** him he's a chump, even though they were the best team in the world with the best bowlers by a bloody big margin. **** it lets just chop his results in Australia too, leave him with NZ and SL.

Ok now he's garbage, why is he in the team?!

India, SL, England, West Indies, New Zealand.

Averages below 40.

SA and UAE, averages above 50.

Tell me, do the bottom two magically make up for the top 5.

One word answer please.

Does it?

Because to me it says that in 5 of 7 overseas nations he's ordinary.

Feel free to pull my maths apart on this

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm not and I don't think he's in great form, but you take the good with the bad because he's just as liable to make 18 as 145. He sets the tone and the pace, just like Hayden used to. He doesn't lose us test matches, but he can bloody well win them.

Just go back and look at the centuries he's made and how many matches we've won, or just good innings. Even a quick fire 50 is enough to disrupt the opposition.

Phatty with his irrelevant and biased stats would have you believe that he's just an ordinary plodder that slogged his way to the top and Humpty Dumpty will undoubtedly usurp him.

Irrelevant and bias = factually accurate.

 

[The Swans Blog]

India, SL, England, West Indies, New Zealand.

Averages below 40.

SA and UAE, averages above 50.

Tell me, do the bottom two magically make up for the top 5.

One word answer please.

Does it?

Because to me it says that in 5 of 7 overseas nations he's ordinary.

Feel free to pull my maths apart on this

Sure ok let's go. Who in the current Australian team has a better average in England than Warner, and who from Australia averaged more in the last test series, let alone scored more.

UAE? Are you having a ****ing laugh? He has a century & a 50 in 4 innings, averaging almost 60 and Australia's highest run scorer in a losing serirs. Yes, I looked at the innings of the 2 test matches played in the UAE.

NZ he's garbage and WI disappointing. Some players aren't good in Asia, surprise surprise, that's like most Australian players over the last 15 years.

Few off the top of my head I can remember as being decent in Asia.
Ponting, Waugh, Hussey, Clarke

Here:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Happy reading.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

People say us oldies live a bit in the past, but I honestly think Warner is the best Australian opening batsman I've seen in watching 50 years of Test cricket. I thought he was just a 20/20 hacker ... I was wrong.

What are you basing this on?
I think he is a reasonable player, a star at the short format cricket where he can bat on roads.
Openers in my opinion better than him I have seen.
Mark Taylor, Justin langer, Mat Haydon I have all well ahead of him and that is just the modern era.

I have a real problem with some of the shots Warner plays early in his innings in test matches, the excuse of that is how he plays does not sit with me and it is just an irresponsible trait that I hope one day he addresses. Yes it comes off sometimes and other times we are one down early because of it.

Of course each to their own view and I respect your view. I don't see it like that in anyway shape or form.

 

[PhatBoy]

Sure ok let's go. Who in the current Australian team has a better average in England than Warner, and who from Australia averaged more in the last test series, let alone scored more.

UAE? Are you having a ******* laugh? He has a century & a 50 in 4 innings, averaging almost 60 and Australia's highest run scorer in a losing serirs. Yes, I looked at the innings of the 2 test matches played in the UAE.

NZ he's garbage and WI disappointing. Some players aren't good in Asia, surprise surprise, that's like most Australian players over the last 15 years.

Few off the top of my head I can remember as being decent in Asia.
Ponting, Waugh, Hussey, Clarke

Here:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Happy reading.

I don't really understand what you're trying to convince me of.

I don't think he should be dropped, I think he is a decent enough player and I think he has a lot of talent.

I also think that outside his favored conditions he's capable of breathtaking shitness .

Virender Sehwag blasted a century at a run a ball on debut on a flyer in SA. it didn't change the fact that by the end of his career he had question marks over his ability on seam friendly wickets.

I'm not arguing that warner should be dropped.

I'm just not prepared to drop to my knees and gob him.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I don't really understand what you're trying to convince me of.

I don't think he should be dropped, I think he is a decent enough player and I think he has a lot of talent.

I also think that outside his favored conditions he's capable of breathtaking shitness .

Virender Sehwag blasted a century at a run a ball on debut on a flyer in SA. it didn't change the fact that by the end of his career he had question marks over his ability on seam friendly wickets.

I'm not arguing that warner should be dropped.

I'm just not prepared to drop to my knees and gob him.

Could not agree more, any movement at all and he is another like most players these days just lost in the wilderness.

50 average today is a 40 average from 20 years ago when they did not play on roads 90% of the games.

 

[The Swans Blog]

I don't really understand what you're trying to convince me of.

I don't think he should be dropped, I think he is a decent enough player and I think he has a lot of talent.

I also think that outside his favored conditions he's capable of breathtaking shitness .

Virender Sehwag blasted a century at a run a ball on debut on a flyer in SA. it didn't change the fact that by the end of his career he had question marks over his ability on seam friendly wickets.

I'm not arguing that warner should be dropped.

I'm just not prepared to drop to my knees and gob him.

Pretty sure your earlier point was that he's a liability outside of any nation that doesn't prepare green pitches or roads.

Yeah, he's clearly struggled in a few nations, but he's not the only one. Outside of Smith he's been the only consistent run scorer for Australia, frequently among the top few. Apart from Voges' freaky average from a shit load of NO's, and Humpty Dumpty showing infrequent bursts of form in between his stays in ICU, not to mention Smith's run of ridiculous scores, he's consistently been among the best and most important players.

No one wants to blow him, but you're potting the wrong players.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Mmm yes, because he's shit, right? And Marsh is the saviour? Please. Your crap in the Marsh thread was a laugh a minute and you're having a dig at a player that's scoring runs consistently. Sure, his test average has taken a dip, while he's score what, 1,000+ runs in ODIs the last 12 months?

Let's not forgot your selective use of stats, which has no bearing on well, anything.

When your argument, whatever that is, actually makes sense, come back and enlighten us, please

Actually, I introduced the stats to this thread, and they are illuminating. In the country whose conditions most closely emulate those of Australia his record is excellent. Everywhere else it's poor, bordering on dire. The mark of a genuine great is that he succeeds when conditions don't favour him.

Warner is an excellent player with an excellent overall record, but he doesn't belong in a discussion alongside the true greats.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Actually, I introduced the stats to this thread, and they are illuminating. In the country whose conditions most closely emulate those of Australia his record is excellent. Everywhere else it's poor, bordering on dire. The mark of a genuine great is that he succeeds when conditions don't favour him.

Warner is an excellent player with an excellent overall record, but he doesn't belong in a discussion alongside the true greats.

And I don't think he will until he can adapt. He's still young enough and has at least 6-8 more years ahead of him. Nothing like going to Sri Lanka and smashing a few.

 

[STFU Donnie]

And I don't think he will until he can adapt. He's still young enough and has at least 6-8 more years ahead of him. Nothing like going to Sri Lanka and smashing a few.

You're quite right. His most recent trip to SL was certainly nothing like "smashing a few."

 

[The Swans Blog]

You're quite right. His most recent trip to SL was certainly nothing like "smashing a few."

Neither was his first or last NZ adventure. If he's trying to hit boundaries off every ball he'll need a swift boot up the ass.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

3 out of 4 of Warner's overseas centuries came against SA in 2014 when he was dropped at least 5 times during the series. Just saying.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

To me, and the numbers seem to suggest it more, he struggles when there isn't the pace on the ball early in his innings. He adjusts to movement as well as most (nobody plays the moving ball as well as they do the straight one, the difference with him is less than with many). But on a slower, lower pitch where he has to make his own pace from the beginning he doesn't seem at all comfortable.

Its one of the reasons I would certainly not move him to six as some suggest. He doesn't have the brain to bat with the tail (Border, S Waugh, M Hussey were brilliant in that regard) and would be facing a softer ball and slower bowling at the start of his innings far more often.

 

[The Passenger]

Warner has been a very good opening batsmen for us but clearly does better when the conditions are in his favour. Many other batsmen fall into that category so he's not on his lonesome. Matthew Hayden's record outside of Australia is poor. Funnily enough the one place Hayden did well at was India but that is entirely on the back of his famous series in 2000/01. Struggled in his other two series there.

History is littered with batsmen (and bowlers) who perform better of helpful decks. It doesn't mean they aren't still fantastic players, and doesn't meant they could only contribute when the conditions suited. Warner has done some good things in tough times.

50 average today is a 40 average from 20 years ago when they did not play on roads 90% of the games.

Whilst it does feel like that at times, it's not quite as pronounced as it seems. Run scoring is about 8 to 9% higher in the 2000's and 2010's (32 to 32.5 runs per wicket) then it was in the various decades from the 1960's to 1990's when scoring was generally pretty level (29.5 to 30.8 runs per wicket).

Over history in test cricket batsmen score at about 30.3 runs per dismissal. 30.8 if you exclude pre-WWI when scoring was significantly different to the rest of test cricket (23.0 runs per dismissal). Far more different to post-WWI then now is to 20 years ago.

So a 50 average now is equivalent to about 45.5 in the preceding decades.

It would be a huge job but it would be interesting to see the breakdown of scores from 2000-2016 compared to 1960 to 1999. I'm almost certain the % of batsmen being dismissed before they make it to 20 now would be higher due to looser techniques and they look to be scoring quicker from earlier on. But the % of batsmen reaching 50 would be higher, and the % of batsmen reaching 100 would be significantly higher, and the conversion rate of 100's to 200's would be through the roof now and this is what contributes to batting averages being higher now. I could be wrong, but that would be my hypothesis.

I remember reading a CricInfo analysis and the interesting thing is that converting 100's to 200's is not the most important thing in helping their team win. Converting good starts (60's and 70's) into big scores (140+) is what increases a team expected win % more than anything for a batsmen. Once you start getting above 150 it is often just stat padding. Obviously that's not every innings above 150 and there plenty of exceptions. But we've also seen plenty of innings where a bloke is just cashing in big time. As an example would anyone think any different of Matthew Hayden as a batsmen if he threw his innings away against Zimbabwe on 150? I wouldn't but that would take 1.5 runs off his career average, which for one innings is a relatively large chunk to lose.

In saying that, one thing no analysis can ever take into account is how much extra scoreboard pressure the opposition is under when a team batting first score 450 as opposed to going on to score 600+ (which is often the result of a double or triple century).

 

[Mateyman]

Smith's 3rd worst nation was where he played half his test cricket. that's why their records are similar. he averaged 27 on a ground where he played more than a dozen tests (Supersport park).

The point is simply that for many people warner has become this beast who's only question mark comes on rank turners. that's not the case, and england's ball is no excuse given that plenty of seemingly inferior players have managed to cope there.

Ah, so because he didn't score many runs in half his test matches, his average is lower. That explains that then.

 

[PhatBoy]

Ah, so because he didn't score many runs in half his test matches, his average is lower. That explains that then.

Actually he scored plenty. He still averaged 42 there. But because it was where he played a lot of matches yes of course the drags his record down overall.

Still doesn't change the fact that he actually excelled away from home more often than not, rather than struggling when abroad.

 

[Mateyman]

Actually he scored plenty. He still averaged 42 there. But because it was where he played a lot of matches yes of course the drags his record down overall.

Still doesn't change the fact that he actually excelled away from home more often than not, rather than struggling when abroad.

Yeah but you can't just dismiss his record in a country where he played 50 matches as equivalent to one where he played 12. A home record is equally important as an away record, so saying that not scoring runs at home drags the average down doesn't really excuse it.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah but you can't just dismiss his record in a country where he played 50 matches as equivalent to one where he played 12. A home record is equally important as an away record, so saying that not scoring runs at home drags the average down doesn't really excuse it.

No it doesn't but it highlights the fact that this was a guy who didn't have to be in familiar surroundings to contribute.

I'm sure if offered the choice, most players would take being a great away player over being great at home (obviously most would choose both if they could, of course).

Dravid is so revered by proper Indian fans (ie the non Tendulkar fan boys) because he was the player who started to win them games away from India.

While he's not the batting colossus that Kallis, Amla and ABDV are, Smith's ability to play meaningful knocks in big games overseas (even in Australia where he averaged a shade under 40 he scored a century in the 400 chase at Perth and another in the Adelaide draw) make him a huge figure in their recent Era

 

[The Swans Blog]

Australia play more than half their tests at home venues, especially over the last 5 years. So what's this nonsense about just dismissing home results? In the last 3 years when he's traveled, excluding NZ, WI and Sri Lanka, he's averaged close to 50. Hasn't done well the last 4 tests, but still managing to put some runs up, unlike a few middle order batsmen.

Maybe he'll learn a few new tricks this series, like helping Renshaw out by not throwing away his wicket and not playing T20 shots in a test.

 

[PhatBoy]

Australia play more than half their tests at home venues, especially over the last 5 years. So what's this nonsense about just dismissing home results? In the last 3 years when he's traveled, excluding NZ, WI and Sri Lanka, he's averaged close to 50. Hasn't done well the last 4 tests, but still managing to put some runs up, unlike a few middle order batsmen.

Maybe he'll learn a few new tricks this series, like helping Renshaw out by not throwing away his wicket and not playing T20 shots in a test.

It's not about dismissing home results. It's simply pointing out that most - not all, as smith proved and Darren Bravo proves - batsmen will be at their most comfortable at home, so understandably their figures will usually be better. How they perform when they're taken out of that comfortable area rightly has a huge bearing on how they're perceived. If it's okay to do it for Ashwin or Anderson as bowlers then surely it's OK to do it for batsmen as well.

 

[Mateyman]

It's not about dismissing home results. It's simply pointing out that most - not all, as smith proved and Darren Bravo proves - batsmen will be at their most comfortable at home, so understandably their figures will usually be better. How they perform when they're taken out of that comfortable area rightly has a huge bearing on how they're perceived. If it's okay to do it for Ashwin or Anderson as bowlers then surely it's OK to do it for batsmen as well.

Yeah, so if their results are not better, you have to ask why. Sure, it good to be good away from home, but you can't just dismiss their home results as irrelevant given half their tests are played there. Home and away tests are equally important.

 

[The Swans Blog]

It's time to get Ballantyne on his ass. Apparently he's **** on a bull away from home, so just leave him there. He'll go fishing and do more OLED TV ads.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah, so if their results are not better, you have to ask why. Sure, it good to be good away from home, but you can't just dismiss their home results as irrelevant given half their tests are played there. Home and away tests are equally important.

They're not irrelevant, not by any stretch, but if someone gives me a choice between two players averaging 50, one because he's scored runs basically everywhere he goes and another who's fattened his overall record making runs at home where - certainly in the case of most nations recently - they are likely to win anyway, I take the guy who's consistent everywhere.

 

[The 747]

Warner is a very good Test batsman, he is nowhere near being a great one yet.