Warner

[LukeParkerno1]

while I agree his numbers aren't great, he's only got a small sample size in every other country. still has plenty of time to correct it

That I agree with, but until he does the point stands. Makes a truckload at home and SA, very little elsewhere. Until he rectifies that. then it is a valid criticism.

 

[Smoooothy]

That I agree with, but until he does the point stands. Makes a truckload at home and SA, very little elsewhere. Until he rectifies that. then it is a valid criticism.

I agree

 

[PhatBoy]

So it's on par with a few other openers and down on Smith and Peterson who's records are probably poor in Australia or not as good at home then

Smith averaged a shade under 40 and played 1 innings with a broken hand and had another ended by the same injury so he did fine here.

The unavoidable fact is that warner has done well in 3 countries, and one of those 3 looks like a major outlier given that his other knocks in similar conditions have come to nothing.

There is no way to pad or justify his figures - at the moment he's an Australian Sehwag minus the litany of colossal scores.

 

[PhatBoy]

Adam Voges must average 100+ in the West Indies.

All about which team you play there.

What does that mean? warner played the same team there. he got owned by Taylor in one test and Bishoo in the other from memory

 

[Taylor]

What does that mean? warner played the same team there. he got owned by Taylor in one test and Bishoo in the other from memory

It means that comparing averages of other players against different sides doesn't contribute to the argument as much as it appears.

Another nation's opener against a side Warner wasn't around to play against is grasping at anything to have something.

 

[Damon_3388]

Can't wait to hear wade say 'nice Gary' as he reaches the rare '0-500' landmark and India's number 9 carts him for his 15th boundary of the afternoon session.

Lyon was Australia's leading wicket-taker in our last Test series in India.

The selectors decided to "reward" him by making him the scapegoat for the team's overall poor performance, and drop him for an unproven teenager for the first Test of the Ashes series that followed.

 

[Topkent]

Smith averaged a shade under 40 and played 1 innings with a broken hand and had another ended by the same injury so he did fine here.

The unavoidable fact is that warner has done well in 3 countries, and one of those 3 looks like a major outlier given that his other knocks in similar conditions have come to nothing.

There is no way to pad or justify his figures - at the moment he's an Australian Sehwag minus the litany of colossal scores.

So 37 to 39 for smith .. like basically no difference at all

 

[PhatBoy]

It means that comparing averages of other players against different sides doesn't contribute to the argument as much as it appears.

Another nation's opener against a side Warner wasn't around to play against is grasping at anything to have something.

Then why bring up Voges who played against the same side?

 

[Taylor]

Then why bring up Voges who played against the same side?

Because he will be a significant outlying data point when comparing middle order batsmen in the future for that one series he played in the WI. A handful of tests against one generation of an opponent is going to bias the results.

I don't want to have to walk you all the way along the path.

 

[PhatBoy]

So 37 to 39 for smith .. like basically no difference at all

Well its better for starters, and secondly, in warner's case England is one or his better hosts, despite his relative ordinariness there.

Smith's stats in Australia are one of only two nations where he doesn't average at least 40. he averages 36 in India and 39 here.

He averages in the 70s in the UAE, Pakistan and the West indies, 45 in Sri Lanka, 57 in New Zealand....

So yeah, clutching.....

 

[PhatBoy]

Because he will be a significant outlying data point when comparing middle order batsmen in the future for that one series he played in the WI. A handful of tests against one generation of an opponent is going to bias the results.

I don't want to have to walk you all the way along the path.

Well given that we were talking about warner and you brought up his teammate's performance in a series they both played I only followed the logical steps.

 

[Taylor]

*Girl logic was used in the creation of this content.

 

[Topkent]

Well its better for starters, and secondly, in warner's case England is one or his better hosts, despite his relative ordinariness there.

Smith's stats in Australia are one of only two nations where he doesn't average at least 40. he averages 36 in India and 39 here.

He averages in the 70s in the UAE, Pakistan and the West indies, 45 in Sri Lanka, 57 in New Zealand....

So yeah, clutching.....

His career average is the about the same as Warners and warner is about to hit his prime batting wise.. if you don't like warner that's fine but don't pretend Smith was a much better bat when he wasn't..
Smiths dour technique obviously ment he was better on slower wickets where as warner dominates on fast bouncey ones ..

 

[PhatBoy]

His career average is the about the same as Warners and warner is about to hit his prime batting wise.. if you don't like warner that's fine but don't pretend Smith was a much better bat when he wasn't..
Smiths dour technique obviously ment he was better on slower wickets where as warner dominates on fast bouncey ones ..

1. smith is a better bat full stop. that might change, it might not. if someone says to me 'you can have one of these two guys. one goes well almost everywhere he plays, the other in a superstar in 2 countries and ordinary basically everywhere else' I know who I'm going to pick.

2. Of the 4 countries where the pitches would be considered faster and bouncier, Smith averages in the 60s in one of them, in the 50s in another, in the 40s in another, and a bee's dick under 40 in the fourth.
It is debatable whether Warner is even his equal on pace friendly wickets. he averages in the 90s in one nation, in the 50s in another, in the 30s in another, and barely double figures in the fourth.

3. the point wasn't to even say that Smith himself is the better player. it's the idea that Warner's numbers in England are somehow worth more because he opened there against the dukes ball. I looked at a handful of openers who just popped into my head. I'm sure if you looked through other elite openers from the last 15 years - Langer, Hayden, Katich, Rogers from Australia, they wouldn't have numbers that 'need explaining'.

This is the cold hard fact.
At the moment David Warner is above average at home and in SA. one innings in the UAE proves that yes, he IS capable of scoring runs when it turns, but hey, Sehwag hit a century on debut in SA but it didn't mean he was suddenly a master of flying wickets. everywhere else he is yet to get it done. until he does, he remains a good player but not a great one.

 

[Topkent]

1. smith is a better bat full stop. that might change, it might not. if someone says to me 'you can have one of these two guys. one goes well almost everywhere he plays, the other in a superstar in 2 countries and ordinary basically everywhere else' I know who I'm going to pick.

2. Of the 4 countries where the pitches would be considered faster and bouncier, Smith averages in the 60s in one of them, in the 50s in another, in the 40s in another, and a bee's dick under 40 in the fourth.
It is debatable whether Warner is even his equal on pace friendly wickets. he averages in the 90s in one nation, in the 50s in another, in the 30s in another, and barely double figures in the fourth.

3. the point wasn't to even say that Smith himself is the better player. it's the idea that Warner's numbers in England are somehow worth more because he opened there against the dukes ball. I looked at a handful of openers who just popped into my head. I'm sure if you looked through other elite openers from the last 15 years - Langer, Hayden, Katich, Rogers from Australia, they wouldn't have numbers that 'need explaining'.

This is the cold hard fact.
At the moment David Warner is above average at home and in SA. one innings in the UAE proves that yes, he IS capable of scoring runs when it turns, but hey, Sehwag hit a century on debut in SA but it didn't mean he was suddenly a master of flying wickets. everywhere else he is yet to get it done. until he does, he remains a good player but not a great one.

You keep saying smith is better in all these places yet there career averages are almost the same, I would take smith as well but Warner Is a very good test bat who's record is better than Kat and Rogers

 

[PhatBoy]

You keep saying smith is better in all these places yet there career averages are almost the same, I would take smith as well but Warner Is a very good test bat who's record is better than Kat and Rogers

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.

 

[Topkent]

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.

He has only played 5 tests there as an opener and made a few half centuries, the others were middle order after he punched Joe root

See how he goes next tour before you decide he sucks

 

[PhatBoy]

He has only played 5 tests there as an opener and made a few half centuries, the others were middle order after he punched Joe root

See how he goes next tour before you decide he sucks

I don't think he sucks. I just think he is a good player who has some work to do before being considered anything more

 

[Topkent]

I don't think he sucks. I just think he is a good player who has some work to do before being considered anything more

He's very good, below someone like Michael Clarke but better than the majority of guys to have ever played for Australia

 

[PhatBoy]

He's very good, below someone like Michael Clarke but better than the majority of guys to have ever played for Australia

Funnily enough, Clarke averaged 42 or less in England, West Indies, UAE, Sri Lanka, South Africa and India.

 

[Carlos Danger]

If we win 1 test I'll be amazed.

Not going to happen.

Maybe we might win the toss a few times

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Maybe we might win the toss a few times

Yeah right lol

 

[webbo]

Remove top 2 averages of player against an away opposition. Player suddenly has a lower away average. How incredible.

 

[The_Reaper]

Funnily enough, Clarke averaged 42 or less in England, West Indies, UAE, Sri Lanka, South Africa and India.

Yeah but there were two periods of Clarke's career when he 1. he was completely out of form and not scoring anyway (late 2009 to becoming Captain) and the last few years of his career where his back prevented him from batting at his best.

He wasn't even scoring in Australia during those periods so its a fair assumption to suggest that his poor form at the time contributed to poor overseas series.

Michael Clarke may have averaged less than 42 in South Africa but he scored two of the greatest centuries by Australia batsmen in South Africa.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah but there were two periods of Clarke's career when he 1. he was completely out of form and not scoring anyway (late 2009 to becoming Captain) and the last few years of his career where his back prevented him from batting at his best.

He wasn't even scoring in Australia during those periods so its a fair assumption to suggest that his poor form at the time contributed to poor overseas series.

Michael Clarke may have averaged less than 42 in South Africa but he scored two of the greatest centuries by Australia batsmen in South Africa.

On the last part I agree totally.
Same as Smith not doing particularly well in Australia but playing 2 heroic innings (Perth century chasing 400, the broken hand effort albeit only for a few overs)