Warner

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The criticism of Warner was always pretty silly. We ended up with 270. Unless it's an absolute flat pitch on a postage stamp ground, you'd always give yourself a shot at defending 270.

The surprise at the criticism is silly. That Warner century is ranked 1151 (out of 1185 ODI centuries) by strike rate. Considering the majority slower were almost certainly in either:

• 2nd innings chases of modest totals (i.e. high strike isn't necessary)
• Far worse conditions for batsman
• A completely different era with different expectations

Then calling it one of the 'worst' ODI centuries ever isn't an exaggeration.

 

[BarneyBent]

The surprise at the criticism is silly. That Warner century is ranked 1151 (out of 1185 ODI centuries) by strike rate. Considering the majority slower were almost certainly in either:

• 2nd innings chases of modest totals (i.e. high strike isn't necessary)
• Far worse conditions for batsman
• A completely different era with different expectations

Then calling it one of the 'worst' ODI centuries ever isn't an exaggeration.

Maybe not, but that doesn't make it a bad innings. The worst ODI century ever is still better than the best 30 ever (shortened innings aside).

 

[Phone]

It's funny how Warner finally understands how to play OD cricket - eg take your time, but not too much - and there's a 100 post thread about it. It wasn't the best innings, but it was a very encouraging one, far more than 160, because he got the runs through 1's and 2's. In T20 and test match cricket you get your runs through boundaries, great we all know Warner can do that, in OD cricket you get them in 1's and 2's, Warner for a long time showed no ability to do that, non any desire to do that, but he finally has in the past week.

 

[The Passenger]

The criticism of Warner was always pretty silly. We ended up with 270. Unless it's an absolute flat pitch on a postage stamp ground, you'd always give yourself a shot at defending 270.

of course we had a shot defending 270, but an extra 20+ runs would've been very handy.

at 80 from 104 things were looking fine, but at that stage, the 40 over mark, with only 2 wickets left, he really had to step up the scoring rate.

i'm not a believer that he was being selfish or playing for his hundred. he just wasn't in great touch, and he wasn't in great touch for most of the innings that i saw but was managing to tick along at a pretty good rate.

it certainly wasn't the main reason we lost. the bowlers were, although i haven't seen our bowling innings. but it doesn't mean someone else isn't immune from critiscim.

clarke's innings was one of the great ODI knocks.

 

[the_interloper]

Well so what do people think of Warner now, is his "technique" good enough to be consistent at Test level?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Too early to decide tbh. When did we start only giving a guy less than 20 innings to prove himself?

 

[the_interloper]

Too early to decide tbh. When did we start only giving a guy less than 20 innings to prove himself?

All the time really, Chris Rogers only got two, and there's many examples of this over the years.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

All the time really, Chris Rogers only got two, and there's many examples of this over the years.

Unfairly, imo. Not everyone can start like a Ponting or Clarke, but having said that Warner needs to talk less and score more.

 

[Smoooothy]

thats what we've become is it? 1 failure and we question his position in the side?

 

[aussierulesrules]

Considering how little first class cricket he has played since the last test in the West Indies (what was it, one Shield game?) I think we can cut him a bit of slack on this occasion.

 

[BarneyBent]

He looks like he's still trying to adjust his approach to Test cricket. It seems sometimes like he's reluctant to play his natural game early sometimes. His feet don't move and he kinda hangs the bat out there when trying to block.

That said, the more he plays, the better he'll be, and he's already showed his technique can stand up to Test cricket. He's still by far our best opening option.

 

[Natho]

Time will tell. Not a fan of him opening in the test side.

 

[Heisenberg_]

thats what we've become is it? 1 failure and we question his position in the side?

Some of us questioned his initial selection. Just doesn't have a suitable game for Test cricket and he has done very little to prove otherwise.
He has failed to reach 20 in 9 of his 17 innings, I'll give him 8 because there is a not out in there.
Pretty average reading tbh
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

 

[Natho]

Some of us questioned his initial selection. Just doesn't have a suitable game for Test cricket and he has done very little to prove otherwise.
He has failed to reach 20 in 9 of his 17 innings, I'll give him 8 because there is a not out in there.
Pretty average reading tbh
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Good stats that. Pretty dire record.

 

[damochandler]

will any of our test players get any shield cricket in before the next test.

 

[Ducky Tie]

will any of our test players get any shield cricket in before the next test.

No chance of a shield game. The WA, SA, Vic and NSW boys could possibly get a ryobi match in but I doubt they will do that.

 

[Xtreme]

Needs to pull his head in when it comes to sledging the opposition. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Yidaki]

How can Cricket Australia tone down someone's natural playing abilities?

 

[Fastback]

How can Cricket Australia tone down someone's natural playing abilities?

Agreed, Gilly is a good example although he had more of a license batting down the order.

 

[krisholio14]

Any questions?