Warner

[Sman-21]

Warners not to blame here its the idiots who have the game plan of playing safe looking to conserve wickets.
Then at over 40 trying to score 80+ to end up with around 260 - 280.

In a report on foxsports Mickey Arthurs now sees they went in with the wrong game plan.
Adelaide is a great batting wicket most the time so 280 there will rarely be enough unless the bowlers bowl extremely well.

Also says they will look to score more in the 1st 10 overs.
Get rid of the 260-280 odd gameplan for every pitch.
Play each game/wicket on its merits.
Stop being so predictable an boring.

Warner is the perfect batsmen for the first 15 overs.
If he last longer thats great.
If not the specialist batsmen can go out an do their job.
Should never be the one whos told take it easy just bat out the innings.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...tri-series-final/story-fn2mcu3x-1226292514279

 

[Paladin]

Warner slowed down toward the end of his innings so he didn't exactly follow the gameplan did he. It was all about pushing singles to get a hundred. Disgraceful.

 

[dan warna]

Warner slowed down toward the end of his innings so he didn't exactly follow the gameplan did he. It was all about pushing singles to get a hundred. Disgraceful.

I"m pretty sure he was doing the best he could because he was wrecked.

I think the anchor role is a good one for one player to play.

I also think our score was sufficient. It was the bowlers bowling rubbish at the start that cost us.

Throw in poor fielding as well.

The returns to keeper and bowler were rubbish, the backing up lame.

The score was defensible.

Also I think for the first few overs 1 or 2 slips at least when you have 145k plus bowlers. A little bit of average captaincy as the skip went too defencive earlier on.

IMO Warner has had a hard enough bashing, I think there maybe issues with the team fitness in general.

 

[Paladin]

If he was stuffed he should of played a big shot and got out. We were only 2 down with 10/15 overs to go and in no danger of a collapse. 100 off 140 balls on a road is indefensible. Especially when you have his talent and you just scored a hundred last innings. But i have bashed him enough i agree.

 

[Rumblah#16]

Don't buy this whole fatigued thing. For me he's the same as Brett Lee regarding this broken foot.

If you're not fit you don't play. Simple.

 

[The Passenger]

the whole selfish thing isn't right. he's not played selfishly before, so why would he now???

he was going at balls but nothing was coming out the middle, and those that were went straight to the fieldsmen, particularly point.

 

[Le Class]

So unless Duss gets 87 or more today, Warner is going to finish as Australia's highest runscorer for the series. Can't say I would've called that a few games ago.

 

[big_e]

If he was stuffed he should of played a big shot and got out. We were only 2 down with 10/15 overs to go and in no danger of a collapse. 100 off 140 balls on a road is indefensible. Especially when you have his talent and you just scored a hundred last innings. But i have bashed him enough i agree.

Scoring a hundred is indefensible? Just when you thought you'd heard everything...

 

[King Elvis]

So unless Duss gets 87 or more today, Warner is going to finish as Australia's highest runscorer for the series. Can't say I would've called that a few games ago.

And yet, DHuss has had a vastly superior series.

 

[Underdog]

If he was stuffed he should of played a big shot and got out.

That's Clarke or Arthur's call, not Warner's.

We were only 2 down with 10/15 overs to go and in no danger of a collapse.

Without a doubt we'd be in a much stronger position today if he replicated his innings from Tuesday.

There is no such thing as "no danger of collapse".

Don't buy this whole fatigued thing. For me he's the same as Brett Lee regarding this broken foot.

If you're not fit you don't play. Simple.

He passed a fitness test. If he deteriorated from there, that's hardly his fault.

 

[Paladin]

Scoring a hundred is indefensible? Just when you thought you'd heard everything...

Do you understand the term 'limited overs' ?

 

[Underdog]

Well, look at the total you can defend when your bowlers aren't complete horse-shit...

 

[big_e]

Do you understand the term 'limited overs' ?

I'd take 100 from 140 over 40 from 40 any day of the week.

 

[E Shed]

I'm am quite frankly gobsmacked at the amount of crap Warner cops here. I shouldn't be surprised I suppose.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I'm not, E Shed.

Unfortunately people on this board only celebrate what their favourite players do. You could have been forgiven for thinking McKay took our first three wickets tonight, because their was barely a flutter in the match thread even though Lee had already claimed two of Sri Lanka's top batsmen.

I am waiting for the Wade thread, he was quite slow today...

 

[Paladin]

I'd take 100 from 140 over 40 from 40 any day of the week.

You prefer losing

 

[Sman-21]

Will give crap to anyone that scores slowly in 1 dayers
100 off 140 is SLOW

Its why Clarke copped so much criticism in 1dayers in the past

Sure start off slowly but once u get to about 30 or 40 u need to start upping the rate an getting the gap between runs an balls closer.
6 batsman all do their job an get 40 at close to a run a ball an your set for a good score.
So yep i will take 48 off 45 balls everyday of the week
If other batsman fail all the blame is on them for not doing their job.
100 off 140 meant when other batsman came in they had no time to settle an had to go slogging from ball 1 which rarely works.

Have faith in other batsmen to do their job.
Dont need to protect them.

If they have no faith in them to avg over 30 replace them.

We can also strengthen our batting lineup
Dussey can bowl 5 most days an 10 on a good day.
Christian can bowl 10 every game
Watson can bowl 10 every game or just 5 to protect him.
Clarke can chip in with a few so then we just need 2 specialist quicks an a spinner
Allowing an extra specialist batsmen into the team

Lose nothing in bowling an gain alot more batting depth

 

[dan warna]

Warner played 3 mature innings this final series.

I'm glad he scored heavily and frankly contributed more to our overall victory than any other batsman.

Even more so, the second game was lost through terrible bowling... NOT terrible batting by Warner.

Oh how much difference was accurate disciplined bowling and good fielding in the 3rd game.

 

[Slax]

I'm willing to bet that those critising Warner are overweight petty people who spend more time on the couch or in front of the computer stuffing their face with junk in a day than they get excerise for the week.

Anyone who has played any sport at a high level knows that at times it can be more difficult than others. Warner has been a stand out this summer and has secured his place in the Australian side for years to come, so get used to seeing him there.

Or would you prefer to go back to Phil Hughes?

 

[Jesus Baulks]

Strange. People blew smoke up Peter Forrest's arse for his 100 off 136 balls. We lost that game too so what's the difference?

 

[krisholio14]

The problem with Warner's innings in the second match was that the other batsmen didn't make use of the platform he'd helped build with the captain.

 

[Hellgood]

I'm not, E Shed.

Unfortunately people on this board only celebrate what their favourite players do. You could have been forgiven for thinking McKay took our first three wickets tonight, because their was barely a flutter in the match thread even though Lee had already claimed two of Sri Lanka's top batsmen.

I am waiting for the Wade thread, he was quite slow today...

Whilst what you say is right, you do the same thing as the people you are complaining about.

 

[King Elvis]

Strange. People blew smoke up Peter Forrest's arse for his 100 off 136 balls. We lost that game too so what's the difference?

I didn't; he was a factor in losing that game as well, and was batting for his ton.

They're both young and inexperienced, so I'm not going to crucify either of them for it, but you wouldn't want to make a habit of it.

 

[sherb]

Strange. People blew smoke up Peter Forrest's arse for his 100 off 136 balls. We lost that game too so what's the difference?

I guess the difference is that people aren't being told that Forrest is changing the face of the game due to his explosive batting.

Warner to a degree is paying the price for his capacity to score very quickly. When it doesn't happen people ask why.

I don't blame Warner for losing the game, but I certainly was surprised that he didn't seem to want to up the tempo at any stage.

And I don't know if it was the case, but it certainly looked to me as if he was playing for his hundred.

It was ironic that his and Clarke's innings were each their normal style of knock, but in reverse.

 

[Underdog]

I guess the difference is that people aren't being told that Forrest is changing the face of the game due to his explosive batting.

That's not Warner's fault...