Warner

[Starburns_]

From a technique and temperament point of view, it was easily his best innings playing for Australia.

What about Hobart?

He probably should have had a crack a bit earlier, spent a few overs playing for his hundred, he'll learn from it though. The bowlers are to blame anyway.

 

[themidlandmaster]

Warner and Watson cost us the match.

No big overs at all between them

FWIW, an enire innings at Warner's strike rate scores 214 over 50 overs. Plus sundries obviously

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

It's irrelevant. We lost the match with 5 overs to spare, so even if he had scored another 40 runs there's a good chance we still would have lost due to poor bowling.

The Sri Lankans romped it in, hopefully next game we have a few more contributing with the bat.

 

[Starburns_]

It's irrelevant. We lost the match with 5 overs to spare, so even if he had scored another 40 runs there's a good chance we still would have lost due to poor bowling.

^^This. The extra runs may have put more pressure on the batsmen, but really, the way we bowled, it wouldn't have made a difference.

 

[Outshined]

Warner and Watson cost us the match.

No big overs at all between them

FWIW, an enire innings at Warner's strike rate scores 214 over 50 overs. Plus sundries obviously

No, conceding 0/179 from 27 overs cost us the match. An extra 30 runs wouldn't have mattered in the end.

 

[tek87]

If Adam Gilchrist had made a 100 off 140 balls on a road he would retire on the spot. Fact is Warner must have been limited physically surely or he is just not that talented in the one game format

 

[Natho]

A bit selfish. But still geez he played a good innings. If he was limited in his physical condition I would love to see him fully fit. Our bowlers were woeful. McKay or however you spell his name is bowling half track crap and Brett Lee no idea why he is playing. He won't go to the next world cup so piss him off. Patto is easing back into he clearly has talent.

Where is Siddle in the one dayers? He's clearly good enough. He is in the form of his life I say.

 

[aussie1st]

No question he could have paced the innings better and I'd like him to be in the Gilly role. However it is hard when your opening partner goes early and Watson wasn't in much better form either.

 

[MisterMarcus]

* Perhaps Warner's not 100% right but then why play him?

* The whole "lets not lose early wickets" thing is a bit silly. Dilshan and Jayawardene showed that taking calculated risks early can pay off and really set you up.

* We had 8 wickets in hand with only a handful of overs left. We bat pretty deep and the Hussey brothers hardly need to be "protected" do they? Go earlier and even if we're 4 down after 30 overs we've still got plenty of ammo left.

* It looks like the word HAS gone out to Warner and Wade. Last two games Wade looks to be playing the Dilshan-role of going hard early; once it came off and once it didn't. Warner in contrast definitely looks like he's been told to pace his innings and not do anything stupid early on.

* Warner was getting out cheaply to ambitious shots early in the series, so I can see the logic in telling him to calm down and play himself in before launching. Perhaps he just over-compensated this time around.

 

[The Passenger]

Aww poor Big Footy, Warner is scoring 100's again so they need a new reason to hate him.

Perhaps if we had a bowler who knows how to put in two good perfomances in a row..

i'm a big fan of dave's, but last night the end of his innings hurt us. there's no doubt about it.

in saying that, an extra 20-30 runs might now have helped, but you never know. changed the complexion of the game.

but still a lot more fault lies at the bowlers. from the sounds of it sri lanka batted great (didn't see us bowling at all), but you've gotta make a better fight of defending 270.

Thats crap mate. 8 overs to go 8 wickets in hand and he was playing for his 100 for 5 overs.... jas andolutely nothing to do with blokes getting out early. It was selfish. Undeniably so.

i don't think it was anything to do with playing his 100 or being selfish. he has never shown those traits before so there's no reason to think he would last night.... he just was just very scratchy and was for most of the innings... he was still going at 80 of 104 balls which is fine (not great), but at that point rather than pick up the rate, he only scored 20 of 36 balls and that hurt a lot.

in regards to the op, i doubt very very very much whether there is any directive on how dave should be. why on earth would they do that?? if anything, his crash and bash style is perfect for promoting the game... it just wasn't his most fluent innings.

 

[2222 Richie B]

M Clarke has copped stick from people in the past for scoring too slowly.

The simple fact is, that when he was copping stick, he was scoring at faster than warner did last night.

I honestly had no problem with him when he had about 80 from 100 balls - in fact i was enjoying his maturity. But by that stage we had 8 wickets in the sheds with 15 overs to go, and it was time to have a good old decent crack - which he didn't until he had 100!

 

[aussie1st]

Yes he could have gone earlier but it would have made little difference. The damage was done at the start and losing 2 quick wickets halted any chance of making a big score. Very rarely will you make 300+ after being 2/84 after 20 overs. And even 300 didn't look enough, we at least needed 320 and we sure as hell weren't making that after the start.

 

[King Elvis]

aussie1st, that's a bit of a cop-out mate; forget where we were after 20 overs; where were we after 30, or 35?

I honestly had no problem with him when he had about 80 from 100 balls - in fact i was enjoying his maturity. But by that stage we had 8 wickets in the sheds with 15 overs to go, and it was time to have a good old decent crack - which he didn't until he had 100!

Spot on.

 

[aussie1st]

2/127 after 30 and 2/168 after 35. So you essentially wanted us to score 200 runs in 20 overs or 170 runs from 15 overs? Yea that sort of stuff happens everyday...

 

[King Elvis]

No, just pointing out that they'd done the ground-work and had re-established things so we were in a decent position - which, IMO, we then wasted.

 

[Nuke Fremantle]

M Clarke has copped stick from people in the past for scoring too slowly.

The simple fact is, that when he was copping stick, he was scoring at faster than warner did last night.

I honestly had no problem with him when he had about 80 from 100 balls - in fact i was enjoying his maturity. But by that stage we had 8 wickets in the sheds with 15 overs to go, and it was time to have a good old decent crack - which he didn't until he had 100!

Bingo. Warner's innings actually reminded me of an ODI century Clarke made on our last tour of Sri Lanka about 6 months ago. We ended up losing the game and Clarke, quite deservedly, copped a canning for batting too slowly.

Having said that we might have lost even if Warner made 150. Our bowling in this current ODI series really has been pitiful.

 

[aussie1st]

No, just pointing out that they'd done the ground-work and had re-established things so we were in a decent position - which, IMO, we then wasted.

We have done this before. In Hobart we were 2/167 after 35 overs we ended up with 8 more runs. In our last game at the Adelaide oval we were 3/175 after 35 overs and only got 269. So I don't get why people are expecting we would have suddenly turned it around and got 300+ when in the past 2 occasions in a similar position our highest score was 280.

Don't get me wrong Warner's innings was slow and he could have gone at a better rate and hopefully he does so next time but the start to both innings are far from blameless.

 

[King Elvis]

Fair call aussie, and I agree with you.

I thought Warner did very well initially, we needed to consolidate a bit, and he did that, batted sensibly and batted well to get us back on track; but when we needed him to put his foot down, he didn't.

Unfortunately, I think it's because he was more worried about his Century - but, again, not a hanging offence, but not good enough either.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I haven't read the thread, so apologies if this has already been mentioned, but it's interesting that we lost both games in the series when we had someone make about 100 off about 140 balls.
As I said in the Forrest thread, making a high score is generally only of great value in an ODI or T20 game when you do it relatively quickly. Otherwise you're just chewing up a heap of balls and making everyone else in the team have to bat very quickly to get us up to a good score. It makes getting a score of 300 incredibly difficult (as everyone else in the side has to have a strike rate of around 120 or so, if someone makes 100 off 140 balls).
Warner's 160 odd was a great innings, but yesterday's one was pretty perplexing. I think he may have become a bit obsessed with this whole "bat through the innings" thing and forgotten that we may actually need to up the ante at some point. I think it was about the 43rd over or something and we still had 8 wickets in hand, yet he was still batting conservatively. Not hitting out, when we had both the Hussey's and Christian still to come in (who ended up facing about 20 balls between them), was pretty bloody ridiculous, especially when you can hit out as devastatingly as Warner can and does. He was batting with far more urgency in the Perth test, for instance, despite having days to spare on that occasion.
I also got the distinct impression that he was batting for his century, once he got into the 80-90's, because one he got there, he immediately hit out (and got out), just as he did when got to 100 in the previous match. This is a team game and we need them batting for the team and what it needs, not batting for their stats, as hard as it may be to resist. Hopefully he'll learn from both these things and not repeat them in the future.

 

[Paladin]

100 off (140) What a selfish innings. Was he channelling Mark Taylor? Cost us any chance of winning the game no doubt. Clarke should of given it to him while they were batting togethor.

 

[Sman-21]

In a 1 day game whats more handy 1 guy getting 100 off 140 balls
or 3 guys getting 35 off 40 balls.

100 means stuff all in 1 dayers other than abit of personal glory.
Scoring at or close to a run a ball is whats needed.

Have faith in the 5-6 main batsmen to score between 30-50 at a run a ball an your setup for a good score.
We could easily strengthen our batting lineup.
Bring in a specialist batsmen an take out someone like Mckay just means Watson an Christian will need to bowl more.
Clarke can bowl a few if needed,Dussey can bowl a few if needed.

 

[dan warna]

I think he battled sensibly for a guy who was physically exhausted.

Had he not played the anchor role we might have scored less as a team.

I don't think he had the petrol tickets to accelerate.

mature innings.

be fair, the bowlers serving up rubbish cost us the game, not the score.

While lee and pattinson bowled well in the back half, their initial spells were rubbish. Love mckay but bowling a no ball is unforgiveable in ODI's, especially at his pace.

Discipline let us down, we have got too cocky thrashing the indians.

In all fairness, the SL top 4 are as good as the indian top 4 and probably in better ODI form.

 

[aussierulesrules]

He may indeed have been either tired or injured, but if that's the case we probably would have been better off if he'd retired hurt (can you retire hurt with exhaustion?) and come back in later if needed. Otherwise we probably would have been better off if he'd "hit out or got out" earlier than he did.
And as I said, I haven't read all the thread, but I doubt anyone is putting the blame for the loss solely on his innings. Our very poor bowling and Sri Lanka's incredibly impressive and inspired batting were also major causes of it.

 

[TheVelourFog]

100 off (140) What a selfish innings. Was he channelling Mark Taylor? Cost us any chance of winning the game no doubt. Clarke should of given it to him while they were batting togethor.

Seriously?? No our pathetic bowling is costing us chances of winning. Warner could've had a strike rate of 150 and Sri Lanka would have still easily got the runs.

 

[Paladin]

Seriously?? No our pathetic bowling is costing us chances of winning. Warner could've had a strike rate of 150 and Sri Lanka would have still easily got the runs.

270 we had no chance. 310 would have given even our ordinary bowlers a chance so yes he did single handedly cost us the game. Selfish.