Warner

[sherb]

That's not Warner's fault...

I didn't say it was.

 

[Paladin]

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?

Forrest's innings was rubbish also. Also lost us the game if my memory is correct. He is not a oneday player and shouldn't be in the team. Warner is and had no reason to play for his hundred he just scored one! Thats why im so critical it was Steve Waughesk

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

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

Of course I'll have my favourite players and want them to do well, we all do, but I don't take it to the extent that a lot of posters do.

There were more comments for one McKay wicket than for both of Lee's wickets, in a final. I'd think that every wicket would be exciting considering how badly they were needed, but it's a common pattern around here. It won't stop and makes match threads hard to enjoy most of the time.

 

[Heisenberg_]

You are correct that wickets are more important, but anyone with half a clue who was watching could see that McKay was bowling better then Lee last night clearly.
Brett Lee bowled complete trash last night and did for most the series, of you disagree you weren't watching very hard.

 

[aussierulesrules]

If Wade hadn't of picked up the scoring rate if he was still in at the end of the innings he would have rightfully been criticised as well.
For the record Wade started off slowly but scored his last 40ish runs at close to a run a ball.

Exactly. Completely different circumstances. Wade (who, lets not forget was physically ill and clearly distressed) got off to a very slow start (didn't score off his first 12 balls), which wasn't ideal, but he then scored 47 runs off his next 50 or 51 or so balls. He then only slowed down again once Watson went out (which I wasn't happy about, but you could understand why he did it, as he didn't want to risk losing another one and going 3 down) and then Mussey also went out very quickly and Wade continued to bat conservatively after that, which was very understandable, as he didn't want to risk us losing 3 quick wickets. It was cosolidation time for a little bit.
That is very very different from someone batting conservatively (for them) when it's the last 8 overs of the innings and you still have 8 wickets in hand. That is just not on and ridiculous, especially when they are the best "hitter" in the team. If we were 7 or 8 down and he was batting with the "tail" you could understand it, but doing it when we still had the hitting power of Mussey, Dussey, Christian (who between them only got face 17 balls, before the innings ended), plus Lee and McKay, who can also hit out, was perplexing. We needed to be playing it very much like a T20 game well before that (probably for the last 12-15 overs). I dare say he would have been told that after the match, though and it was great to see him batting more like he usually does, in the next match.

 

[Underdog]

You are correct that wickets are more important, but anyone with half a clue who was watching could see that McKay was bowling better then Lee last night clearly.
Brett Lee bowled complete trash last night and did for most the series, of you disagree you weren't watching very hard.

He did. But his early wickets were super important in the context of the game.

 

[big_e]

You prefer losing

I prefer runs on the board.

Put it another way - would you prefer your team to score 150 from 25 overs (at a run a ball) and be all out, or score, say, 6/240 from your 50 overs?

 

[Paladin]

I prefer runs on the board.

Put it another way - would you prefer your team to score 150 from 25 overs (at a run a ball) and be all out, or score, say, 6/240 from your 50 overs?

thats just stupid. would you rather 100 off (140) or 200 off 90 balls? yeah i can make dumb comparisons as well.

Warner was selfish and played for his hundred. Get over it. 8 wickets in the shed 12 overs to go and he pushes 10 singles wasting 20 balls. hopefully he dosent do it again and he plays his natural game.

 

[Heisenberg_]

thats just stupid. would you rather 100 off (140) or 200 off 90 balls? yeah i can make dumb comparisons as well.

Warner was selfish and played for his hundred. Get over it. 8 wickets in the shed 12 overs to go and he pushes 10 singles wasting 20 balls. hopefully he dosent do it again and he plays his natural game.

Not sure how people could possibly dispute this

It was fine to bat at that pace and only the clueless idiots were getting stuck into Wade early on but to not increase the rate or even look like trying to do it was complete madness, especially when we all know what he is capable of doing.
It would have been a fine Test century but it was one of the worst limited overs centuries you will see.

 

[Paladin]

It would have been a fine Test century but it was one of the worst limited overs centuries you will see.

Bingo. Cost us the game. Just like Forrest.

 

[Underdog]

Bingo. Cost us the game. Just like Forrest.

But we still made a respectable total and lost. We didn't yesterday and won. Perhaps that suggests there is more to a game then how quick the batsmen score...

 

[Kim Hagdorn]

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

There has always been massive fanboy element on this board hat either love or hate certain players, often depending on which state they happen to play for.

 

[krisholio14]

Clearly the sheet anchor role in ODI's has gone the way of the dodo.

Funny thing is if he'd gone out trying to smack one out of the ground he would have got bagged for throwing his wicket away.

 

[Belnakor]

pretty sure Katich got dropped playing the exact role of sheet anchor

 

[big_e]

thats just stupid. would you rather 100 off (140) or 200 off 90 balls? yeah i can make dumb comparisons as well.

Warner was selfish and played for his hundred. Get over it. 8 wickets in the shed 12 overs to go and he pushes 10 singles wasting 20 balls. hopefully he dosent do it again and he plays his natural game.

Like I said - I'd prefer the runs on the board, no matter how long they take. Also, you're the one who needs to get over it.

But we still made a respectable total and lost. We didn't yesterday and won. Perhaps that suggests there is more to a game then how quick the batsmen score...

Bingo.

 

[Belnakor]

Like I said - I'd prefer the runs on the board, no matter how long they take. .

you'd have loved an innings like this one

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65035.html

 

[krisholio14]

pretty sure Katich got dropped playing the exact role of sheet anchor

But he wasn't often playing that role. He was just slow.

How many tons did he score in ODI's by the way?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

But we still made a respectable total and lost. We didn't yesterday and won. Perhaps that suggests there is more to a game then how quick the batsmen score...

Nah, let hindsight heroes be hindsight heroes. If our bowlers weren't so shit in that game and we won by 10 runs or so, you could make the argument that Warner's innings (along with Clarke's) was a match winning one.

They didn't, so Warner lost us the game. It wasn't the bowlers, even though they had 270 runs to defend and the opposition did it easily.

 

[dan warna]

Nah, let hindsight heroes be hindsight heroes. If our bowlers weren't so shit in that game and we won by 10 runs or so, you could make the argument that Warner's innings (along with Clarke's) was a match winning one.

They didn't, so Warner lost us the game. It wasn't the bowlers, even though they had 270 runs to defend and the opposition did it easily.

concur.

Our bowlers leaked runs. In a game like this, pinning batsmen down and not letting them score generally lets them get themselves out.

Pattinson has to learn what McGrath knew, bowl economically and batsmen will sacrifice themselves on your alter.

Lee took wickets but it was too late and sold too many runs.

McKay, unforgivable to bowl no balls at 130 kmp/h in an otherwise brilliant series.

McKay redeems himself by a brilliant season. Question marks remain over lee, 3 wickets in the decider but leaked runs and depended on other bowlers to pin down the batsmen, which for once they did. the debate on Lee's contribution was far less rage ridden than Warners.

IMO warner's finals series was 10/10. I would say he read all 3 pitches very well. In game 2 and to some degree game 1 the bowlers failed. McKay, watto, christian, x was adequate and lyon did their job. Lee was lee, took wickets and leaked runs, not sure his style suits any more, that said he has been a great ODI bowler and 60 runs for 3 wickets has been about his career average.

Patto, along with the other pacemen, harris, starc and the hilf were left out of the decider.

 

[stewie griffen]

you'd have loved an innings like this one

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65035.html

That is one of the greatest statlines i have ever seen

 

[BarneyBent]

concur.

Our bowlers leaked runs. In a game like this, pinning batsmen down and not letting them score generally lets them get themselves out.

Pattinson has to learn what McGrath knew, bowl economically and batsmen will sacrifice themselves on your alter.

Lee took wickets but it was too late and sold too many runs.

McKay, unforgivable to bowl no balls at 130 kmp/h in an otherwise brilliant series.

McKay redeems himself by a brilliant season. Question marks remain over lee, 3 wickets in the decider but leaked runs and depended on other bowlers to pin down the batsmen, which for once they did. the debate on Lee's contribution was far less rage ridden than Warners.

IMO warner's finals series was 10/10. I would say he read all 3 pitches very well. In game 2 and to some degree game 1 the bowlers failed. McKay, watto, christian, x was adequate and lyon did their job. Lee was lee, took wickets and leaked runs, not sure his style suits any more, that said he has been a great ODI bowler and 60 runs for 3 wickets has been about his career average.

Patto, along with the other pacemen, harris, starc and the hilf were left out of the decider.

Why have you been making so much sense lately? I think the crackdown on Vic vs NSW bullshit may have forced you to actually put some thought into your posts. I like it!

 

[dan warna]

Why have you been making so much sense lately? I think the crackdown on Vic vs NSW bullshit may have forced you to actually put some thought into your posts. I like it!

no I always voiced my opinion.

I still think the hopeless selection of Hughes and smith were premature, I think many agree with me now. Clarke was selected to the test side prematurely as well, and was dropped accordingly, and rightly so, before being forced to earn his place. Katich was selected to the test side prematurely and was dropped accordingly, before actually earning his test selection. The selection of rubbish spinners from NSW has been embarrassing, with the exception of o'keefe who, long before the new regime came into place I was calling for. Haddin is a terrible keeper.

I stand by most of my posts.

I have acknowledged I have been wrong on clarke's growth, but that doesn't change my original assumption, which would seem to be correct. I still think david hussey and brad hodge have been wronged.

I still think some aspects of the media have undue influence and hilditch is a complete imbecile.

I think whenever I make a post criticising a NSW player folks are up in arms complaining that its anti nsw bias, whenever I make a post criticising a victorian player (finch and the ridiculous calls for his test selection, my acknowledgement that White, for whatever reasons, has not achieved his potential) folks rant 'see we told you so' etc.

There is bias, I've admitted it openly several times over the year, that I support victoria, and I've been critical of vic admin and players.

There is also a crowd who go screaming anti nsw bias, anti nsw bias every time there is genuine and fair criticism of a NSW player. Just as there is trolling taunts like 'bitch less and develop more test players'. Well we stole wade and hussey but they are definitely international quality and ahead of many others selected ahead of them, and Hodge, well its embarrassing some of the hacks given test Guernsey's ahead of him.

I concur with much of the criticism of Warner leading into the ODI finals. He didn't think. He has genuine talent but lets be honest, his shot selection and his aggression was bordering on moronic. He has all the gifts, more so than hughes, White, Smith and a few others feted as the next best thing.

His 'holding' back in the finals as he copped criticism from Taylor and a few others was just what I wanted to see.

I don't care if he goes the tonk in the t20, its 'fun' I want to see a guy who can average 40 in ODI's and 50 plus in tests, and I think he is that good.

As I said early on when I saw him, he COULD be the next hayden or the next Phil Hughes. Its his choice but he has more talent than Hughes IMO, and quite possibly as much talent as anyone batting in the test side now.

I see wade as a Greg Matthews/geoff marsh type batsman. He has talent but requires discipline to get the best out himself, (noting matthews who i've complimented many times over the years as a batsman, averaged 40 over his truncated career but had 1/5 the talent of mark waugh). At 24 I see that he continually gets himself out through poor shot selection in his 60s because he tries to do stuff he can't. I think he can be a 40 to 50 average batsmen in tests, if he can maintain his mental discipline. It will always be harder for him than Warner. Warner can average 40 without trying in test cricket.

 

[legend166]

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.

 

[dan warna]

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.

which is pretty much what I've been saying.

I WANT to see Warner get big scores and show more patience instead of getting 25/15 and then getting out cheaply.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

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.

I don't know, I think the criticism is valid if the way any player bats results in the team scoring less runs than they should have in the circumstances.

I'm a Warner fan, but I see both sides of the coin.