Why pick 20 20 players for Test Cricket?

[Bucking Beads]

Wow this thread went well...

D Warner a wonderfully compiled 47 no full of judgement, temperament and pure cricket shots.

He is scoring too fast for test cricket. Surely that thick bat he is using is illegal.

 

[Phone]

Ok just gonna throw this out there.

Cowan didn't pass 25 in his first 7 innings of the FC season.

That's the sort of player he is - Marcus North-like. Once he gets past 30-40 he doesn't throw it away like Watson and Ponting. But he's gonna be throwing in his fair share of scores in the 0-20 region. Maybe more than you're used to. I'm not sure if you guys are aware of that so like, just spreading the info.


Meanwhile it seems somehow this turned into a Warner v Ferguson thread so I'm going point out the difference between Warner and Ferguson is that Warner had to earn his FC spot and perform to keep it, while one good OD knock a season by Ferguson secures his FC spot for the season. So it's not much of a surprise to see which one has the better fc record, already.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

BAHAHAHAHAHA! Should of never picked Warner..... Will only become a great of Australian Cricket....

 

[Ian Dargie]

Warner talented sure, he is no cricketer though.

He has no technique or understanding of the game and will be an easy wicket on just about any pitch, even on flat pitches they only need to tempt him to go big and he will get out.

Interesting.

How did he go in Hobart?

 

[Ian Dargie]

Warner is a different story and he's there for a different reason. Sure he's made some runs but against who???

What cricket Australia is looking for right now is Warner to attract interest back to Test cricket. IMO he's there to put bums on seats and rating on TV. He's the weapon to bring Test cricket back from the ashes.

Do you still claim that Warner didn't deserve his spot on merit?

Should he be dropped for Boxing Day?

Careful now. This kind of post will only inflame the masses of delusional Warner lovers on this board.

You claim Warner was picked because of marketing imperatives and wasn't the best option. But he's just carried his bat for an unbeaten century while the rest of the batting order capitulated.

So who's delusional?

 

[doggies ftw]

"Warner wont be able to bat for long, or play a moving ball"

lulz is all I can say.

Our WHOLE batting lineup crumbled, while Warner was left kicking on 123* and he batted against the new ball too, and lasted 319 minutes.

So yeah, he's shit!

 

[TheBrownlowMan37]

Warner and Hughes can't play the moving ball.

Warner says hi.

Hughes said something too but I couldn't make out what it was.

 

[liam_13]

I'm surprised you could understand what Warner said, not the most articulate.

Good on him on his innings, gone to likely dropping to a lock in the side.

Hope he's not just flash in the pan. Want him to stick around now

 

[Outshined]

One thing that Warner seems to have which has apparently eluded many of our other batsman is a desire to represent his country at the highest level and to do the best job possible. He'll inevitably hit troughs but I'd say he has enough determination to forge a pretty successful career.

Oh and lol at this thread and all the anti-Warner people in it. Poster boy carries his bat.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Careful now. This kind of post will only inflame the masses of delusional Warner lovers on this board.

I missed that...what did you say again?.........................lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bombertastic]

I missed that...what did you say again?.........................lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Warner is a poster boy!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, I've been over this. He could have been out a dozen times playing and missing. Well done for doing something I guess. Let me know when he scores runs against a decent bowling line up. Thank god he didn't play in South Africa. Steyn would have destroyed him.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Warner is a poster boy!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, I've been over this. He could have been out a dozen times playing and missing. Well done for doing something I guess. Let me know when he scores runs against a decent bowling line up. Thank god he didn't play in South Africa. Steyn would have destroyed him.

Did the selectors get it wrong by picking Warner in Hobart?

Yes or no.

If they were wrong, who should have been picked instead of him? Be specific. Name the guy who should have played instead of Warner.

 

[Slax]

Warner is a poster boy!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, I've been over this. He could have been out a dozen times playing and missing. Well done for doing something I guess. Let me know when he scores runs against a decent bowling line up. Thank god he didn't play in South Africa. Steyn would have destroyed him.

You fail to understand some basic principles of cricket mate, the Hobart pitch was a bowlers paradise and as such anyone who was going to score more than 25 would need some luck. You'll also find that very few centuries in test cricket are ever scored without playing and missing a few times.

So when you understand how cricket is actually played at more than a backyard level come back and post something intelligent.

The real pin-up boy for Australian cricekt at the moment is Ricky Ponting not Warner anyway.

 

[King Elvis]

One thing that Warner seems to have which has apparently eluded many of our other batsman is a desire to represent his country at the highest level and to do the best job possible. He'll inevitably hit troughs but I'd say he has enough determination to forge a pretty successful career.

Oh and lol at this thread and all the anti-Warner people in it. Poster boy carries his bat.

And that's why, even though he appears at times to be a bit of a knob (ie, that Twitter war he had with someone (Geeves?) last year), I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and back him.

When every other idiot was raving about T20 and how Warner was taylor made for it - all he wanted to talk about was his desperation to represent Australia at Test level.

Gets my respect for that, and his dedication and hard work to make it a reality; for him to notched up a ton on debut just makes it even better.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

The blokes writing off Warner should stick to football. He is an amazing talent.

 

[The Passenger]

normally i'm pretty forgiving about people who make predictions that go wrong on bigfooty, because lets face, we all say things that turn out wrong... but the vindictivness in some of the posts on this board regarding warner was something else...

 

[Bombertastic]

You fail to understand some basic principles of cricket mate, the Hobart pitch was a bowlers paradise and as such anyone who was going to score more than 25 would need some luck. You'll also find that very few centuries in test cricket are ever scored without playing and missing a few times.

So when you understand how cricket is actually played at more than a backyard level come back and post something intelligent.

The real pin-up boy for Australian cricekt at the moment is Ricky Ponting not Warner anyway.

I agree in principle. Ponting won't be dropped for Melbourne. They wouldn't want to risk the gate takings. What better for TV ratings then seeing the next episode in the fall of Ricky Ponting.

(and @ Ian)
Warner is a different kettle of fish. He WAS lucky in Hobart. He may continue to be lucky. All I'm saying is that he was picked for alterior motives. Who instead? Who indead. A couple of them are injured and certainly enough people on this board have suggested enough other replacements (ie Cowan being mentioned over and over and over again with due reason).

If people need me again (sigh) to name ANY. Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

I agree in principle. Ponting won't be dropped for Melbourne. They wouldn't want to risk the gate takings. What better for TV ratings then seeing the next episode in the fall of Ricky Ponting.

(and @ Ian)
Warner is a different kettle of fish. He WAS lucky in Hobart. He may continue to be lucky. All I'm saying is that he was picked for alterior motives. Who instead? Who indead. A couple of them are injured and certainly enough people on this board have suggested enough other replacements (ie Cowan being mentioned over and over and over again with due reason).

If people need me again (sigh) to name ANY. Then you haven't been paying attention.

He was picked because he is an amazing talent. As for lucky in Hobart, the pitch was horrendus. Give the guy a break. Would of you preferred he hit a faultless 41? He hit 123* in the fouth innings of a game almost every batsman struggled. How did our experienced guys go in the 2nd dig?

 

[The Passenger]

(and @ Ian)
Warner is a different kettle of fish. He WAS lucky in Hobart. He may continue to be lucky. All I'm saying is that he was picked for alterior motives. Who instead? Who indead. A couple of them are injured and certainly enough people on this board have suggested enough other replacements (ie Cowan being mentioned over and over and over again with due reason).

who are these "enough other replacments" that have been suggested...??

The only person i've seen mentioned is Cowan and it was a 50-50 call between the two.

I haven't seen anyone suggest anyone aside from Warner or Cowan got that call up, and anyone that did has rocks in their head because quite simply, there were no other options.

 

[King Elvis]

Clarke was lucky to bowled off a no-ball and dropped twice.

He was very lucky - Warner was lucky because he played and missed a few, which basically every batsmen will do if they're out there long enough (especially on a pitch like that).

A chanceless ton is a very rare thing.

 

[Bombertastic]

Clarke was lucky to bowled off a no-ball and dropped twice.

He was very lucky - Warner was lucky because he played and missed a few, which basically every batsmen will do if they're out there long enough (especially on a pitch like that).

A chanceless ton is a very rare thing.

Granted. Perhaps I am being over critical. However if we are going to give him head because of this century and cement him in the side for years to come. Perhaps Michael Clarke should be dropped because he failed in that test. What I'm trying to say is lets not rate him until the end of the summer. Then you all can come back and apologise or call me a fool.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Granted. Perhaps I am being over critical. However if we are going to give him head because of this century and cement him in the side for years to come. Perhaps Michael Clarke should be dropped because he failed in that test. What I'm trying to say is lets not rate him until the end of the summer. Then you all can come back and apologise or call me a fool.

I wouldnt bet on it. You obviously don't know much about cricket or you are very young....

 

[King Elvis]

Granted. Perhaps I am being over critical. However if we are going to give him head because of this century and cement him in the side for years to come. Perhaps Michael Clarke should be dropped because he failed in that test. What I'm trying to say is lets not rate him until the end of the summer. Then you all can come back and apologise or call me a fool.

That I can agree with, completely.

I'm not labelling Warner as the Saviour, but I'm not writing him off because he came through T20 Cricket either.

It's too early to make a call one way or another, the pro-Warner and anti-Warner crowds alike.

 

[Bombertastic]

I wouldnt bet on it. You obviously don't know much about cricket or you are very young....

I'm 36, I have an opinion and I probably know more about cricket then 99% of this board. Some of my friends call me "stats" because of the knowledge I have on cricket.

 

[Ron]

for him to notched up a ton on debut just makes it even better.

not his debut