SA Footy

dedja wrote:

am Bays wrote:

whufc wrote:Does Warner go down as Australia most divisive cricketer of all time.

Bradman is in that conversation if you think about the Catholics vs protestants schism of the 30s and his role in WSC

Is that you Chappelli?

Nah, Bill

10 mins left in the day I'm guessing (that's with the extra half an hour) and 7.3 overs left, so they'll be 5 overs short.

The Dark Knight wrote:10 mins left in the day I'm guessing (that's with the extra half an hour) and 7.3 overs left, so they'll be 5 overs short.

Make that 6 overs short.

Same old script in Australia.
Australia win the toss.
Bat on a true pitch.
David Warner makes lots of runs at a sensational run rate with his broad bat
Australia end with a decent first innings.
David Warner by scoring so quickly with his broad bat gives the bowlers plenty of time to bowl out the opposition.

.

I think he should stick around to get to 10,000

Who's with me?

mal wrote:Same old script in Australia.
Australia win the toss.
Bat on a true pitch.
David Warner makes lots of runs at a sensational run rate with his broad bat
Australia end with a decent first innings.
David Warner by scoring so quickly with his broad bat gives the bowlers plenty of time to bowl out the opposition.

Aside from Warner scorecard makes for average reading, Australia just lucky he survive early and made a big score

Armchair expert wrote:I think he should stick around to get to 10,000

Who's with me?

If Renshaw, Harris and Bancroft are the only replacements being mentioned then I'm with you.

Forget how good Ponting was and how long a career he had.

I mean it feels like Smith/Warner have been very good for a bloody long time yet there still 1000's of runs behind Ponting.

whufc wrote:Forget how good Ponting was and how long a career he had.

I mean it feels like Smith/Warner have been very good for a bloody long time yet there still 1000's of runs behind Ponting.

Think Ponting (and Waugh and Border) have played 40-50 more Test matches than Warner and Smith though. Still impressive though for length of careers.

There's no doubt Warner is a polarizing character, but looking at his raw numbers? He's one of our all timers.

If you look purely at numbers, he's played 200 innings so with the amount of cricket played now that is an even measure to compare others to him.

Warner - 200 innings, 8651 runs at 45.05

Boon - 190 innings, 7422 runs at 43.65

Clarke - 198 innings, 8643 runs at 49.10

Taylor - 186 innings, 7525 runs at 43.49

M Waugh - 209 innings, 8029 runs 41.81

Eagles2014 wrote:

whufc wrote:Forget how good Ponting was and how long a career he had.

I mean it feels like Smith/Warner have been very good for a bloody long time yet there still 1000's of runs behind Ponting.

Think Ponting (and Waugh and Border) have played 40-50 more Test matches than Warner and Smith though. Still impressive though for length of careers.

Correct.

Smith needs 649 runs to reach 10,000 and has currently played 78 less innings than Steve Waugh.

Booney wrote:There's no doubt Warner is a polarizing character, but looking at his raw numbers? He's one of our all timers.

If you look purely at numbers, he's played 200 innings so with the amount of cricket played now that is an even measure to compare others to him.

Warner - 200 innings, 8651 runs at 45.05

Boon - 190 innings, 7422 runs at 43.65

Clarke - 198 innings, 8643 runs at 49.10

Taylor - 186 innings, 7525 runs at 43.49

M Waugh - 209 innings, 8029 runs 41.81

I know that I’ll get ridiculed but I was never a Tubby fan

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:There's no doubt Warner is a polarizing character, but looking at his raw numbers? He's one of our all timers.

If you look purely at numbers, he's played 200 innings so with the amount of cricket played now that is an even measure to compare others to him.

Warner - 200 innings, 8651 runs at 45.05

Boon - 190 innings, 7422 runs at 43.65

Clarke - 198 innings, 8643 runs at 49.10

Taylor - 186 innings, 7525 runs at 43.49

M Waugh - 209 innings, 8029 runs 41.81

I know that I’ll get ridiculed but I was never a Tubby fan

Stats are stats and you have to recognise that, but if there is a debate about who is best, you have to remember who those other guys played against. Has Warner faced the same attacks as the others?

BTW, I was surprised that M Waugh only averaged 41.

Warner is a great know doubt.

What has him slightly behind some of the greats for me is his away average of 32.50 which barely has you in the team.

The Dark Knight wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:Aus batting first

Davey ton incoming

Boom!

eat carp h8rs

The most amazing thing about Warner's hundred is the fact you were actually right with your prediction.

The world really must be about to end....

The Dark Knight wrote:

The Dark Knight wrote:10 mins left in the day I'm guessing (that's with the extra half an hour) and 7.3 overs left, so they'll be 5 overs short.

Make that 6 overs short.

This sh1ts me about test cricket. Make them bowl the overs!!!

gadj1976 wrote:

The Dark Knight wrote:

The Dark Knight wrote:10 mins left in the day I'm guessing (that's with the extra half an hour) and 7.3 overs left, so they'll be 5 overs short.

Make that 6 overs short.

This sh1ts me about test cricket. Make them bowl the overs!!!

Agree, make them bowl them until they finish on the day or make them start early to bowl them the next day.

I assume Pakistan will be sanctioned and lose WTC points for it.

I didn't see much yesterday but how much time lost due to batsmen taking a drinks break/changing gloves??

That's the first thing, I'd be outlawing. Change them at official breaks not between overs.