|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 12, 2014 7:35:12 GMT
What an extraordinary player David Warner is. borderman has been singing his praises for some time, and rightly so, and I think he deserves his own thread.
In 7 Tests this year he has reached 1061 runs: the others to have reached 1000 in Tests have all played 10 or 11 matches. He has scored 6 100s and 3 50s in 14 innings, at an average strike rate of 81.67. That figure is in itself the clue to why his value to Australia extends beyond the runs he scores: he gives them the chance to win, again and again.
In the Test at Adelaide he scored his second 100 of the match in what for him was the tedious time of 271 minutes, from 166 balls faced and a much reduced strike rate. But because he succeeded where those around him - Rogers and Watson again, and Clarke - all failed he has given Australia a strong prospect of victory, with a lead overnight on the 4th day of over 350 runs, and this in a match where much time was lost to rain on the second day.
Next year he will be the outstanding attraction of the Australian touring team in England, and a thousand pities that we won't see him at Hove. He may have even bigger burdens to carry than the loss of a close friend and teammate, because it looks as if Clarke's back may not survive the strain of many more matches, and Rogers does not look the rock of the last series against England. Add to this repeated failures by Watson, whose fallibilities were mercilessly exploited last time here, and only Smith, surely the captain in waiting, and perhaps Marsh of this batting side will be present. Never mind, Warner will do it all, batting from both ends, cracking jokes and raising hell all the while.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 12:53:51 GMT
Australia now have the best opening bowler and the best opening batsman in the world (normal servce resumed, as my Aussie friend tells me).
I was one of the first to complain that Ashes tests were coming too thick and fast and that to preserve the special nature of the contest we needed longer intervals between series.
But I am mighty glad nobody listened, because it is going to be thrilling having this Aussie side back again next summer.
I agree that the ageing Rogers is starting to look as if time has caught up with him, but I wouldn't necessarily write off Clarke and Wastson just yet. Also agree that Steve Smith is a fantastic cricketer, who plays with a rare joie de vivre.
|
|
maxh
2nd XI player
Posts: 96
|
Post by maxh on Jan 19, 2015 9:28:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 11:07:34 GMT
Martin Crowe (aged 52 and a quarter) is a sad and bitter man, with much to be sad and bitter about; he has lymphoma and apparently has only a 5 per cent chance of making it to the end of 2015. That is tragic and our sympathies go out to a once great player and his family. But he needs to find a new tune in his endless calls for the Peter Pans whom he regards as less mature than himself to be banned and for umpires to be given powers to brandish red and yelow cards. Crowe on Pietersen: "A kid who never grew up...an insecure kid....the path he chose was an, immature one, of never growing up." Crowe on Warner: "He is the most juvenile cricketer I have seen on a cricket field." That Warner is even more juvenile than the immature Pietersen is quite an achievement. Probably a bit like those policemen who get younger and younger the older the rest of us get...
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 19, 2015 12:38:33 GMT
Martin Crowe (aged 52 and a quarter) is a sad and bitter man, with much to be sad and bitter about; he has lymphoma and apparently has only a 5 per cent chance of making it to the end of 2015. That is tragic and our sympathies go out to a once great player and his family. But he needs to find a new tune in his endless calls for the Peter Pans whom he regards as less mature than himself to be banned and for umpires to be given powers to brandish red and yelow cards. Crowe on Pietersen: "A kid who never grew up...an insecure kid....the path he chose was an, immature one, of never growing up." Crowe on Warner: "He is the most juvenile cricketer I have seen on a cricket field." That Warner is even more juvenile than the immature Pietersen is quite an achievement. Probably a bit like those policemen who get younger and younger the older the rest of us get... That Martin Crowe has cancer is regrettable but has little relevance to the issue of David Warner's behaviour when he isn't batting. Warner is an excellent field in any position and fielding close in is entitled to be aggressive in his demeanour, all part of the psychological business of switching the advantage from the batsmen to the bowling and fielding side, and quite understandable. What doesn't do him - or his on-field captain - any credit is to go and confront the batsmen betwen overs and make stupid and provocatively racialist remarks. That is juvenile, whether said by a 52 1/4 year-old New Zealander with cancer or a 61 1/2 year-old Brit with an aching back caused by bending over to be fair to overpaid, loutish sportsmen. Warner's coach, Darren Lehmann, who himself has a less than perfect record in these things admits that " we've got to make sure we're playing the cricket we want to play without crossing the line" and "It's just making sure he [Warner] does the right things on the ground, and he knows that more than most." Neither of Warner's recent captains, Steve Smith or Michael Clarke have been very good at keeping their players in check, or had an appropriate grasp of what effect their players actions have on their audience. Despite Clarke's sobbing at Hughes' funeral about a "spirit...that will forever be a custodian of the sport we all love" it doesn't seem to have permeated into the mindset that if you play nasty, you get nasty, everyone gets nasty and the game itself gets so nasty that eventually people turn away from it. That's what is juvenile: a failure to comprehend the results of one's actions. Forget about red and yellow cards, just start learning and applying the results.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jan 19, 2015 12:51:05 GMT
Martin Crowe (aged 52 and a quarter) is a sad and bitter man, with much to be sad and bitter about; he has lymphoma and apparently has only a 5 per cent chance of making it to the end of 2015. That is tragic and our sympathies go out to a once great player and his family. But he needs to find a new tune in his endless calls for the Peter Pans whom he regards as less mature than himself to be banned and for umpires to be given powers to brandish red and yelow cards. Crowe on Pietersen: "A kid who never grew up...an insecure kid....the path he chose was an, immature one, of never growing up." Crowe on Warner: "He is the most juvenile cricketer I have seen on a cricket field." That Warner is even more juvenile than the immature Pietersen is quite an achievement. Probably a bit like those policemen who get younger and younger the older the rest of us get... That Martin Crowe has cancer is regrettable but has little relevance to the issue of David Warner's behaviour when he isn't batting. Warner is an excellent field in any position and fielding close in is entitled to be aggressive in his demeanour, all part of the psychological business of switching the advantage from the batsmen to the bowling and fielding side, and quite understandable. What doesn't do him - or his on-field captain - any credit is to go and confront the batsmen betwen overs and make stupid and provocatively racialist remarks. That is juvenile, whether said by a 52 1/4 year-old New Zealander with cancer or a 61 1/2 year-old Brit with an aching back caused by bending over to be fair to overpaid, loutish sportsmen. Warner's coach, Darren Lehmann, who himself has a less than perfect record in these things admits that " we've got to make sure we're playing the cricket we want to play without crossing the line" and "It's just making sure he [Warner] does the right things on the ground, and he knows that more than most." Neither of Warner's recent captains, Steve Smith or Michael Clarke have been very good at keeping their players in check, or had an appropriate grasp of what effect their players actions have on their audience. Despite Clarke's sobbing at Hughes' funeral about a "spirit...that will forever be a custodian of the sport we all love" it doesn't seem to have permeated into the mindset that if you play nasty, you get nasty, everyone gets nasty and the game itself gets so nasty that eventually people turn away from it.That's what is juvenile: a failure to comprehend the results of one's actions. Forget about red and yellow cards, just start learning and applying the results. Isn't that the point that Agnew was trying to make recently, when he was accused of 'misusing' Hughes's death in support of his arguments about on field abuse?
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 19, 2015 13:12:49 GMT
I haven't really kept up with what Agnew has been saying, but perhaps for once I might agree with him! To me, there isn't a ny kind of connection between Hughes' tragic, freak accident and abusive and aggressive on-field behaviour. What matters is the reception of these events, and the connections that are then made. To speak of the spirit of cricket as a golden ideal to be upheld at all times and then to allow a boorish (but very talented) player to insult and demean his opponent is a crass failure to comprehend how the public view those actions and what they signify. If Michael Clarke is lauded as making the finest, most noble speech in cricket and is at the same time the man who tells Anderson to "face up...get ready for a broken ***en arm" then what is the message that the spectator receives? That it must be all right for a captain to yell and threaten, and to encourage fielders to be even worse, because this is a brave and sentimental man devoted to his little mate.?
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jan 19, 2015 13:43:08 GMT
I haven't really kept up with what Agnew has been saying, but perhaps for once I might agree with him! To me, there isn't a ny kind of connection between Hughes' tragic, freak accident and abusive and aggressive on-field behaviour. What matters is the reception of these events, and the connections that are then made. To speak of the spirit of cricket as a golden ideal to be upheld at all times and then to allow a boorish (but very talented) player to insult and demean his opponent is a crass failure to comprehend how the public view those actions and what they signify. If Michael Clarke is lauded as making the finest, most noble speech in cricket and is at the same time the man who tells Anderson to "face up...get ready for a broken ****en arm" then what is the message that the spectator receives? That it must be all right for a captain to yell and threaten, and to encourage fielders to be even worse, because this is a brave and sentimental man devoted to his little mate.? See the latest posts on the thread "Phil Hughes - the dangerous side of cricket". I was roundly castigated by BM for supporting Agnew on this subject!
|
|