Endless Summer of Cricket

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
BACCS said:
His reputation is fine for someone still 25 years old. Yes he needs to remove these cheap dismissals from his game, but there is more than enough exposed form at Test level to suggest he will be a decent player for a long time.

I think people forget how young he actually is.
Click to expand...
25 isn’t young. He captains his State side which obviously shows his level of maturity.

He is at risk of being replaced if some talent comes through.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Elite Crow said:
25 isn’t young. He captains his State side which obviously shows his level of maturity.

He is at risk of being replaced if some talent comes through.
Click to expand...
25 is young in terms of Australian cricket though. Not many guys have cemented themselves in this team at that age.
 
hey shorty said:
25 is young in terms of Australian cricket though. Not many guys have cemented themselves in this team at that age.
Click to expand...
That maybe true of the last 20 years, since the game went fully professional (with large sums of money on offer). Prior to that, players were rarely selected if they hadn't established themselves in the team by that age.
 
Vader said:
1) There is nothing about Warner's character which suggests that his off-field persona is any different to his on-field behaviour. 2) The man is a disgusting pig, in human form.
Click to expand...
Apologies for being 3 days late on this. I've been offline since Wednesday night. As you know, I am not a Warner fan from way back when he first belted SA around, and I've been strongly anti-Warner in here. His eye, timing and ability are unquestionable, but his behaviours are reprehensible. Embarrassing, to all of us. Simply, Warner went too far, too often.
1) Everything about his behaviour signifies "anger" to me. FIGJAM. Narcissistic/ huge ego.
Looks to me like he has received help there (beyond the calming love and support of his wife), because he has certainly shown some self-control and noteworthy restraint since resuming after his ban. We'll find out soon enough if it's an act, a front, or indicates real change.
2) Like most bullies/thugs, Warner operates on an I'm-Untouchable double standard that makes him cry foul when he is challenged, or whenever he got back as good as he dished out eg his outrage at the de Kock sledge is laughable, even if de Kock is a total tool for having a shot at Warner's wife (seriously, what she might have done when she was young/silly --- and we've all made mistakes --- before they had even met is none of anybody's business. I'm reminded of the alleged Marsh/Botham exchange:
"G'day Beefy, how's the wife and my kids?"
"The wife's good thanks, Marshy, but the kids are ******ed", which is nothing but bloody funny).
Compare Warner to other Australian Champions --- Laver/ Rosewall/ Newk/ Rafter/ BARTY, or even Gilchrist and his current teammate Smith and it's easy to dislike Warner. A lot. When Smithy takes a screamer, he rolls the ball to the Umpire and jogs off to congratulate the bowler for the wicket. By contrast, when Warner does anything good (a ton, a great catch, a run-out) he roars, he boasts, he exults in his own FIGJAM brilliance and Aussies hate that stuff.
Well, I do, anyway.

But, "a disgusting pig, in human form"? Nah, mate. Even disliking Warner as much as I do, I reckon that's too harsh.
 
Vader said:
Poor fast bowlers, having to have a small part of their foot behind the line... Cry me a river.
Seriously - fast bowlers rarely practice bowling behind the line; they are constantly over stepping during practice. Is it any surprise then, when they also overstep in matches? They practice to fail, and that's exactly what they achieve.
Click to expand...
I played Turf Cricket (opening bowler) including 5 years at A1 level. I've watched Test and State players overstepping by up to half a metre at practice, as well as my own teammates --- and I've never understood why they did it, because:
--- it has no advantage at practice (except maybe to terrorise your own batsmen! which is just plain dumb), nor during a game, and
--- fosters bad habits when playing, as you said.
 
Doc_ said:
If it pitches outside leg you cant be out lbw. WTF? Why not. It called leg before wicket.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure this was to discourage "leg-theory" so that a R-arm bowler bowling around the wicket couldn't stack the legside field and just bowl a leg (or outside leg) line. Might have something to do with 'bodyline', too.
Having said that, as an ex-bowler I hated all the advantages given to batsmen, the privileged pricks.
I didn't mind benign wickets which made me work harder, especially @ swing/angles. I loved getting wickets on flat decks after tight bowling.
 
CrowBloke said:
I played Turf Cricket (opening bowler) including 5 years at A1 level. I've watched Test and State players overstepping by up to half a metre at practice, as well as my own teammates --- and I've never understood why they did it, because:
--- it has no advantage at practice (except maybe to terrorise your own batsmen! which is just plain dumb), nor during a game, and
--- fosters bad habits when playing, as you said.
Click to expand...
Did you have a no-ball umpire during practice?
 
CrowBloke said:
Apologies for being 3 days late on this. I've been offline since Wednesday night. As you know, I am not a Warner fan from way back when he first belted SA around, and I've been strongly anti-Warner in here. His eye, timing and ability are unquestionable, but his behaviours are reprehensible. Embarrassing, to all of us. Simply, Warner went too far, too often.
1) Everything about his behaviour signifies "anger" to me. FIGJAM. Narcissistic/ huge ego.
Looks to me like he has received help there (beyond the calming love and support of his wife), because he has certainly shown some self-control and noteworthy restraint since resuming after his ban. We'll find out soon enough if it's an act, a front, or indicates real change.
2) Like most bullies/thugs, Warner operates on an I'm-Untouchable double standard that makes him cry foul when he is challenged, or whenever he got back as good as he dished out eg his outrage at the de Kock sledge is laughable, even if de Kock is a total tool for having a shot at Warner's wife (seriously, what she might have done when she was young/silly --- and we've all made mistakes --- before they had even met is none of anybody's business. I'm reminded of the alleged Marsh/Botham exchange:
"G'day Beefy, how's the wife and my kids?"
"The wife's good thanks, Marshy, but the kids are ******ed", which is nothing but bloody funny).
Compare Warner to other Australian Champions --- Laver/ Rosewall/ Newk/ Rafter/ BARTY, or even Gilchrist and his current teammate Smith and it's easy to dislike Warner. A lot. When Smithy takes a screamer, he rolls the ball to the Umpire and jogs off to congratulate the bowler for the wicket. By contrast, when Warner does anything good (a ton, a great catch, a run-out) he roars, he boasts, he exults in his own FIGJAM brilliance and Aussies hate that stuff.
Well, I do, anyway.

But, "a disgusting pig, in human form"? Nah, mate. Even disliking Warner as much as I do, I reckon that's too harsh.
Click to expand...
I have a different take - I see sporting people on a sporting field as robots with the aim to win (legally). I apply the same rules for all sports - AFL, cricket, tennis etc.

By “robots”, I mean a narrow range of persona - gracious, a dash of mongrel and a showing of competitive beast. Frankly, I don’t care about who they are as a person off the field or what kind of personality disorders they might have - that’s for their psychologists, psychiatrists, and the social laws to look after them.

Also, from my line of work, I know it can be dangerous (read: wrong) to judge someone’s character from just a snapshot of the same setting. Often, speaking to the person in actual and their immediate family and friends, will give you a better appreciation of their character. Judging a sportsman from afar, and going according to what you read in news articles often can be misleading.
 
John Who said:
Did you have a no-ball umpire during practice?
Click to expand...
Nah, and I used to get shouted down as a bowling traitor if I complained :).
Made no sense to me back then --- why scare your own batsmen? Bad practice made for bad play, imo.
At practice, I used to play a mind-trick on myself and imagine I was bowling to the Comp's best batsman whose name I have forgotten, Simon Somebody.
Simon Lane?
I remember he was a crackerjack fieldsman too, nice bloke, not up himself; bloody hard to get out.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

John Who said:
I have a different take - I see sporting people on a sporting field as robots with the aim to win (legally). I apply the same rules for all sports - AFL, cricket, tennis etc.
By “robots”, I mean a narrow range of persona - gracious, a dash of mongrel and a showing of competitive beast. Frankly, I don’t care about who they are as a person off the field or what kind of personality disorders they might have - that’s for their psychologists, psychiatrists, and the social laws to look after them.
Also, from my line of work, I know it can be dangerous (read: wrong) to judge someone’s character from just a snapshot of the same setting. Often, speaking to the person in actual and their immediate family and friends, will give you a better appreciation of their character. Judging a sportsman from afar, and going according to what you read in news articles often can be misleading.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
Still, I've never gone off what I've read about Warner. It's what I've seen that horrifies me (on camera during a break, he ripped into de Kock for being a 'wimp' and a 'sook' for showing disappointment at getting out --- not long after Warner was the one in tears and would have complained loud and long if he was vilified for it) and, mate, his success and retention in the side in spite of his poor behaviour really sets a bad example for kids/young men.
In life, I refuse to do business with people like Warner/McEnroe et al. I do not want them to profit from me.

Btw, did you see Kyrgios play Davis Cup last week? He was brilliant at his game and extremely well-behaved on court. It only takes some self-control, which Warner does seem to be showing now. Goodonim.
 
CrowBloke said:
Avges 38.6/38.9 @ Test/ First Class level, so pretty good. Better-than-meh ;) .
LOVED his 205, because vs Pommies.
Click to expand...
It was a tremendous knock. He's got this incredible ability to score runs when his side needs them (against India in Wellington when McCullum made 302 being the prime example, but there's so many others) and in a way that just grinds the opposition bowling down. Archer, Broad and Curran all bowled at least 35 overs and there's another test match starting Friday. Even if NZ don't win today, that 205 may have set them up to win the series.

NZ/Aus next month is going to be fun.
 
Vader said:
That maybe true of the last 20 years, since the game went fully professional (with large sums of money on offer). Prior to that, players were rarely selected if they hadn't established themselves in the team by that age.
Click to expand...
Nah. Ages at debut:

Mark Waugh 25
David Boon 24
Geoff Marsh 27
Allan Border 23
Ian Healy 24
Darren Lehmann 28
Wayne Phillips 25
Bill Lawry 24
Andrew Symonds 28
Michael Bevan 24
David Warner 25
Shaun Marsh 28
Greg Dyer 27
Tony Dodemaide 25
Matthew Elliott 25
Simon Katich 26
Keith Stackpole 25
Arthur Morris 24
Tim May 25
Rick McCosker 28


Plenty of very good players weren't settled in the team at 25.
 
dogs105 said:
Nah. Ages at debut:

Mark Waugh 25
David Boon 24
Geoff Marsh 27
Allan Border 23
Ian Healy 24
Darren Lehmann 28
Wayne Phillips 25
Bill Lawry 24
Andrew Symonds 28
Michael Bevan 24
David Warner 25
Shaun Marsh 28
Greg Dyer 27
Tony Dodemaide 25
Matthew Elliott 25
Simon Katich 26
Keith Stackpole 25
Arthur Morris 24
Tim May 25
Rick McCosker 28


Plenty of very good players weren't settled in the team at 25.
Click to expand...
I'd be excluding everyone from David Boon onwards as being from the fully professional era - but that still leaves players like Border, Lawry, Stackpole, and McCosker as valid counter-examples to my previous statement.
 
Age at time of scoring first test century:

Travis Head 24
David Boon 25
Steve Waugh 24
Steve Smith 24
Mark Waugh 25
Dean Jones 25
Damian Martyn 29
Justin Langer 27
Matthew Hayden 25
Mark Taylor 24
Ricky Ponting 23
Michael Clarke 23
Adam Gilchrist 28
David Warner 25
Michael Hussey 30
Shane Watson 28



Off the top of my head, these were some of our best batsmen, and certainly weren't all established players by 25.
 
Vader said:
I'd be excluding everyone from David Boon onwards as being from the fully professional era - but that still leaves players like Border, Lawry, Stackpole, and McCosker as valid counter-examples to my previous statement.
Click to expand...
Obviously there are young uns still, and were in the past, but there are quite a few cases of 25 being normal, and for very good players too.
 
dogs105 said:
Age at time of scoring first test century:

Travis Head 24
David Boon 25
Steve Waugh 24
Steve Smith 24
Mark Waugh 25
Dean Jones 25
Damian Martyn 29
Justin Langer 27
Matthew Hayden 25
Mark Taylor 24
Ricky Ponting 23
Michael Clarke 23
Adam Gilchrist 28
David Warner 25
Michael Hussey 30
Shane Watson 28



Off the top of my head, these were some of our best batsmen, and certainly weren't all established players by 25.
Click to expand...
All are from the fully professional era - after it became nearly impossible for youngsters to break into the side, as veterans held on for as long as possible while reeling in the big $$$. i.e. the window which I had already excluded in the post to which you originally replied.
 
Vader said:
All are from the fully professional era - after it became nearly impossible for youngsters to break into the side, as veterans held on for as long as possible while reeling in the big $$$. i.e. the window which I had already excluded in the post to which you originally replied.
Click to expand...
I think they're relevant to Head though, as he's playing in this era. But yes, these long, successful careers in late 20s or even 30s seem to be a modern phenomenon.

It would be really interesting to know the average age at debut over all Australian cricketers. Not too many teenagers, and some outliers at the other end like Holland and Ironmonger.
 
Vader said:
All are from the fully professional era - after it became nearly impossible for youngsters to break into the side, as veterans held on for as long as possible while reeling in the big $$$. i.e. the window which I had already excluded in the post to which you originally replied.
Click to expand...
But that was my original point.

These days almost no one gets in when they were Travs age, and only the best stay there.
 
dogs105 said:
I think they're relevant to Head though, as he's playing in this era. But yes, these long, successful careers in late 20s or even 30s seem to be a modern phenomenon.

It would be really interesting to know the average age at debut over all Australian cricketers. Not too many teenagers, and some outliers at the other end like Holland and Ironmonger.
Click to expand...
McGain, Funky Miller.

Dan Cullen was young, but we know how well that lasted.
 
hey shorty said:
McGain, Funky Miller.

Dan Cullen was young, but we know how well that lasted.
Click to expand...
Voges was well over 30 I think? A moving average over 5 years periods would be very interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top