Is David Warner the worst home-ground bully ever?

Remove this Banner Ad

PhatBoy said:
I literally just said ‘you are someone with a brain and understand this.’
Click to expand...
The tidbits you add to arguments are just inflammatory remarks that detract from actually having a genuine discussion about the topic at hand. It's more going the man than wanting a discussion. "Anyone with a brain" with the backhand of "you are one of them" is essentially forcing an argument onto me, as is the "you obviously don't understand" rhetoric. It's patronising and condescending. And it involves a lot of assumptions. You could instead state your position, I state mine and we see what we do/don't agree on.
 
Mr Meow said:
The tidbits you add to arguments are just inflammatory remarks that detract from actually having a genuine discussion about the topic at hand. It's more going the man than wanting a discussion. "Anyone with a brain" with the backhand of "you are one of them" is essentially forcing an argument onto me, as is the "you obviously don't understand" rhetoric. It's patronising and condescending. You could instead state your position, I state mine and we see what we do/don't agree on.
Click to expand...

It’s not trying to inflame anything. You are an intelligent poster and saying anyone with a brain and that you are one is a way, perhaps a crude one, of emphasising that.

The caveat part you mustn’t have understood because it wasn’t me saying ‘he’s got an asterisk that means he’s not a decent batsman’ which is what you seem to think I was saying: it was me pointing out that in the pecking order of Australian openers a record like his will mean that he cannot be considered a ‘best ever’ or even a ‘best of the last 30 years’ - it’s simply impossible to put a player who has such a poor away record in that sort of position when there are many candidates with better claims. However the strengths of his record such as his high strike rate, his exceptional home record and his great third innings record mean that if you were to name a side to pick at home or ‘who is the team you’d pick to set a fourth innings target’ etc - same as what I said re. philander on a green pitch - he’s one of the first guys you’d pick.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

PhatBoy said:
It’s not trying to inflame anything. You are an intelligent poster and saying anyone with a brain and that you are one is a way, perhaps a crude one, of emphasising that.

The caveat part you mustn’t have understood because it wasn’t me saying ‘he’s got an asterisk that means he’s not a decent batsman’ which is what you seem to think I was saying: it was me pointing out that in the pecking order of Australian openers a record like his will mean that he cannot be considered a ‘best ever’ or even a ‘best of the last 30 years’ - it’s simply impossible to put a player who has such a poor away record in that sort of position when there are many candidates with better claims. However the strengths of his record such as his high strike rate, his exceptional home record and his great third innings record mean that if you were to name a side to pick at home or ‘who is the team you’d pick to set a fourth innings target’ etc - same as what I said re. philander on a green pitch - he’s one of the first guys you’d pick.
Click to expand...
No, it's just a trend I notice in your posts and maybe you're not even aware of how it comes across. Your points have merit by themselves without leaning into abrasiveness, we're having a chat, it isn't combat. Things can quickly descend into insulting each other or making accusations ("you are only saying this because of that") and I'd rather not go down that road.

Anyway for the topic at hand, I believe your initial caveat response was to someone who simply said Warner's been a stellar opener, not that he was better than such-and-such player or one of the greatest of all time. Stellar for me is in the same league as great and I think we can say he has been a great opener without a bunch of qualifying statements to follow. Everyone would acknowledge that he excelled just in one environment/pitch type, which can be said for a range of great but not GOAT-contender batsman. But the arguments seem to come in to even try and discredit anything Warner achieved. Not that he just wasn't one of the very best of all time, but that any Warner discussion should involve a bucket load of "but", "however", "regardless" statements. Maybe it's a cricket thing. We don't tend to see off our good footballers in the same type of snarky way.
 
Mr Meow said:
No, it's just a trend I notice in your posts and maybe you're not even aware of how it comes across. Your points have merit by themselves without leaning into abrasiveness, we're having a chat, it isn't combat. Things can quickly descend into insulting each other or making accusations ("you are only saying this because of that") and I'd rather not go down that road.

Anyway for the topic at hand, I believe your initial caveat response was to someone who simply said Warner's been a stellar opener, not that he was better than such-and-such player or one of the greatest of all time. Stellar for me is in the same league as great and I think we can say he has been a great opener without a bunch of qualifying statements to follow. Everyone would acknowledge that he excelled just in one environment/pitch type, which can be said for a range of great but not GOAT-contender batsman. But the arguments seem to come in to even try and discredit anything Warner achieved. Not that he just wasn't one of the very best of all time, but that any Warner discussion should involve a bucket load of "but", "however", "regardless" statements. Maybe it's a cricket thing. We don't tend to see off our good footballers in the same type of snarky way.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I just don’t think I could quite call someone like that ‘great.’

I think at the very least he’d need to have a career average of close to 50 if they’re going to have that big a home/away disparity with the away part being that low.

I think the strike rate could nearly cover it too but I just think he falls a little way short of it.

People will no doubt accuse me of saying this because I don’t go for Australia but in a moment I’ll drop a name that might change that.

Virender Sehwag for instance: I would call him a great of the game. His average was very close to 50.
Averaged 49.5, strike rate of 82. Averaged 44 away from home but struggled in England, SA and NZ. But he hit a century in England and SA at least and as an Indian opening batsman to score 1000 runs across 3 series and average 47 and strike at 75 in Australia that’s enough for me. He’s a ‘great.’

Even if Adam Gilchrist wasn’t a keeper, averaging 47, averaging 49 away, and striking at 82: I’d probably consider him a great too. Especially given how many games he turned on their head.

Granted Warner doesn’t get that chance as it’s hard to resurrect a game that hasn’t had a chance to go south when you start your innings.

In Warner’s favour obviously is that all his innings’ are against the new ball and you can’t discount that factor either.

For mine he’s probably going to sit in the ‘very good’ pile with players like Damien Martyn, Chris Gayle - believe me I would very much love to call Gayle a great of Test cricket and a few others of that ilk.
 
PhatBoy said:
Fair enough, I just don’t think I could quite call someone like that ‘great.’

I think at the very least he’d need to have a career average of close to 50 if they’re going to have that big a home/away disparity with the away part being that low.

I think the strike rate could nearly cover it too but I just think he falls a little way short of it.

People will no doubt accuse me of saying this because I don’t go for Australia but in a moment I’ll drop a name that might change that.

Virender Sehwag for instance: I would call him a great of the game. His average was very close to 50.
Averaged 49.5, strike rate of 82. Averaged 44 away from home but struggled in England, SA and NZ. But he hit a century in England and SA at least and as an Indian opening batsman to score 1000 runs across 3 series and average 47 and strike at 75 in Australia that’s enough for me. He’s a ‘great.’

Even if Adam Gilchrist wasn’t a keeper, averaging 47, averaging 49 away, and striking at 82: I’d probably consider him a great too. Especially given how many games he turned on their head.

Granted Warner doesn’t get that chance as it’s hard to resurrect a game that hasn’t had a chance to go south when you start your innings.

In Warner’s favour obviously is that all his innings’ are against the new ball and you can’t discount that factor either.

For mine he’s probably going to sit in the ‘very good’ pile with players like Damien Martyn, Chris Gayle - believe me I would very much love to call Gayle a great of Test cricket and a few others of that ilk.
Click to expand...
Well now we're mostly just getting drawn into a semantics discussion. I said he's been a great opener. Using the phrase "a great" by itself (like you did there) is elevated praise beyond that, as if I am calling Warner a legendary player. "One of the greats". And no that's not what I mean when I say Warner has been a great opener.

I'd say finishing with around a 45 average and 8700ish Test runs qualifies an opener being called great rather than decent. If we're setting the bar at a 50 average and 10,000 runs we really don't have that many great openers from the last 30 years, do we?
 
PhatBoy said:
Fair enough, I just don’t think I could quite call someone like that ‘great.’

I think at the very least he’d need to have a career average of close to 50 if they’re going to have that big a home/away disparity with the away part being that low.

I think the strike rate could nearly cover it too but I just think he falls a little way short of it.

People will no doubt accuse me of saying this because I don’t go for Australia but in a moment I’ll drop a name that might change that.

Virender Sehwag for instance: I would call him a great of the game. His average was very close to 50.
Averaged 49.5, strike rate of 82. Averaged 44 away from home but struggled in England, SA and NZ. But he hit a century in England and SA at least and as an Indian opening batsman to score 1000 runs across 3 series and average 47 and strike at 75 in Australia that’s enough for me. He’s a ‘great.’

Even if Adam Gilchrist wasn’t a keeper, averaging 47, averaging 49 away, and striking at 82: I’d probably consider him a great too. Especially given how many games he turned on their head.

Granted Warner doesn’t get that chance as it’s hard to resurrect a game that hasn’t had a chance to go south when you start your innings.

In Warner’s favour obviously is that all his innings’ are against the new ball and you can’t discount that factor either.

For mine he’s probably going to sit in the ‘very good’ pile with players like Damien Martyn, Chris Gayle - believe me I would very much love to call Gayle a great of Test cricket and a few others of that ilk.
Click to expand...
I think part of the issue is that Warner went from being okay but in decline before Sandpaper to being old and immediately in England for Broad to pinch him out within 16 balls every time he played. People never got to remind themselves of how good he could be, and he wasn't capable of it in the same way.

He went from 32 in his prime straight to 34 on the way out. His average went from 50 and trending down slightly to 45 over the course of 10 innings facing Broad in England; over the next 3 years, he'd play 2 away Ashes series and compound the downward slide.

He's lost a year of his prime and played bogey sides almost the entire time since returning. Stats can't really capture that effectively, one would think.
 
Gethelred said:
I think part of the issue is that Warner went from being okay but in decline before Sandpaper to being old and immediately in England for Broad to pinch him out within 16 balls every time he played. People never got to remind themselves of how good he could be, and he wasn't capable of it in the same way.

He went from 32 in his prime straight to 34 on the way out. His average went from 50 and trending down slightly to 45 over the course of 10 innings facing Broad in England; over the next 3 years, he'd play 2 away Ashes series and compound the downward slide.

He's lost a year of his prime and played bogey sides almost the entire time since returning. Stats can't really capture that effectively, one would think.
Click to expand...

That’s a fair enough point
 
The home vs away record of Warner is there for all to see and as we know, it conjures some fierce debate.

I've trawled the record books and when discussing a H & A record of the various players today, it is interesting to see comparisons of the 2 Indian bowlers, Ravi and Jadeja...

Ashwin:

1702869863455.png

Wickets taken in India: 69%
Overseas: 31%


Jadeja:

1702869938551.png

Wickets taken in India: 71%
Overseas:29%

Jimmy Anderson (63% at home, 37% away) & Stuart Broad (66% home, 34% away) are also similar in their ratios.

I know I am not comparing apples for apples (batsmen vs bowlers in this instance) but just wanted to make the point that a lot of players that are considered greats of the modern game have an overly poorer record outside of their own countries - both bowlers and batsmen alike.

Ravi; Jadeja; Broad and Anderson are all considered masters of their craft but this is more to do with their record in their home conditions rather than their overseas achievements.

Interestingly, Kohli has scored more test 100's outside of India (14 home / 15 overseas) and more runs (4144 home / 4532 overseas) but averages 18 more in India (60.06 vs 40.36)
 
Rabish Binney said:
The home vs away record of Warner is there for all to see and as we know, it conjures some fierce debate.

I've trawled the record books and when discussing a H & A record of the various players today, it is interesting to see comparisons of the 2 Indian bowlers, Ravi and Jadeja...

Ashwin:

View attachment 1874204

Wickets taken in India: 69%
Overseas: 31%


Jadeja:

View attachment 1874205

Wickets taken in India: 71%
Overseas:29%

Jimmy Anderson (63% at home, 37% away) & Stuart Broad (66% home, 34% away) are also similar in their ratios.

I know I am not comparing apples for apples (batsmen vs bowlers in this instance) but just wanted to make the point that a lot of players that are considered greats of the modern game have an overly poorer record outside of their own countries - both bowlers and batsmen alike.

Ravi; Jadeja; Broad and Anderson are all considered masters of their craft but this is more to do with their record in their home conditions rather than their overseas achievements.

Interestingly, Kohli has scored more test 100's outside of India (14 home / 15 overseas) and more runs (4144 home / 4532 overseas) but averages 18 more in India (60.06 vs 40.36)
Click to expand...

Fair point but I would say that an average of around 30 is pretty good for an off spinner at Test level. Broad and Anderson average similar in their away Tests, 30-32 which is acceptable - not great - for a Test bowler.

But 32 for a Test batsman is not good enough, especially one that gets a ticker tape parade before every game from the commentators.
 
What's the actual point? Players are better playing in conditions that they are use to because they have played in them most of their life.

A test batsman averaging 40+ away on pitches they play on every few years is actually pretty decent.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rabish Binney said:
The home vs away record of Warner is there for all to see and as we know, it conjures some fierce debate.

I've trawled the record books and when discussing a H & A record of the various players today, it is interesting to see comparisons of the 2 Indian bowlers, Ravi and Jadeja...

Ashwin:

View attachment 1874204

Wickets taken in India: 69%
Overseas: 31%


Jadeja:

View attachment 1874205

Wickets taken in India: 71%
Overseas:29%

Jimmy Anderson (63% at home, 37% away) & Stuart Broad (66% home, 34% away) are also similar in their ratios.

I know I am not comparing apples for apples (batsmen vs bowlers in this instance) but just wanted to make the point that a lot of players that are considered greats of the modern game have an overly poorer record outside of their own countries - both bowlers and batsmen alike.

Ravi; Jadeja; Broad and Anderson are all considered masters of their craft but this is more to do with their record in their home conditions rather than their overseas achievements.

Interestingly, Kohli has scored more test 100's outside of India (14 home / 15 overseas) and more runs (4144 home / 4532 overseas) but averages 18 more in India (60.06 vs 40.36)
Click to expand...

Kohli - I couldn’t say this for sure - but I would guess his average, given how many centuries he has away from India, would be impacted heavily by how often he fails, like REALLY fails early on. I would guess for a batsman like him, starting in India and ‘getting in’ would come a lot easier than it would for him to do the same in England or Australia etc
He’s struggled a bit in England but still made a couple of hundreds there, only played 4 tests in NZ and made a century there, and strangely enough struggled more than anywhere else, in Bangladesh where he’s averaged 13 over 4 tests.


Ashwin has a surprisingly good record everywhere except - unsurprisingly - Australia and South Africa. It’s better than I thought it would be to be honest. Even his record in Australia, modest though it is, has improved significantly: his first couple of tests here were just pure dogshit

Remember Jadeja has put together his record while scoring almost 3000 runs, averaging over 30 both at home and away so his record I think can be forgiven a little as well.

I refuse to acknowledge Ashwin’s batting as he a) seems to score runs almost exclusively against one team and b) they seem to be my team
 
Rabish Binney said:
The home vs away record of Warner is there for all to see and as we know, it conjures some fierce debate.

I've trawled the record books and when discussing a H & A record of the various players today, it is interesting to see comparisons of the 2 Indian bowlers, Ravi and Jadeja...

Ashwin:

View attachment 1874204

Wickets taken in India: 69%
Overseas: 31%


Jadeja:

View attachment 1874205

Wickets taken in India: 71%
Overseas:29%

Jimmy Anderson (63% at home, 37% away) & Stuart Broad (66% home, 34% away) are also similar in their ratios.

I know I am not comparing apples for apples (batsmen vs bowlers in this instance) but just wanted to make the point that a lot of players that are considered greats of the modern game have an overly poorer record outside of their own countries - both bowlers and batsmen alike.

Ravi; Jadeja; Broad and Anderson are all considered masters of their craft but this is more to do with their record in their home conditions rather than their overseas achievements.

Interestingly, Kohli has scored more test 100's outside of India (14 home / 15 overseas) and more runs (4144 home / 4532 overseas) but averages 18 more in India (60.06 vs 40.36)
Click to expand...

% of runs or % of wickets wouldn’t be as telling as overall average

It might be reflective of opportunity as well

Though not perfect - average would be a better comparison in most cases

Purely based on viewing - I’d imagine both Anderson and Jadeja would have a bigger average difference than say broad and ashwin who appear more balanced bowlers

In fact I’d say Anderson and Warner would be kindred spirits. Elite when conditions in their favour - very little plan b when it isn’t

Neither should be near the greats for such obvious limitations

It’s not like they struggle in one type of conditions, perhaps say a spinner who struggles in NZ. But when pretty much your entire away record is bog average - it’s hardly a sign of greatness
 
The Falcon Strike said:
% of runs or % of wickets wouldn’t be as telling as overall average

It might be reflective of opportunity as well

Though not perfect - average would be a better comparison in most cases

Purely based on viewing - I’d imagine both Anderson and Jadeja would have a bigger average difference than say broad and ashwin who appear more balanced bowlers

In fact I’d say Anderson and Warner would be kindred spirits. Elite when conditions in their favour - very little plan b when it isn’t

Neither should be near the greats for such obvious limitations

It’s not like they struggle in one type of conditions, perhaps say a spinner who struggles in NZ. But when pretty much your entire away record is bog average - it’s hardly a sign of greatness
Click to expand...
I always look at Anderson's career in 2 halves. 1st half average at best, 2nd half elite.
Look at the last 10 years alone. 91 matches, 347 wickets, ave 22.22 (home 21.76, away 23.88)
 

Is David Warner the worst home-ground bully ever?


Write your reply...

Similar threads

icyflakes
T20I Warner's now gone - who opens for him in t20s?
Replies
21
Views
1K
Westend
W
eth-dog
Shield Round 6: Victoria vs Queensland, Melbourne Cricket Ground
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
eddiesmith
eddiesmith
eth-dog
Shield Round 6: New South Wales vs Western Australia, Sydney Cricket Ground
2
Replies
26
Views
911
ioppolo
ioppolo
eth-dog
Shield Round 9: Western Australia vs New South Wales, WACA Ground, 06/03-09/03, 1:30 PM AEDT
2
Replies
33
Views
883
madjoe
M
Gough
  • Poll
T20 World Cup Game 35 Australia v Scotland June 16 1000hrs @ Daren Sammy Cricket Ground St Lucia
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
405
Views
7K
Moonwatcher
Moonwatcher
Gough
  • Poll
T20 World Cup Game 40 West Indies v Afghanistan June 18 1000hrs @ Daren Sammy Cricket Ground St Lucia
Replies
9
Views
463
NYRB
N
Gough
  • Poll
T20 World Cup Game 38 Sri Lanka v Netherlands June 17 1000hrs @ Daren Sammy Cricket Ground St Lucia
Replies
3
Views
762
Plugger35
Plugger35
Back
Top