Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

I really don't know where to start with this bloke. He came out of no-where to become an overnight sensation, has featured in more than his fair share of headlines, and causes no end of grief for Oz fans. Earlier in his career, the thought of Warner becoming a Test player was unthinkable to me. Given the legion of openers New South Wales have had in recent years, I once that that Warner would have to move interstst if he was serious about chasing down a baggygreen, as many others have done. Surprisingly enough, he managed it staying put.

This year has been tumultuous for Warner; the Twitter controversy, the Joe Root incident, being dropped from the Test & ODI teams, and scoring a truck load of runs domestically. With the start of the return Ashes series only days away, a lot of focus will be on Warner, who'll be looking to finish the year on a positive note. Typically, as seems to be the case these days with Australian cricketers, Warner has had quite a bit to say on the eve of what potentially is a watershed series for Australia. The following article appeared in the Heral Sun over the weekend, which I thought was a pretty interesting read;

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cricket/exiled-batsman-david-warner-says-he-is-better-for-his-mistakes-and-wants-ashes-glory/story-fni2usfi-1226756558848

Warner would appear to be in the form of his life and seems very determined to right some wrongs. He seems accepting of the likelihood that he'll never get get captain Australia, an ambition he harboured going into this year. He also seems to credit his new romance for getting him back on track. But more importantly, he seems very determined to smash the Poms this summer.

Is Dave Warner the real deal at Test level? Has he really squandered his aspirations of becoming Test captain one day? Is he set for a bumper series against England?

For me, I do think he can have a long Test career, provided he steers clear of controversy. He might not have completely dashed his chances of inheriting the arm band, but that is probably mostly due to a lack of other options. And I for one certainly do hope that he has a bumper series, continuing with the form he's shown domestically thus far. I do believe that this series could well witness a turning point for Australian cricket and it could indeed be the same for Dave Warner. I guess time will tell.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:He's played 22 Tests at 37. But in the last ten he averages 32 with no hundreds. Has he been worked out?

No, its just he has had to play more away from Australia, where he has an appalling record away.

I mean where has he scored his runs? At Adelaide when he and Michael Clarke got pretty lucky initially playing shots on a dead slow pitch.... before that he scored a huge innings against an India bowling attack as poor as you get at test level when they went seam crazy at Perth (Zaheer Khan was finished, Vinay Kumar, Ishant Sharma, Sehwag and Yadav, the only person who looked remotely threatening)... and a good innings against New Zealand where, for once as partners run out he became more cautious instead of playing his shots, and they failed to make a small target with him stuck there.

For a guy who often bolts before the spinner gets in, he also gets a lot of dismissals to spin...

I like Warner, with him what you see is what you get in contrast to Clarke who appears to be somewhat two faced. To my mind the Aussie camp made far too much of the Root incident and a simple fine and apology would have sufficed.
As an England supporter I think he is a dangerous player who if he plays up to his undoubted talent will cause us trouble. When he restrains himself from dabbling outside off he's difficult to remove.

The way England's preparations are going I see Oz as now favourites in the series but much water is yet to pass under the bridge.

He's played 22 Tests at 37. But in the last ten he averages 32 with no hundreds. Has he been worked out?

He does like the pacy wickets, so should do ok this summer. Think he's one of the best of a average bunch tbh, Clarke apart.

hopeforthebest wrote:I like Warner, with him what you see is what you get in contrast to Clarke who appears to be somewhat two faced. To my mind the Aussie camp made far too much of the Root incident and a simple fine and apology would have sufficed...

Far too much? I wonder what the punishment would have been for an ordinary bloke in an ordinary job who had lamped an employee of a competitor company.

D/L wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:I like Warner, with him what you see is what you get in contrast to Clarke who appears to be somewhat two faced. To my mind the Aussie camp made far too much of the Root incident and a simple fine and apology would have sufficed...

Far too much? I wonder what the punishment would have been for an ordinary bloke in an ordinary job who had lamped an employee of a competitor company.

It's not always right but there is a difference between a sportsman and a 'ordinary' bloke, both on (definitely) and off the field. Of course if Root had wanted, Warner could have been done for GBH or whatever.

D/L wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:I like Warner, with him what you see is what you get in contrast to Clarke who appears to be somewhat two faced. To my mind the Aussie camp made far too much of the Root incident and a simple fine and apology would have sufficed...

Far too much? I wonder what the punishment would have been for an ordinary bloke in an ordinary job who had lamped an employee of a competitor company.

I wonder what the prison population would if you were a judge, about 75,000 I suspect.

hopeforthebest wrote:

D/L wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:I like Warner, with him what you see is what you get in contrast to Clarke who appears to be somewhat two faced. To my mind the Aussie camp made far too much of the Root incident and a simple fine and apology would have sufficed...

Far too much? I wonder what the punishment would have been for an ordinary bloke in an ordinary job who had lamped an employee of a competitor company.

I wonder what the prison population would if you were a judge, about 75,000 I suspect.

Less than what it is now, you mean?

I wonder what the chances are of your not shooting yourself in the foot whenever you try to make a point.

Dr Robert wrote:

D/L wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:I like Warner, with him what you see is what you get in contrast to Clarke who appears to be somewhat two faced. To my mind the Aussie camp made far too much of the Root incident and a simple fine and apology would have sufficed...

Far too much? I wonder what the punishment would have been for an ordinary bloke in an ordinary job who had lamped an employee of a competitor company.

It's not always right but there is a difference between a sportsman and a 'ordinary' bloke, both on (definitely) and off the field. Of course if Root had wanted, Warner could have been done for GBH or whatever.

What, exactly, is the difference that would seem to excuse off-field violent behaviour towards another individual, DR?

We don’t know that Root didn’t want to press any charges. Of course, he may have wanted to look after his career and not go against any "advice" the England team management may have offered at the time.

D/L wrote:

Dr Robert wrote:

D/L wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:I like Warner, with him what you see is what you get in contrast to Clarke who appears to be somewhat two faced. To my mind the Aussie camp made far too much of the Root incident and a simple fine and apology would have sufficed...

Far too much? I wonder what the punishment would have been for an ordinary bloke in an ordinary job who had lamped an employee of a competitor company.

It's not always right but there is a difference between a sportsman and a 'ordinary' bloke, both on (definitely) and off the field. Of course if Root had wanted, Warner could have been done for GBH or whatever.

What, exactly, is the difference that would seem to excuse off-field violent behaviour towards another individual, DR?

The importance of that player to the team? Like you say, if I would have punched a man from a competitor, then my days would be numbered, but in sport it seems to be different. Not saying it's right, just seems that way, like KP getting special treatment for slagging off his captain.

Dr Robert wrote:

D/L wrote:

Dr Robert wrote:

D/L wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:I like Warner, with him what you see is what you get in contrast to Clarke who appears to be somewhat two faced. To my mind the Aussie camp made far too much of the Root incident and a simple fine and apology would have sufficed...

Far too much? I wonder what the punishment would have been for an ordinary bloke in an ordinary job who had lamped an employee of a competitor company.

It's not always right but there is a difference between a sportsman and a 'ordinary' bloke, both on (definitely) and off the field. Of course if Root had wanted, Warner could have been done for GBH or whatever.

What, exactly, is the difference that would seem to excuse off-field violent behaviour towards another individual, DR?

The importance of that player to the team? Like you say, if I would have punched a man from a competitor, then my days would be numbered, but in sport it seems to be different. Not saying it's right, just seems that way, like KP getting special treatment for slagging off his captain.

Yes, we can accept it happens, DR, but that is not to condone it.

The fact that it was Joe Root who was the victim of Warner's aggression is neither here or there - anyone who commits assault should be punished to the full extent of the law. It's totally irrelevant that Warner plays cricket. There's not one law for sportsmen and one for the rest of us.

it isn't funny, it isn't 'manly' or other such nonsense - it's a serious criminal offence which some people have even died from.

KipperJohn wrote:...There's not one law for sportsmen and one for the rest of us...

Very true, KJ. There is though, and always has been, a difference in how it is applied, based upon who is the transgressor.

its crunch time for Warner. He needs to show he can grow up and get on with the cricket, and also prove that he's good enough for test cricket.