• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Warner

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveAngel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DaveAngel

Guest
will go down as an all time great.

Feel like people try to diminish modern batsman, talent is talent and the best could play in any era

Same as cook, smith, root etc
 

This thread is too boring.... everyone is saying the same thing with no dissent! Allow me.......... ;)

How do you know he's not a nice person? Because he hit Smiling Joe Root in a bar after a couple of drinks? Hmm, not nice I grant you but hardly enough to damn anyone for life.

Is it because he's a tough competitor? Possibly, granted he doesn't give an inch on the cricket pitch. But when the Aussies came over last time he did an interview with Sky and he came across as a genhuine bloke, the were even a couple of positive comments on here about him.

But lets compare him to other sportsmen....
is he a cock compared to boxers? Nah, not before they've retired anyway and sometimes they're still a cock afterwards too.

is he a cock compared to multi-millionaire racing drivers? Blood hell no, they're all cocks.

is he a cock compared to footballers? Bloody hell no. A lot of footballers are still children until they hit the age of thirty.


He's a competitor all right but I reckon he's probably just as much a cock as the next bloke.

(you remember him and Lyons noticed that Stokes had this habit at the end of an over of sweeping his bat along the ground in a semi-circle behind the popping crease? So Warner and Lyons made a point of standing in the right place and holding a pretend conversation so that Stokes couldn't do it in an attempt to get under his skin? It worked too. This wasn't cockism .... it was just pretty funny :D )
 
Bri said:
This thread is too boring.... everyone is saying the same thing with no dissent! Allow me.......... ;)

How do you know he's not a nice person? Because he hit Smiling Joe Root in a bar after a couple of drinks? Hmm, not nice I grant you but hardly enough to damn anyone for life.

Is it because he's a tough competitor? Possibly, granted he doesn't give an inch on the cricket pitch. But when the Aussies came over last time he did an interview with Sky and he came across as a genhuine bloke, the were even a couple of positive comments on here about him.

But lets compare him to other sportsmen....
is he a cock compared to boxers? Nah, not before they've retired anyway and sometimes they're still a cock afterwards too.

is he a cock compared to multi-millionaire racing drivers? Blood hell no, they're all cocks.

is he a cock compared to footballers? Bloody hell no. A lot of footballers are still children until they hit the age of thirty.


He's a competitor all right but I reckon he's probably just as much a cock as the next bloke.

(you remember him and Lyons noticed that Stokes had this habit at the end of an over of sweeping his bat along the ground in a semi-circle behind the popping crease? So Warner and Lyons made a point of standing in the right place and holding a pretend conversation so that Stokes couldn't do it in an attempt to get under his skin? It worked too. This wasn't cockism .... it was just pretty funny :D )
Click to expand...

Former New Zealand captain
You must be logged on to see external links
has called for a yellow-card and red-card system to be introduced to international cricket to curb Warner's "thuggish" on-field behaviour, stating that Warner was "the most juvenile cricketer I have seen on a cricket field".
You must be logged on to see external links


On 12 June 2013, Warner was dropped for
You must be logged on to see external links
second match in match against following an attack on an . It later emerged that this player was . The event happened hours after Saturday's loss to England at earlier that day. According to the sports journalist , the incident took place at 2am at the Walkabout bar in the centre of , . On 13 June 2013, the announced that Warner was to be fined £7,000 (AU $11,500) and would not play for his country until the first Test on 10 July 2013. Warner subsequently missed the rest of the and the tour matches against and .

Warner attracted further controversy soon after. On 27 July 2013, whilst playing for Australia A against South Africa A in he was involved in an on-field altercation with South Africa A wicket-keeper . This was deemed serious enough for the umpires to step in twice; however, no formal complaints were made and Warner later in the day describing it as "friendly banter". Despite this, writers called into question his return to the Australia squad for the third Ashes Test against England, which seemed likely after scoring 193 in the first innings of this match. He was eventually recalled.

= cock
 
smoker said:
No he isn't.

Another brilliant Johnson thread.
Click to expand...

Yes he is

It's a good thread, hence why most people agree with the thread

Just you talking utterly shite as usual

Warner already has 3 more one day 100s

And has 20 100s at 47 in tests

And his career has years and years to go

On what basis is he not on Hayden's level

The facts completely and utterly disagree with you

No change there

Bri said:
This thread is too boring.... everyone is saying the same thing with no dissent! Allow me.......... ;)

How do you know he's not a nice person? Because he hit Smiling Joe Root in a bar after a couple of drinks? Hmm, not nice I grant you but hardly enough to damn anyone for life.

Is it because he's a tough competitor? Possibly, granted he doesn't give an inch on the cricket pitch. But when the Aussies came over last time he did an interview with Sky and he came across as a genhuine bloke, the were even a couple of positive comments on here about him.

But lets compare him to other sportsmen....
is he a cock compared to boxers? Nah, not before they've retired anyway and sometimes they're still a cock afterwards too.

is he a cock compared to multi-millionaire racing drivers? Blood hell no, they're all cocks.

is he a cock compared to footballers? Bloody hell no. A lot of footballers are still children until they hit the age of thirty.


He's a competitor all right but I reckon he's probably just as much a cock as the next bloke.

(you remember him and Lyons noticed that Stokes had this habit at the end of an over of sweeping his bat along the ground in a semi-circle behind the popping crease? So Warner and Lyons made a point of standing in the right place and holding a pretend conversation so that Stokes couldn't do it in an attempt to get under his skin? It worked too. This wasn't cockism .... it was just pretty funny :D )
Click to expand...

He is a cock like

The commentators on sky said during the 5-0 they'd never heard abuse like it on stump mic from warner

He's Australian, I like them to be villains

Best opener in the world like, has been for a while. Reckon he might get 35+ 100s

Which is ridiculous, but he plays on good wickets in Australia to be fair
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveAngel said:
Yes he is

It's a good thread, hence why most people agree with the thread

Just you talking utterly shite as usual

Warner already has 3 more one day 100s

And has 20 100s at 47 in tests

And his career has years and years to go

On what basis is he not on Hayden's level

The facts completely and utterly disagree with you

No change there



He is a cock like

The commentators on sky said during the 5-0 they'd never heard abuse like it on stump mic from warner

He's Australian, I like them to be villains

Best opener in the world like, has been for a while. Reckon he might get 35+ 100s

Which is ridiculous, but he plays on good wickets in Australia to be fair
Click to expand...

:lol:

You still haven't told us what constitutes 'an all time great'.

I would take that phrase to mean the likes of Tendulkar, S Waugh, Richards or Bradman. Warner's a good player but not in that league. He was in f***ing rank form against India six months ago.

Hayden had a conversion rate of 58% versus Warner's 40%, a high score of 380 not out, arguably against much better bowlers than Warner has faced. Warner only averages in the mid-30's outside Australia.

Warner's not even the best batsman in his team for took' sake. Smith has a batting average of 60 versus Warner's 48. Smith has also been #1 ranked test player for the best part of the last three years. Warner's never won ICC Test Player of the Year either...
 
Last edited:
smoker said:
:lol:

You still haven't told us what constitutes 'an all time great'.

I would take that phrase to mean the likes of Tendulkar, S Waugh, Richards or Bradman. Warner's a good player but not in that league. He was in f***ing rank form against India six months ago.

Hayden had a conversion rate of 58% versus Warner's 40%, a high score of 380 not out, arguably against much better bowlers than Warner has faced. Warner only averages in the mid-30's outside Australia.

Warner's not even the best batsman in his team for took' sake. Smith has a batting average of 60 versus Warner's 48. Smith has also been #1 ranked test player for the best part of the last three years. Warner's never won ICC Test Player of the Year either...
Click to expand...

How many of them are opening batsman?

Irrelevant records

It's like comparing warne to Anderson

Warner will go down as an all time great, as Hayden is

Both fantastic talents

I've honestly no idea what smith has to do with warner

Are you not allowed 2 greats in.your team

Cook isn't great because Root is there by your logic

Why has warner faced worse bowlers? Another myth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveAngel said:
How many of them are opening batsman?

Irrelevant records

It's like comparing warne to Anderson

Warner will go down as an all time great, as Hayden is

Both fantastic talents

I've honestly no idea what smith has to do with warner

Are you not allowed 2 greats in.your team

Cook isn't great because Root is there by your logic

Why has warner faced worse bowlers? Another myth
Click to expand...

Again, what constitutes 'an all time great'?

My definition would be someone who has at least won ICC Test Batsman of the year or topped the test rankings for any period of time. He's currently not even in the top ten.

He's Australia's standout opener of the last ten years but you would hardly class him with Jack Hobbs or Gavaskar.
 
smoker said:
Again, what constitutes 'an all time great'?

My definition would be someone who has at least won ICC Test Batsman of the year or topped the test rankings for any period of time. He's currently not even in the top ten.

He's Australia's standout opener of the last ten years but you would hardly class him with Jack Hobbs or Gavaskar.
Click to expand...

Possibly but again you are underestimating the fact he is an opener

Players in the middle order should get more runs and higher averages

To get 20 centuries by his age is outstanding

And bowling standards are as good as ever
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top