3rd Test: Australia v India at Perth Jan 13-17, 2012

[Spanner in the works]

66




134 no under very difficult circumstances. All Warner has to do is bat. If he scores 1 or 100 he has done his job already. India are done and dusted.

So by your reckoning a player who goes on to make a hundred should find 200 a relatively easy task then? Pity we don't see many centurions go on and become double centurions...

 

[shiznit]

That would be interesting. Astle's was off 153 balls.

That leaves Warner needing 96 off 72. A lot will depend on whether he picks up where he left off or starts the day a bit cautiously.

i honestly thought id never see anyone beat that record... watching it was one of the most ridiculous things ive ever seen...

he scored the first 100 in 114balls... and went from 100 to 200 in 42 balls.

i remember how f**king brutal he was on Caddick... in 7 consecutive balls he hit 4, 6, 6, 4, 6, 6 & 6.

Warners though i think means more... he's set up Australia to win this series... where as Astle was just slogging because he thought the game was over.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

So by your reckoning a player who goes on to make a hundred should find 200 a relatively easy task then? Pity we don't see many centurions go on and become double centurions...

How you came up with your question from my previous remarks is one for the twilight zone.

By my reckoning an innings should not only be measured by its numerical value but also its context in the match's position.
For example, Warner's 134 in Hobart was less than Hussey's 150 in Sydney but without doubt Warner's was the more important innings.

In this case whether Warner goes on to score a 200 does not concern me. He has destroyed India already and shown in his two centuries that he has the potential to score big. The milestone might be nice but it won't alter his position in the team or his effect on games.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Warner explained why India were not able to have prolonged sessions of calm batting. "If you bowl the fifth or sixth stump line [outside off stump], they don't like leaving the ball," Warner said. "They like trying to hit every ball so if we keep them fishing outside off they are going to nick one. And that's exactly what they have been doing."

Does anyone else find this funny coming from Warner? Anyway decent knock by him, just chucked the bat at it against an Indian team who don't give a shit. Good opportunity for him to rack up some stats today if he wants to. Does anyone think Warner will be overly successful opening in England in 2013 against the English attack though?

 

[Meth]

i honestly thought id never see anyone beat that record... watching it was one of the most ridiculous things ive ever seen...

he scored the first 100 in 114balls... and went from 100 to 200 in 42 balls.

i remember how f**king brutal he was on Caddick... in 7 consecutive balls he hit 4, 6, 6, 4, 6, 6 & 6.

Warners though i think means more... he's set up Australia to win this series... where as Astle was just slogging because he thought the game was over.

That's exactly why I don't think Astle's record is in any serious danger. It's well within Warner's ability to beat the record, but the context of the game is different. Astle had nothing to lose. I'd imagine that Warner won't be quite as frivolous.

 

[Spanner in the works]

How you came up with your question from my previous remarks is one for the twilight zone.

By my reckoning an innings should not only be measured by its numerical value but also its context in the match's position.
For example, Warner's 134 in Hobart was less than Hussey's 150 in Sydney but without doubt Warner's was the more important innings.

In this case whether Warner goes on to score a 200 does not concern me. He has destroyed India already and shown in his two centuries that he has the potential to score big. The milestone might be nice but it won't alter his position in the team or his effect on games.

Do you think Clarke is now a better batsman because he has gone on and scored that 300?

 

[Twizzle]

hell yeh

 

[umina panther]

Do you think Clarke is now a better batsman because he has gone on and scored that 300?

Yes but he had a long history of failing to be able to score big hundreds

 

[woodyk2]

Warner will tear the poms to pieces.

 

[woodyk2]

Sorry above was for Fast Eddie.

 

[Fast Eddie]

I disagree. Swing + seam + plus a very good attack will mean he won't find it as easy as he is now on a flat track at Perth against non interested bowlers. It will be the same attack that tore your line up to pieces.

Would have loved to have seen how he would have gone in SA against Steyn and Philander or however you spell it.

 

[typicalfan]

That's exactly why I don't think Astle's record is in any serious danger. It's well within Warner's ability to beat the record, but the context of the game is different. Astle had nothing to lose. I'd imagine that Warner won't be quite as frivolous.

Probably not but I think Warner doesn't need to change his game to break it.

Warner would definitely break the Australian record set by Gilchrist.

 

[Meth]

Probably not but I think Warner doesn't need to change his game to break it.

Fair point.

He will presumably also go through a process of settling in for the day.

 

[aussies1st]

India have started well.

 

[Meth]

What's Gilchrist's record?

 

[typicalfan]

Time for India to show us their fighting spirit, this session and this first hour the most important in the game for them.

 

[Horrie Is God]

Warner's next milestone is 15 runs away..His highest score of 123*..

 

[typicalfan]

What's Gilchrist's record?

He hit 200 off 212 balls. Which broke Bothams record but was subsequently broken by Astle a few weeks later.

 

[Spanner in the works]

Yes but he had a long history of failing to be able to score big hundreds

And Warner has a long history of scoring big hundreds? More often than not, the difference between a good batsman and a great batsman is the ability to go on and score that big hundred.

 

[umina panther]

Stop comparing Warner to that indian pea heart ffs