***Official*** 2nd Test at Adelaide

[S.Kennedy]

So you want the best parts of the current batting lineup to be factored out of the argument about which batting lineup was better?

That doesn't clarify anything. That's just silly.

Are we discussing batting lineups or just two players (who would have inherently accumulated runs through passage of time if they maintained form and test place)? The discussion concerned the two line-ups, not 2/7 of two batting line-ups.

 

[Ausage]

Are we discussing batting lineups or just two players (who would have inherently accumulated runs through passage of time if they maintained form and test place)? The discussion concerned the two line-ups, not 2/7 of two batting line-ups.

I took it to be batting lineups.

It's not reasonable to take the improvement of Warner/Smith out of analysis though. If they're better players now, they have to be analysed as different players than their 2013 incarnations.

I think it's reasonable to say that Aus had stronger batting in 2013/14 when accounting for the improvement in Warner/Smith, just not to say that their improvement shouldn't be a factor.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I took it to be batting lineups.

It's not reasonable to take the improvement of Warner/Smith out of analysis though. If they're better players now, they have to be analysed as different players than their 2013 incarnations.

I think it's reasonable to say that Aus had stronger batting in 2013/14 when accounting for the improvement in Warner/Smith, just not to say that their improvement shouldn't be a factor.

Hey, if you want to make the argument that Warner/Smith carry the 2017 line-up, at least statistically, I'll be not the one to refute it but I am taking the discussion to mean 2013's 1-7 slots versus 2017's 1-7 slots, or to put it another way, ''Rogers v Bancroft, Haddin v Paine etc''. I omitted Warner and Smith for clarity as they featured in both.

 

[Ausage]

Hey, if you want to make the argument that Warner/Smith carry the 2017 line-up, at least statistically, I'll be not the one to refute it but I am taking the discussion to mean 2013's 1-7 slots versus 2017's 1-7 slots, or to put it another way, ''Rogers v Bancroft, Haddin v Paine etc''. I omitted Warner and Smith for clarity as they featured in both.

Yes, but the point is they're different (much better) players now.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Yes, but the point is they're different (much better) players now.

But only two of around seven. Your still going to have to make a decision on around five more batsmen in comparison!

 

[Ausage]

But only two of around seven. Your still going to have to make a decision on around five more batsmen in comparison!

Yeah as I said that's fair enough. Just didn't think their improvement shouldn't be a factor.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not sure tbh. Current Warner is better than Warner then. Smith is at least as good as Clarke was then if not better. Khawaja is better than Watto and SMarsh is better than Bailey.

Rogers was a quality opener and Smith then while half of the player he is now was still comfortably better at using his hands to score than Peter. Tail kind of even but the real difference was Rad who was immense in that series. Bowling comparison is also interesting i'd say Lyon is far better and Cummins definitely ads more venom than Siddle whith not much between Harris and Haze. But Johnson was on steroids so dunno

This is crazy talk.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I do not agree in the slightest if factoring out the improvement in Smith and Warner.

For clarity of argument.

ftr I'm not sure that it's clear either way which batting line up is/was better, but what you're saying here makes no sense.

You can't just "factor out" the main opposing point to your argument and think it supports your case . . .

 

[S.Kennedy]

ftr I'm not sure that it's clear either way which batting line up is/was better, but what you're saying here makes no sense.

You can't just "factor out" the main opposing point to your argument and think it supports your case . . .

I think I just had this conversation with the person above.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think I just had this conversation with the person above.

It was worth pointing out again because it was just that silly

 

[S.Kennedy]

It was worth pointing out again because it was just that silly

It was a thoroughly innocuous line - maybe I worded it wrong? - which you will find explained away in the above conversation if you bothered to read? If you want a repeat of the Stokes thread, turning into an (expletive ridden) episode of Perry Mason, it will not happen. Once burnt. Never argue with an...

 

[TheJediBrah]

It was a thoroughly innocuous line - maybe I worded it wrong? - which you will find explained away in the above conversation if you bothered to read? If you want a repeat of the Stokes thread, turning into an (expletive ridden) episode of Perry Mason, it will not happen. Once burnt. Never argue with an...

Nah I didn't read the whole thing tbf

 

[Gob]

For clarity of argument.

Which is stupid

 

[TheJediBrah]

Which is stupid

He already had this conversation with the person above, therefore it's immune to criticism

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Yes, but the point is they're different (much better) players now.

Smith is, not sure Warner at this present moment is better than the player of the last ashes down under. Looks to be struggling by his own standards, not scoring anywhere near as quickly as he normally does for a start.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Smith is, not sure Warner at this present moment is better than the player of the last ashes down under. Looks to be struggling by his own standards, not scoring anywhere near as quickly as he normally does for a start.

He's averaging 58 for the series tbf

You're probably right though, he's definitely not improved as much as Smith

 

[flibbertyjibber]

He's averaging 58 for the series tbf

You're probably right though, he's definitely not improved as much as Smith

I don't fear Warner this time like I did last time. Last time you knew he would tee off and be on 40+ within an hour, this time it seems he is fighting himself but still getting a score. The way he is playing is how a few of the English players should be, finding a way to score even when not at his best.

 

[Spark]

He looked really good in the first Test in both innings, composed and settled. Since the run out though, looked all over the shop despite the 40-odd.

 

[Woodster]

I don't fear Warner this time like I did last time. Last time you knew he would tee off and be on 40+ within an hour, this time it seems he is fighting himself but still getting a score. The way he is playing is how a few of the English players should be, finding a way to score even when not at his best.

Yes that's a fair comment, but don't you think he's going against the main thing that makes Warner the threat he is in Australian conditions ? His absolute positivity and getting the team off to a flier and literally forcing bowling off their lines and lengths. He's becalmed and trying to just occupy the crease, I hope he stays in this mindset throughout.

 

[Starfighter]

I don't think these pitches have been all that easy to score on. In Perth is anything like the flat piece of crap it's been recently there's a much greater chance that he'll be able to go for it, especially if the bounce catches the English bowlers out.