Sanath Jaysuria vs David Warner

[Uppercut]

Have you not read the fab 4 stuff? It began in like 2016 with people trying to claim Smith only averaged 60 because he got to bat on easy Australian pitches (he scored away runs before and since but whatever you know logic doesn't apply here).

Haha nah I'm glad I missed that.

If someone hasn't scored many runs away from home at that stage of their career then I think it's fair to say that their average will probably come down, or that they haven't fully proven themselves relative to players who have. Maybe you might bring it up if you're splitting hairs between batsmen with ~identical records or to illustrate an argument about technique.

But this thing where people start any comparison by checking the smoothness of the distribution of runs by country is a weird Richard-esque tic.

 

[Daemon]

I thought by now CW would have moved past the idea that being equally average across all countries is automatically better than being very good in some and poor in others.

KW fans love this post

 

[TheJediBrah]

But this thing where people start any comparison by checking the smoothness of the distribution of runs by country is a weird Richard-esque tic.

It's been the hallmark of Cricket Chat for years. I get that people want to find some way to differentiate players and come up with "wHo iS bEtTeReR" (or more often than not try to find a stat to support whichever guy you already want to be bEtTeReR), but it's got to the point where it's treated as the be all and end all.

"Home bullies" are treated as if they're **** compared to statistically inferior players who have a more even distribution. Big victims of this mentality over the years have been Jimmy Anderson, Hayden/Sehwag & Jadeja among others.

You play about half your games at home. If you can have a Rohit Sharma or David Warner who is unstoppable at home that's gold

 

[trundler]

Hmm I agree with the sentiment above but I think it applies to Hayden not Warner.

Latham over Warner is peak rewarding universal mediocrity though.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

if warner were to be born in england but was (somehow) the identical and exact same batsman he wouldn't be very useful to his team averaging 26.04 in more than half of his games, but that doesn't somehow render him a worse cricketer than keaton jennings

Not least because he would be a huge improvement on Jennings in England, who averages 17 here.

 

[Shady Slim]

Not least because he would be a huge improvement on Jennings in England, who averages 17 here.

i had a feeling this'd be the case but i didn't bother to check before i posted bc i didn't care enough to ahahahahah

i imagine you understand the point i'm making with that though

 

[Uppercut]

i think it's more a case of in practice, the delineation between the questions of who is the better cricketer vs who is the more useful cricketer for their team

if warner were to be born in england but was (somehow) the identical and exact same batsman he wouldn't be very useful to his team averaging 26.04 in more than half of his games, but that doesn't somehow render him a worse cricketer than keaton jennings

If he'd grown up in England and ended up identical then I think that probably would make him a worse cricketer than (a competent version of) Keaton Jennings? Players choose to bat the way they bat because they're trying to score runs. An English Warner would have completely failed at what he was aiming for, whereas the Warner in our universe broadly succeeded.

It's fair to be disappointed in his ability in England or India. Those tend to be competitive series where Australians value winning very highly, so runs there are very valuable. That's specific to Warner though. Smaller test nations tend to prefer batsmen who are super-dominant at home, where they have the best chance of squeaking wins.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

i imagine you understand the point i'm making with that though

Absolutely, it's just fun to quote Keaton Jennings stats.

 

[Shady Slim]

If he'd grown up in England and ended up identical then I think that probably would make him a worse cricketer than (a competent version of) Keaton Jennings? Players choose to bat the way they bat because they're trying to score runs. An English Warner would have completely failed at what he was aiming for, whereas the Warner in our universe broadly succeeded.

It's fair to be disappointed in his ability in England or India. Those tend to be competitive series where Australians value winning very highly, so runs there are very valuable. That's specific to Warner though. Smaller test nations tend to prefer batsmen who are super-dominant at home, where they have the best chance of squeaking wins.

well that's my point right? that you can be absurdly good at home, which makes a very useful cricketer, but you could also have very glaring technical misgivings that make you not necessarily an elite cricketer, even though you're a lot more valuable to your team than "better cricketers"

 

[Nintendo]

If warner was English Hede have eventually just moved to the middle order in FC like Jason roy did. Would have been interesting to see how a middle order version of warner would have developed in England tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If warner was English Hede have eventually just moved to the middle order in FC like Jason roy did. Would have been interesting to see how a middle order version of warner would have developed in England tbh.

IIRC correctly he first played in the middle order for NSW is 50 over cricket. Not sure when exactly he moved up to open. And of course he didn't debut in FC cricket until after he took the world by storm for Ausnin T20s, and he was thrust as opener by default.

I wonder if he wasn't an established international white-ball opener before making his First-class debut, he might have more likely forged a career in the middle order

 

[Flem274*]

Warner has definitely been one of the most valuable players in his time, because good openers are almost always at a premium and I suspect the "expected average" of an opener during Warner's time would be much lower than what he has achieved. In the 00s we were blessed around the world with plenty of world class openers, even if many were dominant in familiar conditions and competent at best elsewhere

The "roundedness" of a cricketer does still hold great value though. Trundler brought up Tom Latham above and what saves Latham...just...from the pitchforks is his very high value on turning pitches for a SENA opener. Plenty of Martin Guptill and Matthew Bell standard players could and did bully SL and Bangers in NZ conditions while ing **** against decent teams but Latham has carved out a valuable little niche for himself and your team will always be more consistent with a couple of players who would keep Richard sated.

 

[vicleggie]

Jaya was more revolutionary, gotta go with him.

Warner an excellent player though- Similar to Sehwag.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bit of a tangent but following on from Nintendo's post really shows how underutilised horses for courses is in most Test teams, especially with batting order. Funny that Aus have no issue playing 2 spinners in Asia, even leaving out Hazelwood in a Test in Pakistan, or that India often leave out one of Ashwin or Jadeja playing in SENA.

But they'll keep picking David Warner to open the batting in England which is just clearly a horrible idea

 

[Migara]

It's been the hallmark of Cricket Chat for years. I get that people want to find some way to differentiate players and come up with "wHo iS bEtTeReR" (or more often than not try to find a stat to support whichever guy you already want to be bEtTeReR), but it's got to the point where it's treated as the be all and end all.

"Home bullies" are treated as if they're **** compared to statistically inferior players who have a more even distribution. Big victims of this mentality over the years have been Jimmy Anderson, Hayden/Sehwag & Jadeja among others.

You play about half your games at home. If you can have a Rohit Sharma or David Warner who is unstoppable at home that's gold

Forgot the Australian macho man, Lillee

 

[Shady Slim]

It's been the hallmark of Cricket Chat for years. I get that people want to find some way to differentiate players and come up with "wHo iS bEtTeReR" (or more often than not try to find a stat to support whichever guy you already want to be bEtTeReR), but it's got to the point where it's treated as the be all and end all.

"Home bullies" are treated as if they're **** compared to statistically inferior players who have a more even distribution. Big victims of this mentality over the years have been Jimmy Anderson, Hayden/Sehwag & Jadeja among others.

You play about half your games at home. If you can have a Rohit Sharma or David Warner who is unstoppable at home that's gold

yeah this is incredibly true

it matters when you're a bunch of dorks (or, like me, cool people) behind keyboards talking about whether james anderson is atg or merely atvg. ultimately though when you're facing james anderson with a new rock on a cloudy day in ingerlund, his record in australia is of precisely zero relevance.

 

[Nintendo]

Bit of a tangent but following on from Nintendo's post really shows how underutilised horses for courses is in most Test teams, especially with batting order. Funny that Aus have no issue playing 2 spinners in Asia, even leaving out Hazelwood in a Test in Pakistan, or that India often leave out one of Ashwin or Jadeja playing in SENA.

But they'll keep picking David Warner to open the batting in England which is just clearly a horrible idea

I mean in both of the first 2 examples we had options to replace them in the squad that looked good enough to make horses for courses worth it. Swepson tour up the shield in the season before the pak tour and was highly rated by alot of people, and india have a million good pacers and jadeja who can bat 7 and be a good front line spinner which can facilitate the horses for courses stuff.

On the other hand Warner prior to the 2019 ashes averaged 37 in england over 8 test's. He only went to **** in the 2019 ashes, and during that the only options to replace him where bancroft and harris, who where both tried and performed worse than him opening in the same series, or khawaja who haden't been able to buy a run since the pak tour a year and a half earlier. If usman was in the form he was in now and harris/bancroft could hold a bat then warner probably get's dropped for ussie before the tour ends.

 

[Shady Slim]

I mean in both of the first 2 examples we had options to replace them in the squad that looked good enough to make horses for courses worth it. Swepson tour up the shield in the season before the pak tour and was highly rated by alot of people, and india have a million good pacers and jadeja who can bat 7 and be a good front line spinner which can facilitate the horses for courses stuff.

On the other hand Warner prior to the 2019 ashes averaged 37 in england over 8 test's. He only went to **** in the 2019 ashes, and during that the only options to replace him where bancroft and harris, who where both tried and performed worse than him opening in the same series, or khawaja who haden't been able to buy a run since the pak tour a year and a half earlier. If usman was in the form he was in now and harris/bancroft could hold a bat then warner probably get's dropped for ussie before the tour ends.

yeah idiots, because anyone who's seen him bowl knows he's allergic to tossing the thing up

 

[ImpatientLime]

Bit of a tangent but following on from Nintendo's post really shows how underutilised horses for courses is in most Test teams, especially with batting order. Funny that Aus have no issue playing 2 spinners in Asia, even leaving out Hazelwood in a Test in Pakistan, or that India often leave out one of Ashwin or Jadeja playing in SENA.

But they'll keep picking David Warner to open the batting in England which is just clearly a horrible idea

same thing in england where they employ a billion analysts and statistical whizzes but think its a top idea to keep picking chris woakes who averages about 15 more than the next worst english seamer to ever play abroad.

 

[honestbharani]

It's been the hallmark of Cricket Chat for years. I get that people want to find some way to differentiate players and come up with "wHo iS bEtTeReR" (or more often than not try to find a stat to support whichever guy you already want to be bEtTeReR), but it's got to the point where it's treated as the be all and end all.

"Home bullies" are treated as if they're **** compared to statistically inferior players who have a more even distribution. Big victims of this mentality over the years have been Jimmy Anderson, Hayden/Sehwag & Jadeja among others.

You play about half your games at home. If you can have a Rohit Sharma or David Warner who is unstoppable at home that's gold

It has always been my position here on such debates. Its good that you have come around.

That said even with that taken into account, I just think Jayasuriya was better.