Astonishing Warner writes old guard's obituary

Chaos, I could not agree more. Shaun Marsh has been the constant thorn in this ODI series thus far even though he was sketchy at best in today's SCG ODI. Although he didn't need to be at his IPL best since Warner was carving it up, I don't think he deserves the criticism he is getting. He has scored 50+ in his last 4-5 games against top opposition. He may not score at a run a ball but he is there. He sure as hell posts more than the current mix n match aussie middle order, who in my opinion are incredibly weak. Dave Hussey is the exception though, you know he's good for 30 or 40 odd.

This Warnermania is justified. He may not have played a first-class game but his domestic one-day/20-20 performances indicate he is consistent at what he does. Anyone who can consistently clear the MCG fences must be worth considering for a One-Day call up! Good call Spiro about the amount of matches Gilchrist won for Australia batting down the order. I think more specifically it was the psychological damage he did before he even struck a ball. Teams knew, that for all their hard work in dismissing the top order Gilchrist could come in and destroy them in a session.

I disagree with the attack on Shaun Marsh. Look he has failed to live up to the hype this season at Shield level, but the potential is there. If you look at what he did in the 20/20 IPL, his record speaks for himself. His best shield knock was courageous one against a NSW line up that included Steve Waugh on a testing deck a few years back. Still pretty young, he needs to think less at the wicket. Like that new kid on the block, Warner, who makes it look a very simple game. Warners innings was very exciting, very uncomplicated and great for cricket. It was because he has the simplest view on the game. See it, hit it, hard. However I have the sneaking suspicion he is a flat track bully. When the ball is swinging, or doing something off the seam he looks like he could be prone. Hence his lack of first class cricket, so far. He may have to move states to get that berth at no. 6. Gilly (my favourite cricketer) 'failed' at NSW (if you look at his stats). It’s why I don't read too much into statistics. A good indication, but doesn't tell the full story. Hughes is stacking up the runs and looks good, however one great season doesn't necessarily mean he will conquer the world. I can't see through the hype. Is he really that good? Can he play in England? Hayden is great servant to Australian cricket. His Achilles should have been the metaphor he needed to retire. Sadly he allowed us to find his flaw. He should have gone on top, and not been pushed off the plank. As good as Mark Waugh and Ian Healy where, they weren't missed when they got the grim reapers tap. Haydos looks likely to be the next casualty. Who should go to South Africa and England? I have no idea. I am pretty sure I agree with Tom Moody that Marcus North deserves a go. Jacques if fit is proven. Hodge has done something to someone and won’t get another chance, Hughes (see above), Klinger (one good season only) and Marsh (splits opinion). Throw them all in a hat. Pick one and give them a chance to prove themselves. At least three tests. Then try again if you first don't succeed.

What has made Australian cricket so dominant for 130 years or so is the fact that people in cricket, at all levels of the game, are shrewd judges of the potential of a cricketer. Brad Haddin and Greg Matthews, at Easts, had a lot to do with the development of David Warner and putting him in at the top of the batting order. Peter Roebuck has an excellent article on this in the SMH. Wherever possible the Australian way has been to select players who ooze class, either as batsmen or bowlers. Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson benefited from this system and were 'carried' initially in their Test careers before they exploded as great, Test-winning players. Ricky Ponting batted at number 6 in his first Tests. Ian Craig played Test cricket (successfully) at the age of 17. And going back there are Don Bradman and Archie Jackson, and so on. It is quite clear already (or it is to me) that Philip Hughes is one of those once in a generation players. He has always scored runs (53 centuries in all forms of cricket already according to an interesting piece in the Sun-Herald by Dave Sygall), and in all forms of cricket. He is far and away a better batsman than Shaun Marsh (in all forms of cricket, in my opinion) and all the other younger players. And he is at least as good as the older players, if you look at what he does on the big occasions (a century for NSW in the Sheffield Shield final last year). When talent like this reveals itself and you are a selector, you have a duty to the game and to the Australian tradition to promote the player as soon as you can. If you are good enough, as Greg Chappell says, you are old enough.

COugar How about we start with "there is room for a guy like him in the NSW shield side and see how he goes." Spiro Equally why would we fast track Hughes when Jaques is a very capable incumbent. If Hughes is still scoring at the same rate 12 months from now he will be picked.

Shaun Marsh, I think, has only played a handful of one-day games for Australia (in the Windies?!?!). I think it's a bit rich to say Philip Hughes deserves a one-day place above Marsh given he's only been around for a few seconds. Marsh has been a pretty steady performer for at least four seasons, and showed with his IPL efforts that he can play in different conditions. If Hughes is to play for Australia soon, it's realistically only going to be in the Test team, and to argue otherwise is severely biased and/or NSW-centric.

How much success of the Australian Test side in the last decade or so was due to Adam Gilchrist batting at number 7 and winning Tests in a session of devastating hitting. I'm surprised NSw doesn't at least give Warner a chance to be the new Gilchrist. And if he succeeds at the state level then national honours should follow. I also agree with Geoff Lawson that the selectors have been unduly friendly to Shaun Marsh. He has done very little in Australian cricket, and has been dropped occasionally from the WA side. Yet they seem to be set on promoting him as Matthew Hayden's successor, at the expense of Philip Hughes.

I actually agree with Warner's comments recently that there's probably room in a Test side batting at No.6 for a guy like... himself. It would be a big punt to take in picking someone of his mania, but if he batted for a session, he'd just about bat the team into an unbeatable position. I reckon i's also a more credible proposition given the docile nature of today's Test wickets...

Brett McKay Fair call. It's live theatre. My remarks are simply not cricket.

Onside, I take your point, but the Australian golfball driving champion isn't going to win Ogilvy or Scott too many matches. Warner basically won that game last night off his own bat (if you'll pardon the pun), and it was quite obvious to see and hear the excitement in Ponting when talking about Warner's clean hitting. He's just discovered a new weapon...

David Warner is to either Ricky Ponting or Mike Hussey ,what the Australian golfball driving champion is to either Geoff Ogilvy or Adam Scott.

Theres no where near as much pressure for a a player in T20,the way the game is gives everybody a free license so the pressure is no where near the same as the two other forms of the game,so no matter what your views on Hayden i think its pointless using T20 to judge his form in test cricket. Ive tried to enjoy T20 but the nothing to lose aspect takes away the contest and mental side of cricket which i think makes the game so great So after 1 hour of nauseating commentary from commentators who clearly see the dollar signs telling me before and after each ball what a great game T20 is i felt like vomiting Its still to hit and miss for me,id still like to see the 50 over game tweaked Also if Taits not a chucker im chuck norris

I don't agree, Henry. The Australian selectors adopted a "horses for courses" selection policy for last night's T20 game - only Ponting and M Hussey played in the SCG Test - so why can't Hayden, for instance, retain his Test spot despite being far from T20 selection? Perhaps Test cricket will become like 7s rugby?!?!? The shorter rugby format struggles to attract cash and is therefore contested predominantly by club rugby players. Perhaps Test cricket will slowly head down that path as the more gifted players focus on T20 cricket, both internationally and in tournaments such as the IPL.

Henry, spot on. The youthful brutality of Warner's assault last night had to be seen to be believed. Not even the biggest hitters (C White) could believe what they were seeing!!!! The game requires a completely different mind set to that of ODI's or Test matches!!!!! It was thrilling to watch but set the game up for an early conclusion if SA were not able to respond in kind. Unlike other forms of the game, more overs, more innings or in tennis, more sets, a 20/20 game cannot be turned around. there is just not enough time!!! anyway, the crowd, I didnt stay up for the final official crowd, was a good one. BTW, 20/20 probably also needs a different set of commentators. the TV guys, Warne excluded, didnt have a clue!!!!! The radio guys went much better.