Early speculation pieces about how well a young or new player’s career might pan out usually annoy me, for they are just that, speculation and guesswork.
But sometimes you can’t help yourself, and so today I’m making an exception for myself.
Self, go nuts.
The way David Warner savagely beat up on the Indian attack in Perth was just extraordinary.
I thought back in 2006/07 that Adam Gilchrist’s similar WACA-assault on England would take some topping, and if Warner hasn’t quite topped Gilchrist’s 57-ball special, then he’s at least equalled it.
Warner was brutal on all the Indian bowlers, but seemed to save his most violent best for debutant Vinay Kumar’s medium-fast delicacies. Of all the descriptions used to tell the tale of how Warner launched into a Kumar like a lion does to a gazelle, I loved Jarrod Kimber’s (of CricInfo/The Chuck Fleetwood-Smiths/Cricket with Balls fame) the most:
“Warner treated Vinay like someone who’d dated his sister twice, before dumping her when she refused to put out.”
It was cruelly harsh, but on the money, as Jarrod generally is.
I’ll happily admit that as recently as this time last year, I mentioned in spoken and quite possibly printed word, the now-mortal phrase, “David Warner will never play Test cricket.”
I just didn’t see how he could possibly adapt to the rigours and constant inquisition that goes with batting in the purest form of the game. At the time, Warner’s game was anything but pure. I’d never seen the guy bat in whites, but I was comfortable in my prediction. There was just no way it could happen.
Now, at this point, I could go on about how Warner did get a go for NSW playing Shield cricket, and he was taken to Zimbabwe on an Australia A tour on a Greg Chappell hunch, where he made more runs than they have room for in scorebooks, but the summary of events since that bold prediction is this:
Warner is now a Test batsman, and I was so very wrong about him. Sooooooo wrong.
After five Tests, Warner has raced to 383 Test runs at a very healthy average of 63.83 and an outrageous strike rate of 85 runs every hundred balls faced.
So with some extra time up our sleeves before the Fourth and final Test of the summer, let me throw this one out there:
Just how good a Test batsman might David Warner become?
I’ll try to apply a little bit of conservative logic and rationality in coming up with an answer.
Warner, right now, is 25. He’s a fairly humble sort of guy, and I get the impression that playing cricket means everything to him. Despite having earned fortune and fame the cricketing world over playing Twenty20, it’s plainly obvious that the Baggy Green is what he treasures most.
Already, it wouldn’t seem that unfeasible to suggest he has a ten-year Test career ahead of him. He’s pretty fit, and although he does have a bit of lower back trouble here and there, it’s nothing that’s so far prevented him from playing.
Australia currently plays around ten to twelve Tests per year, and according the ICC’s current version of the Future Tours Program (which admittedly, is far from concrete), are slated to play 96 Tests from the start of the upcoming West Indies tour right through to April 2020 (that’s the year, not the format).
Warner won’t play every one of those 96, but if we remove a factor of say, 15% for injury and maybe even form slumps, we’re still looking at him playing about 81 of those Tests already scheduled. Having already played five, and with a ten year career already established for this exercise, he’ll finish on as close-as-doesn’t-matter to 100 Tests.
Warner won’t get to bat twice in every Test he plays, and as was the case in Perth, he may well have himself to blame when he doesn’t. Former Australian openers Taylor, Slater, Hayden, Langer and Katich (Katich is now ‘former’, people, let it go – and yes, I know he wasn’t an opener his whole career, but just run with it) all batted twice in around 88% of Tests played, and that seems a fair figure. That would still give Warner about 175 opportunities to bat.
He won’t maintain his current sixty-plus batting average over his career. Let’s assume he’ll lose 15-and-a-bit from his current figure, and will settle around 48.5, which is still Harvey and Walters territory, among the very best batsmen to have ever donned the Baggy Green.
This sort of figure would probably still allow a bit of give and take for Tests played at home and away, and it wouldn’t be that surprising if he averaged as high as 53 in Australia. Everyone loves batting at home.
So let’s tot all this up. 175 innings at an average of 48.5 over ten years and 100 Tests will have him telling the grandkids about a stellar Test career that netted him something like 8485 runs.
By current records, this would place him above Mark Waugh and below Matthew Hayden, and have him ranked fifth on the list of Australia Test run-makers.
He already has two, and looking at those around him on the current list, anywhere up to 28 more Test centuries wouldn’t be out of the question, especially given his strike rate, which will almost certainly be high throughout his career.
This all might be completely wrong, of course.
But overall, it’s not too shabby a set of speculative numbers for someone who wasn’t supposed to play Test cricket. It seems I pre-judged and prematurely dismissed a future great of the game.
Klee Gluckman
Guest
Think Warner will be a 50 plus player, think he's awesome. He is a controlled hitter, he plays proper cricket shots. Great for the marketing of the game, will draw people back to test cricket as well.
AndyMack
Guest
He is the Mark Webber of the Aussie team. Well spoken, seems to be well liked, popular among fans of other teams, yet his record is somewhat less inspiring then others on the park/grid.
Brett McKay
Expert
Sheek, how am I supposed to argue with logic like this??
sheek
Guest
Brett, I was also one of those skeptical Warner would succeed at test level. I have watched the game too long now not to pre-empt anything. How a player starts his career usually has little correlation with how he ends it. An exception was Greg Chappell - centuries in first & last innings, & heaps in between. Doug Walters scored centuries in each of his first two tests, & was averaging around 83 after just 16 tests. He finished with a still credible 48 average. Greg Blewett scored centuries in his first two tests also, plus a double century, but in the end he underwhelmed us. As did Mark Waugh, another century on debut. His final batting average of 41 was way under what he was truly capable of. Remember Vinod Kambli? Sachin Tendulkar's childhood mate & schoolboy batting partner. Some say he was naturally more gifted than Tendulkar. He peeled off quite a few double & single 100s early in his career. But while Tendulkar remained grounded, it all went to Kambli's head. He still ended his career with an average over 50. But his career was truncated nevertheless. Most of us can surely remember the free-spirited Michael Slater of pre-1996. Centuries galore, all scored in entertaining fashion. Then the selectors decided to drop him, sending a message to curb his erratic batting. Note, they were worried about his loose batting, not the fact he was still scoring tons of runs. All it did was confuse & crush him. Although he eventually returned to the test team, he was no longer the same player as before. In that wonderful 2001 series against India, Gilchrist cracked a wonderful 122 in quick time in the 1st test, as Australia cruised to victory. His scores in the remaining two tests? - 1, 1, 0, 0.....! David Warner has succeeded beyond expectations. But if ever there is a truism in cricket - you're only as good as your last innings, or perhaps last few innings. Form is an elusive beast. It can disappear in a blink, & leave you wondering when it will return. Just ask Phil Hughes. Or Sean Marsh. Or Marcus North. All 3 started their careers gang-busters, before their form headed south. The early signs are good for Warner. Just as long as he doesn't lose his head.....
Brett McKay
Expert
Andy, you're spot on there, Warner is already falling into the rut of "worrying about my own game" and "hopefully I can help lay a platform" and so on. Cowan is still in that honeymoon period where he's still getting away with his honesty. I was at the press conference in Canberra where Cowan spoke after being named in the Boxing Day squad, and it was refreshing to hear honesty and insight from a sportsman. But he was also wary of what he was saying: at one point he was asked whether he found out the night before or that morning that he was in, and before giving his answer, Cowan turned to the CA media guy and just asked "um, did I find out last night or this morning?" On getting the nod, Cowan went on to tell how he found out the night before, and where he was, and who he was having dinner with, but he prefixed all that with "I believe in honesty in cricket, but I didn't want to get in trouble on my first day.."
Brett McKay
Expert
That's the whole thing about batting at 3 though, isn't it. You could be going in at 1-for-bugger-all, like Marsh did in Sydney, or at 1/214 like Perth. I do know what you're saying though, and there's crtainly a train of thought that perhaps the best "next no.3" isn't currently in the side..
AndyMack
Guest
Can I also suggest that Cowan handles the post- and pre-match interviews? A good partnership plays to their strengths. Not sure I can handle 175 more Warner post-innings interviews.
AndyS
Guest
Indeed. I guess my point is that whoever ends up at 3 better be a more than serviceable opener, as he may well be facing the second over with the score in double digits.
Brett McKay
Expert
Andy, if Watson had a string of hundreds as an opener, I'd probably agree with you that no.3 is his spot, but that's the thing, he just doesn't. In fact even when he does seemingly inevitably move down the order, he's still going to have to convert those starts more than he does. If by this time next year Watson still has less than half a dozen Test centuries, what will we be saying?
Brett McKay
Expert
oh James... :-(
AndyS
Guest
It is a tough one to call. He obviously has a great eye and timing, but they aren't that rare and don't make a Test player. On the evidence of the first day in Perth, I would have said he was no nearer being a Test batsman. To my mind, a Test openers primary responsibility is to see off the new ball and blunt the attack, then score runs. He obviously achieved that, but that first day the Indian bowling was so poor (apart from a briefly tighter spell from Sehwag and Sharma) that he could just lash away. Even then, he played at plenty that could have gone wrong and, if it had (and as it will), he would have fundamentally failed at his primary responsibility. That said, the signs on the second day were much better. The Indian bowling was considerably better, and Warner correspondingly developed a bit of discretion about what he played at. If he keeps that up, then who knows. It would be good if he made it, but I suspect I will always fear the worst when he walks out to bat. Maybe what we should do when Watson returns is play him at 3 - as often as not (at least), he may well be effectively opening anyway.
kai
Guest
never thought he'd open in tests but I was so of the opinion he could bat at 7 n hammer the opposition like Gilly used to do! I think he might cross 10000 runs easily. HE ADJUSTS. that's one thing most hitters don't do! He has patience n power but needs to develop consistency or else he'll end up with average around 40's
jameswm
Guest
Yes Brett, in terms of katich playing any more tests, that injury sure was his achilles heel.
Brett McKay
Expert
Chaos, I've still got a hunch that Ponting will pull it after Adelaide, but I'm running out of days for an announcement to be made. My theory is that he's got nothing left to prove. He's got the century monkey off his back, and so everything that he's never done (regain Ashes in England + win in India as captain) he no longer has the chance to do, and everything he can do, he's done before...
Chaos
Guest
Not a fan on Hilditch reign of being a selector, however dropping one of Katich, Ponting or Hussey was the right call. Katich got injured so he pulled the short straw. Just look at the turnover India is about to go through... Now for the next tour I would love one of Ponting & Hussey to do a Martyn or a Gilly and decide to retire on a high. You would hate for them to get tapped like Healy or Mark Waugh.
Chaos
Guest
Jacques and Elliot got injured and never where the same after they came back. However I fully agree on Hughes.
Chaos
Guest
Warner does apadt. His first hundred against NZ showed he doesn't just go and hit to cow corner every ball. Haddin is suffering because he isn't the greatest keeper and is now not scoring runs. He let alot of byes through when he took over from Gilly.
Chaos
Guest
Would you have said the same about Bob Massie? He only got to 6 tests. After one famous 16 for 137....
Chaos
Guest
Though Watto and Hughes got close in South Africa to 200 and I don't think either will open for a while. Hughes gone and Watto will slot into middle order. I made a comment on Twitter about Cowan that he was hiting with a strike rate of 80% and looked like a snail. In days of old that was hitting it out of the park! Warner just needs a Cowan type player to rotate the strike over and hit the bad balls away. He does that well...
Brett McKay
Expert
Johnno, whether Clarke was involved or not I really don't know or care about. Now don't get me wrong, it was a tough call on Katich at the time, but yeah, I agreed that it was the right call. At the time Katich wasn't in the side, he was a 36yo batsman battling an Achillies problem. I've said all along that all Katich did wrong was get injured and have a 33rd birthday. Had he been younger, it wouldn't have been an issue. Likewise, I said at the end of the Ashes last summer, and again before Boxing Day that perhaps that was time to make the same call on Ponting and Hussey. It would, again, be tough on both of them, but it would be the right call. I'm comfortable with them remaining in the team because I enjoy watching both of them (as I did Katich), but it would've been the right decision if it was made at the times I called for it. It's probably still right from now on anyway. But the point I keep making about Katich now is that recalling him would be a backward step. Like it or not, he's not been scoring heavily for NSW, and as I found out myself in the leadup to retirement, he's not getting younger. It is time to move on from Katich, and it is time to let the romantic notion of his recall go mate...