Can Warner be Australia's best-ever Test opener?

Ronan, I'm talking specifically about Warner, not the Aus team, which has done brilliantly from pretty near rock bottom only 8 months ago. I freely admit that I loathed Hayden and thought he was a blot on the game - this may have slightly coloured my judgement! As for Warner, well, he's the kind of player that would have the punters in the Tavern emptying out in the old days - and he certainly seems to have moved on from the T20 specialist. I'm keen to watch his progress. Makes me wonder if England should do the same with Hales after his knock yesterday.

Except we've seen ones where the batsman has been given not out and they've reviewed straight away, knowing they didn't hit it. Nothing has come up on hot spot or snicko, and yet the on field decision has been upheld because the lack of evidence of an edge is not considered positive proof of a non-edge and therefore they don't overturn the decision. Of course, on that argument it will never happen as it's pretty well impossible to have positive proof of something not happening, but nonetheless that's how the decisions have been made pretty consistently.

The best example that I can give for the DRS favoring the batsmen was during the recent SA test series when Lyon and Rogers were both caught behind but given not out and SA didn't review because they weren't 100% sure, when the replays clearly showed they were out, but if they were given out, the batsmen, knowing for sure they were out, wouldn't of reviewed, so, in my opinion, apart from the occasional exception, the bowler has more to lose than the batsman with DRS.

I don't know about DRS favouring the batsmen. If they get given out caught when they didn't hit it and DRS shows no sign of an edge they are often still given out (plus the loss of review) because of the lack of "positive" evidence of not hitting it. With LBWs it manages to remove a bit of the benefit of the doubt leeway for the batsmen. Things in the past like a ball spinning massively back in to a batsman padding up and while it might be hitting the stumps, there's always enough doubt to give it not out, but teams can refer them and get the dismissal. I think Murali got a number of them towards the end of his career when DRS first started coming in. Other than those couple of things it's pretty neutral I think. Plus, while there have always been players who've been extremely good fieldsmen, I think the overall quality of team fielding has generally improved to the point where a lot more runs would get saved than would have in the past. Overall it's just so difficult to properly compare between eras, and players perform against the opposition they faced at the time with the tools available at the time.

I have to agree with Ronan on the 20 year comparisons, the shorter boundaries alone would account for at least the 5 runs and probably save batsmen from being caught on the boundary a few times during their career, not to mention the stronger bats, I also think the DRS favors the batsmen, especially the caught behinds because they generally know for sure if they hit it or not so they don't waste as many reviews as the bowlers.

Well Warner could be in the future, a bit premature at the moment but if he keeps doing this he will be a certainty but Ponsford and Hayden quite a way ahead in the all time opener question so far. Is is just a coincidence that his name starts with the letters Warne ????

Out of interest Ronan, does that mean you wouldn't include Thommo as a legend (albeit in a different era)? His stats are almost identical to Goughy's.

I would also disagree with that Ronan. Its using the same logic trying to suggest Tendukar was as good as if not better than Bradman because of supposed better bowling he faced as many have been suggesting. Any player who maintains a 50+ test batting average these days is, in my mind as good as those 20 years ago. That's why there are so few of them in Australia at present. Its very hard to achieve and only Clarke has achieved it in the present side. Bowling and batting standards do fluctuate, but only in the short term, say two or three years, and then the next group of top players have established themselves,. The standard of the game is always improving but the averages remain fairly consistent as batsmen up their level of expertise to meet the new challenges, when seen over decades. And it further amuses me when supporters of certain batsmen like Tendukar and Lara, describe them as, along with Bradman, being the best ever. Certainly with the expertise of today those two would be of Bradman's standard in the 1930s. But Bradman would still stand out like a beacon if he had the same training in todays world. The ability doesnt change, only the skill levels and training. And if they were talking about the best over the past 2-3 decades I'd agree Tendulkar and Lara were the best of that age. But there are champions in every age and batsmen like Graeme Pollack, Headley, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Sobers and Hobbs, were just as dominant in their age and perhaps a few were even better for their time Only Bradman though stands out alone at the top. Skill levels, training, fitness etc are always improving the game and making the players raise their standards ever higher. But their ability generation by generation remains fairly consistent. And you can see that by way of batting averages now and 20 or 50 years ago. Not much different

How can u say that, Are u biased because Warner is not your average sedate opener. Sth Africa is the best fast bowling attack in the world and DW ripped them to bits - what more can he do? I have said this many times that great batsman that Morris was he never got runs against real fast bowling. Against the English geriatric postwar attack he got runs. But even Bill Edrich on occasions opened t pomme attack and he rarely bowled for his own county Middlesex iMorris against Tyson and Statham was a complete failure except in the 1st Test when on a shirtfront wicket he got a hundred but in 7 other digs he only got about 70 runs.DW belted Morkel when all the other batsmen with the exception of Steve Smith could not cope with the height and pace of Morkel .By the was Ponsford was afailure in the bodyline series and was even dropped.

Maxwell could be a test player in a year or two. He's already got a FC 41 average at 25 years so he's on song. I doubt Finch will make it though. 27.5 FC average at 27. He has a lot of catching up to do and a lot in his FC game he needs to correct. Miracles happen, but I seriously doubt he'll make it.

I suspect Doran may be better than anyone we have playing for us now when he matures. Just a gut feeling? Along with outstanding averages for someone that age. I suspect he'll be better than Maddinson, whod I think has a lot of Doug Walters about him (as does Maxwell but not quite as good). And I think Maddinson, despite his slow season, is the best young batsman on the rise not playing tests yet. Had a downer series, but still competitive. He'll go away and sort out his demons. I knew and said this Shield season would see the rise of some potentially special batsmen, after such disappointing seasons. I think it will be even more impressive in the next Shield season

That's a bit unfair Ronan. What about Darren Gough?

Most improved batsman of all time. If Finch and Maxwell follow his lead? And adapt to test cricket? Look out other test teams.

I don't know about that. The top bowlers still have averages in the mid-to-low 20s, and the good, but not great ones in the high 20s to low 30s. That's pretty much as it has been for years. I think the difference is more in one day cricket where the pitches are generally made as flat as possible. Modern bats don't hit the ball further off the middle, (I'm still yet to see anyone outdo Mark Waughs six onto the roof of the WACA stand), the big difference is how far the ball travels when it isn't middled. That means that batsmen probably are less afraid to try and clear fieldsmen on the boundary as a slight mishit has a good chance of still clearing them. In test cricket that's less pronounced. In fact, it can mean that balls that wouldn't have carried to the fieldsmen in the past are now more likely to.

Bearfax, I'd love to see someone like Doran come through. But someone like Maddinson was in that position 4-5 years ago and he's still struggling to come close to realising that potential. When Henriques was 17 he was in the NSW squad, had Captained Australia at under-age levels and was thought of very much as the next best thing, but 10 years later he's shown glimpses (like 140 in the shield final just gone) but never the consistency to be a top player. As such, I am loathe to elevate youngsters based on under-age results until we've seen if they can replicate it in the seniors. I actually think that sometimes there is too much under-age cricket and these teenagers aren't spending enough time just playing club cricket against the men, which could really help toughen them up and get them ready better than always playing other teenagers. However, I do suspect that in 5 years time there is a very good chance of there being one or more players in the Australian side who haven't made their first class debut's yet, and Doran is definitely a chance there.

Which of course, was not as good as the 80s with the West Indies attack, and then what about the 70s with guys like Lillee and Thompson, and then the 50s and 60s... It always looks like that looking back, because you see where players fit in "all time" status once they reach the end of their career. How many bowlers around at the moment might be remembered as all-time greats one day? It's really hard to know. Philander and Steyn may well both finish with 400+ test wickets, as may Johnson, Pattinson, Anderson, Broad and plenty others. The really good spinners around in countries like Pakistan probably won't simply because they don't play enough tests but play a lot more T20 than anyone else. The point being that in 20 years time it's quite possible people will look back on this era and say "there were so many better bowlers back then than there are now" just as people do at the moment. Just as people did during the '95-2005 era.

So they are the best attack when they play teams that they are able to dominate, but when they play a team that plays them well they are a pale shadow of the best attack. England came into the Ashes in Australia with many people saying how England were better in basically every area of the game and Australia would have to raise their game a lot to just come close to competing but they didn't see any real chance of them winning the series. Australia then thrash England, and everyone start saying that it wasn't because Australia were good, but England simply weren't a very good team who gave in way too easily, and Australia would get found out when they played South Africa. Australia then went to South Africa and won pretty convincingly, and instead of congratulating these players on doing so well, away against the top rated attack in the world, this win is also downplayed suggesting South Africa were just far from their best rather than Australia doing well because they simply played better. So now the next thing is that they may have beaten a "pale shadow" of the true South African team, but they'll get found out against Pakistan's spinners in the UAE. So many people who are never happy to give the Australian team, or any of the players, any credit. Someone like Philander likes dictating terms to batsmen, Warner never allowed him to, but rather went after him and put him off his game and from then on he was quite ineffective. South Africa played as well as the Aussies allowed them to play. Sure Steyn got injured in the third test, but Australia were so far ahead in that match that having Steyn may well have just meant that Australia's innings would be slightly shorter which would mean that it wouldn't have come down to the wire with South Africa coming close to saving the match.