Fact: David Warner is the world's best batsman

Whoa good little stat that one did not know that. Good article Ronan!

On the contrary Don, I do respect other's points of view and love to see another pooint of view. But it must be backed up with fact, not just opinion. Opinions, without fact may as well be fantasy, superstition. Anyone can say something no matter how inane just off the top of their head. But what makes these forums interesting is fact based opinions, opinions that have the backing of support evidence. I've often complemented some on their points of view because they are impartial and well considered. Even Aransan here is trying to argue a reasonable point about Marsh's poor conversion rate and his need to overcome those deficiencies. Good point, though I would suggest he's had over a decade to work on it at first class level. However it is possible as shown by Cowan's effort in the past 2 years. He has addressed areas that were getting him out early and suddenly, though I was one of his greatest crictics in tests, he has remade himself as another poster has indicated and looks the goods, got his averages up. Marsh hasnt done that and until he does, he's in my mind a poor choice for a test spot.

Bearfax, I am prepared to give Shaun Marsh the benefit of the doubt. His averages in the past have been pulled down by the frequency of early failures in his innings. So long as he can demonstrate that he has overcome that deficiency his past averages should not be held against him and I am sure the sectors are thinking along those lines.

It has taken a while, Bear, but it is finally clear to me that you have no interest in what someone else is saying...you just want to reiterate a point you have made before. You are not close to understanding what I am arguing. For a start, to tell me what I want in a test team indicates that lack of understanding. I have stated what I want, what I prefer. Leave the essays and just choose to disagree. Your position comes from a limited perspective.

See again you misconstrue what is being said about stats Don and its getting tiresome trying to explain it. I'll try once again. No one is saying stats alone should determine selection. What is being said is that stats are by far the best guide in selection but they have to be seen in the context of age, pitch condition they are used to, form, experience against a broad range of bowling etc (I've said all this before). But you dont throw stats out the window just because someone shows good form and you like them and that's what the selectors and you as well are professing. Form is important but surely it must be seen in the context of a players overall average especially over recent years. Sure averages can mislead sometimes in the long term especially when players age or suffer debilitating injuries. Watson's first class average was achieved when he was much younger and is misleading because in recent years he is averaging in the mid 30s in first class averages, so sure there are other factors to consider. I've said this before several times and I'll say it again. You should be choosing your test players from the group of top averaging players, otherwise what you are getting is someone in a purple patch who will on average return back to his normal level. For example Shaun Marsh may score a couple of big tons but then based on his average, which is really about consistency, he will score over time in a manner that will take is average back to the mid 30s. Averages, especially when discussing experienced players is about consistency, not irregular big attractive scores Now someone like Mitch Marsh you may take a risk on, even though I think its a bit early for him because he is young and developing so his averages ie consistency will improve with experience. That's what stats tell you. So taking the risk, though perhaps a little premature, is worth the risk. Not for someone 31 years old who is fully experienced and is unlikely to improve. So surely you use stats to choose from the best averaged, or most consistent players taking in consideration age/experience/development of course. Based on that principle you would be looking at Burns, Lynn, Cosgrove, Voges, Khawaja, Cowan Maxwell, because they are the batsmen with 40+ averages. Then you choose FROM that group the player you feel is going to be best for the team based on form/age/ experience etc. You may even on age look at sub 40 average batsmen like Carters, Cooper, etc who based on the law of averages you would expect to improve given age. If you dont do that what you get is a lower performing player over time in your side. What it means for example is that for every 42 runs Burns scores on average, Shaun Marsh will only score 36. And the big talk is how in form Marsh is after 7 first class innings averaging 61.8. But Burns 9 innings is averaging 54.9 which no one is really discussing. And I've already shown that Voges and Cowan with better averages overall and this season are being negated by you and the selectors. Surely in a test team you want a) consistency of scoring b) a strong scoring average to go along with your consistency c) a developing well averaged young player, over a medium experienced averaging player. Again stats are not the only factor. But they should come first in selection consideration and then look at age, form etc to choose the best suited at a particular time. That is not happening. But then I am applying logic, not emotion

Its getting very repetitive! - surely time to move on

Point taken Ronan. But of course though he wasnt playing first class cricket, he was playing lower grade and also one day matches, so he was still accumulating experience, even if not at first class level.

Just getting a little perspective on the issue Ronan. I had no doubt you knew the information but others may not have.

Exactly Ronan. People with their appreciation of cricket and cricketers dictated solely by Statsguru just don't seem to grasp that point. It would be easy to select a world 11 based on stats alone that would be beaten in 2 days by the current Aussie test side. Relevant form is not 2, 3 or 4 years old or older. Maybe Gary Cowmeadow should be in the side because of his wonderful all round season in 1979. Les Varis and Les Joslin had breakout years in 1968...the stats say so.

On the contrary Joel I am being quite consistent with the issue of stats. I never suggested that stats alone told the story. I've said for example time and again that you cant compare the stats of a 30 year old with a 21 year old or a 25 year old. The latter two are developing and we should see their figures in context. Players of the same age and experience can be compared more easily with straight stats. I also pointed out that form has a bearing. Further it is easier to compare players in the Sheffield Shield than international matches, because in the Sheffield Shield ground conditions are comparatively similar compared to overseas tracks and players are playing each other year by year. Easier to compare performances. Not as easy when talking about different grounds internationally. Warner plays better on tracks like we have here and in South Africa. Khan is better suited with tracks on the subcontinent and Dubai. Both have similar advantages and disadvantages. My argument was not to disparage Warner who I consider potentially one of our best all time batsmen. It was to get into perspective our view of Younis Khan, who is also an excellent batsman. To suggest Khan has an advantage because of sub continent grounds is being parochial. He struggles on our grounds and South Africa just as Warner struggles on the sub continent because both Warner and Khan were raised on different ground conditions. Of course Warner may in time achieve better figures elsewhere but we are talking about here and now. And to answer Don's enquiry and put to bed suggestions that Khan can only bat on the subcontinent. his averages as I have assessed show in the West Indies he averages 40.05, New Zealand 65.14, England 53.25 Zimbabwe 61.1, South Africa 39.68 and Australia 43.16. Overall when playing away except in Dubai/Abu Bhabi, he averages 47.46. On the subcontinent he averages 55.13 and at Dubai/Abu Dhabi he averages 71.1. I believe these figures confirm my position.

Bear, every batsman scores more runs at home than others and average higher in some countries than others. Your argument whilst understandable is inherently flawed. You are choosing to do what you have criticised others of doing, in ignoring figures to suit your argument. We have already established that up until a bit over a year ago Warner's average was 36, so the figures you use are perfectly in line with the opportunities he had to score runs prior to the end of the ashes series in england. You are correct in saying we need to see if he can keep it up in the ashes etc. BUT you should at least concede that Warner has made the most of every opportunity to score runs in his last 10 or so test matches in different countries and conditions.

True enough Joel. But most of his recent big scores have been here and in South Africa, He only played two tests recently in Dubai (which is not actually the sub continent but I'll acknowledge the wickets were probably similar) and he did score 133 in one innings. But he scored 29, 19 and 58 in the other three. He's going through a purple patch at present and the period is too short to suggest he has made such a big jump. Lets wait for a few more test series and see what happens. The point is based on figures so far and it shows that he does significantly better in Australia and South Africa, than he does elsewhere including England to date. That may change but at present it is consistent with my argument.

Fact: David Warner is the world’s best batsman You open yourself up to a lot of feedback on this one Ronan.... On the title...No David Warner is not the World's Best Batsmen. AB De Villiers is the Worlds Best bat. David Warner is the Worlds Form bat.

Bear, normally I agree with you on most things and I understand your argument here, but you have overlooked other factors around David Warner in particular. At the end of the last Ashes series, Warner averaged 36 in tests, which is perfectly in line with your stats. Since that series he has scored runs against all opponents he has faced including a century and a half century in the UAE on a slow low pitch when no other aussie batsman knew how to put up a fight.

Ah, Bear...it's good to read some of your more recent comments where you mitigate some averages, allowing variables so that pure black and white average is not the be all and end all. Sounds a lot more like cricket that way. I read somewhere that Younis' average away from the sub-continent is in the mid twenties. Would that be right?

Batsmen usually perform poorer away from their home turf. Khan is used to sub continent wickets, Warner to Australian wickets. Warner's home record averages 53.19 but his away record is 44.36. That away record is boosted by his performances on South African grounds that tend to be similar to Australian grounds. He averages 106.2 there. Without South African averages Warner's away average is a paltry 30.91. And on the sub continent including Dubai he averages 36.17. So if you are to critcise Younis for scoring his runs mainly on his own surfaces, the same must be therefore aimed at Warner, and probably most other batsmen, who are used to their own surfaces.

Of course Ronan, De Villiers was only 20 years old when he started in test cricket. Warner was 25 years old. That's a big factor in any statistical analysis, given Warner obviously would have been much better experienced and developed by the time he started test cricket than De Villiers was. De Villiers was only 23 by the time he had played 33 tests.