David Warner has been playing one day internationals for almost twice the span of his Test career.
Yet, despite ODIs seemingly being tailor made for him, he has not been able to adapt to the format like he has Tests.
It was limited-overs cricket which vaulted the bombastic batsman onto the international scene six years ago. Famously, Warner had not even played first-class cricket when he made his T20 and ODI debuts for Australia in the space of a week in January of 2009.
It was almost three years before he managed to earn a baggy green cap. Within another three years he had become one of the most valuable Test batsmen on the planet, in rarefied air alongside AB de Villiers, Kumar Sangakkara and Hashim Amla.
After a period of lows on and off the field, in the summer of 2013-14 his Test game suddenly clicked. Soon he was vaporising the much-vaunted Test attack of the world’s number one team, South Africa, in their home conditions.
Now he owns a phenomenal 12 centuries from just 36 matches and appears destined to finish his career as a legend of Australian Test cricket.
Meanwhile, he just can’t make the same giant stride forward in ODIs, a format it seemed obvious he would flourish in before Tests.
We’ve seen this before. Two of Warner’s heroes, Michael Slater and Virender Sehwag, endured a similar struggle. Slater never survived it, with his ODI career perishing after just 42 matches with a meagre average of 24.
Like Warner, Slater was a prolific Test batsman who took on the new ball, batting with a rare freedom and belligerence. He could strike the ball to any part of the ground with startling power. In an era when Australia’s ODI and Test teams were almost identical, and old-school players like Mark Taylor were plodding along at a strike rate of 59, Slater appeared to be the prototype of the next-generation limited-overs batsman.
But, unable to find the right balance between circumspection and excessive aggression, he floundered. Slater was offered sustained opportunities in ODIs, more so than other players may have been afforded, because of his obvious potential and his feats in Test cricket.
Just after Slater’s brief ODI career came to an end we saw the emergence of a batsman who revolutionised the role of openers in Test cricket. Opposed even to legendary Test bowlers like Glenn McGrath or Shaun Pollock, Sehwag displayed not a skerrick of caution. He chanced his hand continually while doling out some fearful poundings to opposition attacks.
Many of us thought Sehwag, who averages more than 50 in Test matches at a strike rate in the 80s, should be unstoppable in ODIs.
He did have a fruitful ODI career and set several records along the way. But he never quite harnessed his gifts in ODIs the way it seemed he could have.
A career average of 35 did not befit the extraordinary talent he possessed. Sehwag could have stood alongside Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting and Jacques Kallis as one the truly elite ODI batsmen of his era. Instead, he was merely a very good player, rather than a champion.
Which path will Warner’s ODI career take? He has already bypassed the crash-and-burn outcome that Slater endured. But can he do what Sehwag never could and elevate himself to the level of an ODI great?
Sehwag and Warner have played plenty of cricket together with the Delhi Daredevils in the IPL. When the Indian maestro first caught sight of his Australian teammate in 2009 he told Warner he would be better at Test than T20 cricket. Like Sehwag himself, Warner would benefit from the attacking fields set in Tests which opened up many scoring opportunities.
Sehwag was prophetic. Warner has relished the chance to carve boundaries early in Test innings when the opposition often only has one man out. Why can’t Warner similarly exploit the first 15 overs of ODI matches, when only two fielders can be outside the circle and often they are at fine leg and third man? He scores at a strike rate of 75 in Tests. He need only score at a slighter higher clip in the first 15 overs of an ODI.
Where previously batting teams tried to sprint through that opening period of an ODI innings, taking full advantage of the fielding restrictions, the common approach now is more conservative. The advent of two new balls, combined with the ability of teams to score massively in the final 20 overs, means sides now prefer to cruise for the first 30 overs, keeping as many wickets in hand as possible.
Warner is yet to master this more responsible task given to opening batsmen, the same way he never conquered the role of dasher in the previous era of ODI strategies. Coming off an astounding 18 months of Test cricket, this World Cup shaped as Warner’s gateway to greatness.
So far his efforts have been underwhelming.
Putting aside his swashbuckling 178 against minnow nation Afghanistan, Warner has made just 86 runs from his other four innings. Meanwhile, his career average is identical to Sehwag’s at 35.
Surely, with all his talent and dedication, Warner’s career mark won’t stay at such a mediocre level. Surely he will learn how to transfer his immense gifts to the 50-over format.
Surely he will start this transformation by dismantling Pakistan’s attack today and then piling up runs in the semi final and decider to lead Australia to World Cup glory.
Hang on, that’s the fan in me speaking.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Agreed Don, it must be a blue moon.
JJ
Guest
Hug?
Don Freo
Guest
Nah..2/40 ...the game was won by then. Finch out, Marsh in. Clarke or Watson to open. When a batsman fails every time, you don't disturb the balance by changing.
Prosenjit majumdar
Guest
The answer is the shot he played today. throws it away too often.simple.
Gobbler
Guest
Back at you, champ.
BBA
Guest
I agree I prefer 50 over to T20. 50 over cricket allows for some ebbs and flows, in that you can have come backs, a fast start can be pegfged back etc. T20 is to quick someone in the top 3 has a gig 5 overs it can be very hard to peg back or you are just left with who slogged betetr over a short period of time. There just feels like so much more strategy in 50 over. However each to there own but anyone predicting 50 over to disappear over the next decade is drinking some mighty fine cool aid.
spruce moose
Guest
McCullum will need to score 100 first mate. As destructive as he is, he doesn't last long.
Don Freo
Guest
Gayle, Sehwag, McCullum, Gilchrist, Miandad, Bradman...all eye players who played with eyes and the hands with the feet following suit. Different strokes for different folk.
JJ
Guest
Time will tell, champ.
Renegade
Guest
ODI's are far better than T20.
Vic
Guest
An H - tsk tsk tsk......
jameswm
Guest
Nah I think you need an opener with some power, to hit boundaries while the field is up, but who can also handle swing bowling. Watto of the current squad is the best option.
Tanami Mehmet
Guest
Sorry Don it was a cheapie but I couldn't help it. Are you telling me he's a technical bat like Ponting, Tendulkar, Kallis, Sangakara or AB Devilliers? I put it to you he is an eye player with limited footwork. When an eye batsman lacks confidence runs dry up and they don't have much to fall back on. Why do you think h's always looking for trouble during games? It's his way of clearing the doubt all batsmen have to face. It clears his mind and turns on the aggression that allows him to bat at his best.
Jarijari
Guest
It's only a matter of time before someone scores 300 in a one-dayer. Warner and McCullum are the frontrunners. Gayle unlikely to last 50 overs and De Villiers comes in too late.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I have to agree too that Clarke would be a great foil for Warner at the top of the order. I can't see them dropping Finch at the moment though. He's only had one decent innings in this WC, and yes he was dropped on zero, but he's had a pretty decent last 18 months or so. But the fact that outside of Brendan McCullum, cricket seems to have moved from the smash and bash at the start to trying to tick it over a 5rpo or so without losing too many wickets and set it up for the last 20. In that regard Clarke would be perfect in that position. He's a busy player who just gets straight into it and keeps the scoreboard ticking over with plenty of ones and twos in between the boundaries. In fact, they could possibly even swap Finch further down the order like they have with Watson, get him away from the new ball. Open with Clarke and Warner, then Smith, Watson, Finch, Maxwell, Faulkner, Haddin etc.
Jarijari
Guest
''50 over cricket will be extinct within a decade.50 over cricket will be extinct within a decade.'' Not a snowflake's chance in hell JJ. India has billions of dollars worth of TV contracts locked in for the next eight years, up to 2023 World Cup. And that will be held in India. The contracts centre around one-dayers and Tests. T20s are just add-ons. From June to February next year India are scheduled to play 26 one-dayers against six countries. In March there's the 50-overs Asia Cup series. Each Test playing nation is still restricted to a maximum of three T20 internationals per domestic season -- to maximise the value of the IPL -- and that will continue for many years to come. One-dayers go for seven hours, T20s three and a half: twice as many ad breaks.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I don't think there are many people who would argue that Watson hasn't had an incredible ODI career. This story is talking about how Warner, who seems built for ODI cricket, has been rather awesome at test cricket but not quite converted that to ODI's. Watson on the other hand has been the opposite, an ODI career that for many years saw him as one of the top ODI cricketers in the world, but could never really live up to the potential in test cricket. As far as Watson right now is concerned, most people would agree that if we had Watson at his best then he needs to be in the team, but that he's struggled to show his best for the last 12-18 months. Hopefully his switch to the middle order can work well for him for the rest of this tournament as he can be that late-innings hitter required by that position.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It could be. A Verandah Segway could be a Segway specifically designed for riding around on Verandahs.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I must admit that I do like T20 for the domestic leagues. Things like the IPL and BBL, with their condensed tournament style work well. But at international level, outside the World T20 tournaments, international T20's are just some little thing thrown into a tour somewhere because they've got to do it these days. That being said, they'll still get good crowds to those matches. I think T20 is good, it's different, it's fun, but I also think it's managed to find it's place and that is very separate from 50-over and First Class / Test cricket, as another valid alternative, that doesn't actually need to compete with either of them. During the Australian summer it's great to watch the test match during the day and the BBL in the evening. It goes well. But at international level, I couldn't see a T20 tri-series working like the 50-over one for instance.
Don Freo
Guest
Unless it's one of those ride on scooter things...that's a Segway. Speaking of segues...