In the first Test against New Zealand, David Warner joined Ricky Ponting as the only Australian to score hundreds in both innings of a Test three times, with Sunil Gavaskar the only other player to achieve that feat.
Warner, like Gavaskar, has also batted through an innings – so far as I can see, the only other players who have both scored twin centuries and carried their bat are Warren Bardsley, Glenn Turner, Graham Gooch, Alec Stewart, Gary Kirsten, Grant Flower and Rahul Dravid.
I’m not saying they’ve done both of these things in the one game (I don’t think anyone has), but they’re the only ones to have done both at some points in their careers.
As a small sop to Kiwi cricket supporters, who can’t be in a terribly good place at the moment, Glenn Turner is actually unique here – he’s the only player ever to have scored twin hundreds (which he did once) and to have batted through twice.
You have to have been a pretty decent player to have batted through twice – the only other ones ever were Bill Woodfull, Len Hutton and Bill Lawry, and the only player ever to bat through three times was Desmond Haynes. But none of Woodfull, Hutton, Lawry or Haynes ever managed twin hundreds in a game.
If Warner can manage to bat through again at some stage he’ll really be in rarified company.
Warner’s other stat that should be mentioned is that he also has one of the all-time highest rates of getting to 50 (what I’ll call a ’50 rate’ – the proportion of times you get to 50 in all the innings you play).
If you look at the list of all-time highest Test run-getters on Cricinfo, everyone who has scored 5000 or more runs is listed – Warner doesn’t make that list yet.
If you look through that list, most of the players take around three to four innings to get a 50 – expressing their 50 rate as a decimal, that would be from 0.333 down to 0.25. Looking through the list, if your 50 rate is anywhere around 0.3, you’re a very good player.
As you might expect, Don Bradman is way ahead of everyone else on that list, with 42 scores of 50 or more in 80 innings, or a 50 rate of 0.525. So far as I can see, only two other players on that 5000-run list exceed a 50 rate of 0.4 – Jack Hobbs (0.4215) and Ken Barrington (0.4198).
Warner currently comes in at 0.3975. That’s 83 innings for 33 fifty-plus scores, which would put him next on that list, if he was on it. Of course, by the time Warner gets to 5000 runs his 50 rate might have gone backwards.
It also should be noted that some great players who did not get to 5000 runs above or very close to Warner’s 50 rate – Graham Pollock had 0.439 from 41 innings, Everton Weekes had 0.4198 from 81 innings, and Clyde Walcott 0.3918 from 74.
The outstanding one to mention in this context is Herbert Sutcliffe, who as well as being one of the handful to average above 60 after playing more than 20 Tests, also got to fifty no fewer than 39 times in 84 innings for a 50 rate of 0.4643 – putting him the closest I can see to Bradman.
However, looking at the list of players who have a better 50 rate than Warner and remembering that there’s no-one else between him and them suggests that Australia’s senior opener should be looked at as considerably more than just a good player.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
As always John, impeccable timing. After his knock of 244* today, you look like a genius.
JohnB
Guest
I can only agree that carrying your bat is one of those quirky stats and you're quite right that it doesn't necessarily mean much. Achieving it can easily be a matter of a happy combination of opportunity, circumstance and a bit of luck rather than pure quality. However, if you look down the list of players who have managed it, while a handful may have benefitted from being in pretty weak teams or from being at the other end from a massive and rapid collapse, most were simply very, very good players. Getting into that company probably therefore means something. As it happens, the innings Warner played when he batted through was about as good as you'd see in the circumstances - but it is equally true that it would have been only a tiny sliver less good an innings if he'd been the last man out instead of Lyon (or whoever it was). I think the "50 rate" is a handy shortcut indicator as to the quality of a batsman (just as the number of wickets taken per match is a simple one figure indicator for bowling quality). Anything better than 1 in 4 and you're at least a decent/good player, the nearer to 1 in 3 you get the better you are and once you get north of 1 in 3 you're in the very good range. Luckily, having had this published by the good people at the Roar, my copyright is already established!
chucked
Guest
I love watching him bat, it's a shame his social skills let him down on occasion. Lefties always look good to me
Pope Paul VII
Guest
He's not half bad. Enjoys his cricket too.
Gururobbo
Guest
There's something about watching Warner bat that just sucks you in. When he's in, I always enjoy watching him bat and cannot saeem to take my eyes away from the action. I always feel a sense of disappointment when he gets out. The only other cricketers that I have had the same about was KD Walters and SR Waugh.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Great article John. Not sure if the amount of times you carry your bat is an accurate marker of a great player- a) you have to be an opener b) you could be in a purple patch and do it two or even three times in one season and then be poor for the rest of your career c) if the rest of the team around you is regularly crumbling, then your chances of carrying your bat are much higher than if you are in a strong batting line up However, I love the concept of the '50 rate. That is a very good marker. You should copy write that before the statos at cricinfo claim it as their own.
JohnB
Guest
And Bradman doesn't even have the highest average for Australia!
McDougallberry
Guest
Stuart Law got to 50 every time he batted. That's a 1.0. Better than Bradman.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Comparing mid-career stats to complete-career stats I think is always a bit skewed, but I certainly believe Warner will end up one of our all time greatest batsmen. I believed that from the moment he first entered test cricket, and he's just confirmed it more and more as he's gone on. Far from a "flat-track bully" Warner has often played innings where he's looked completely untroubled in conditions where all the other batsmen have really struggled. He's one of those batsmen who can just look like he's playing on a different pitch to everyone else. Carrying your bat through an innings obviously is something only an opener can do, and obviously doesn't happen that often, but I can certainly see him adding to his record of hundreds in each innings simply because he's so good in the second innings, so whenever he gets a first innings hundred you always feel he's a good chance of doubling up in the second. The big difference I think we'll see over the next couple of years though will be him going big. I think Warner has really set himself to turn hundreds into big ones. He doesn't just want 100, he wants 200+. I think he was really annoyed with himself getting out in the first innings in Brisbane and missing out on the chance at 200 there, and I think whenever he gets that 100 up from now on we are really going to see a player with his sights on something much bigger.
JGK
Roar Guru
"You have to have been a pretty decent player to have batted through twice" Or you could just have rubbish team mates! I think for Turner it was a bit of each. Some good stats here. I don't think the "innings per 50" needs to be adjusted for not out scores less than 50 mind you. As for Warner, his consistency is greatly underrated, I agree.