Also graeme someone told me in the dons era they had to face new balls every 20 to 30 overs. the bats were nothing like now. Warner and co get to use thick power clubs. That thing called the war and 9 years out in prime must have had quite a large effect on the stats too. Its like comparing rod laver to the great tennis players today pointless. They did it much harder on so many levels. The fact bradman has three top scores inside the top 10 aussie totals is even more remarkable really . there will never be another like him
I believe bradman used to face a new ball ever 20 to 30 overs too which made batting harder much of the time chris. Not to mention someone has pointed out poor protective gear (body line really brusied them up more, playing through pain barriers would have been harder due to less protection ) , the omission of 9 to 10 key years due to the war out of his cricket record in his prime and thin bats (warner and co get to use thick power bats now) . So many other factors back then too medicine and science was so far behind as was conditioning diet and they had to work other day jobs too. Comparisons are silly but fact bradman can be in the top ten list of aussie scores 3 times on top of that speaks for itself.
the short answer is yes, he definitely gave warner an extra few mins to get bradman /taylor score. He said it himself. It was sort of my point in the beginning general. Im sure at the time you must have felt some confusion over the decision like many did as he’d already let him go on . Funny enough chris and I may have hit the nail on the head in saying they could have gone to tea and it would then be silly to bring the team out again only to change it . Warner would have passed most of the other foreign greats and no damage done to tea. It was truly the night session we needed the new ball at. It would have been similar to a taylor dec then i.e. don’t bother bringing the team out again after a proper session stoppage. A day and a good part of session was an early finish and It was a little predictable against pakistan, the weather was only going to be ropey for two sessions the next day and we were making up overs. Maybe would have lost one full session . Anyway we will never know how far warner would have gone now. Lets just agree it was a great knock because it was. On to perth we go. Im considering one rotation there actually lets move on to perth. The kiwis are surely going to be more interesting to play
There is a difference and taylor was a very good captain for me he still had a choice. I just think it was an odd time declare. Agreed we wanted most of the night session. I was honestly really surprised by the declaration at that point, I think most people were actually and had a really good look at the weather. Warner may have got past a lot of foreign batsman and got in just behind lara and hayden. To that extent we compare it to taylors dec, perhaps if paine had taken it to tea it then would have been egotistical to bat further coming out again. That would be similar to taylors position a bit more for me tactically at least. No point bringing the field out to change it again after the dinner break , but hmm say warner was 380 at tea, 20 off the world record surely you’d let him do it given the series win was ours. We will never know now. We wouldn’t have lost any ground batting to tea for me and warner would be sitting right behind Hayden id say although he was scoring really quickly after 300
I must admit to thinking they would probably have wanted to leave the declaration until a bit later, actually purely from a D/N game point of view. Taking the new ball around half an hour after the dinner break thus giving you the brand new ball as the lights are fully taking effect. That's the main reason why I'd have thought they might have wanted to bat on a bit longer.
But surely you can admit that there's a big difference between delaying a declaration by a few overs in the middle of the second session on day 2, and actually coming out and batting again the next day when you've already batted the first two complete days, and it's the right time to declare, but you just want to come out and break some records.
Pierro, agree with Paul. In the interview with Langer after the game, he said there was a set time to declare at 5.40 I believe. They were a couple of minutes over. Did Paine give Warner those couple of minutes to pass Bradman and Taylor? If that was so I am not in full agreement with it. Also he had to declare around that time with the weather forecast as it was, and 60 Test championship points for us if we won the game (nothing if we drew). Ok so the rain did not come as expected, but no one is God. What would you have said if it turned out that the game was drawn, and the couple of hours extra for Warner cost us the win. TC points are more important than any personal record for Warner.
Actually, I think he was 226 when caught off the no ball. And it was basically a chanceless innings to that point. So he batted pretty well. One thing I can't get about the whole "passed Bradman's record" thing isn't whether it's Taylor or Bradman's record, it's neither. Hayden has the record. I can't remember ever hearing something that's the equal second best of something ever being referred to as a record except because it's Bradman.
Certainly Bradman played in a different era, there's so much that can't be compared. Of course he didn't have the benefit of modern day sports science, mind you, neither did the bowlers he faced. But it doesn't really matter, his big record is the overall average and incredible ratio of hundreds to innings and big ones at that which will never be surpassed. But overall top score, total runs scored in career, things like that, lots of people go past, and that's fine. We don't need to get all defensive about those things.
One thing interesting to look at some time is the list of fastest double hundreds in test cricket. The fastest by balls are all reasonably modern, but going back further (to Bradman's era certainly) they didn't record balls faced, so you only have fastest by time, but there were a lot of doubles scored back in the oldern days that, by time, were significantly quicker than the quickest by balls in modern times. There was some pretty fast scoring in those days. 8-ball overs might have helped get more balls bowled in the same space of time, but they still went pretty quick. One of Bradman's triples came in three sessions. Think of the hype when Warner managed a hundred in a session a few seasons back. Bradman basically did that three sessions in a row. Some of those innings must have been awesome to watch!
Still taylor chose not to come back out the next day chris. He made a choice to declare the next day he could have gone on if he wanted to. Of course he would have looked even worse agreed but he did make a choice . Someone rightly pointed out there were three or four more batsman just above taylor and bradmans mark. More I think about it just seemed silly to declare so early he could easily have bat till dinner and got to laras but definitely another three or four batsman actually . Paine went past his alloted time. To me they just just wanted the second australian place. It doesn’t totally sound like putting team before individual entirely. On another note, This article is click bait. I notice theres a few videos on here that are posted to do that. Perhaps more comedy/wind up though
Paul paine actually went past the time he alloted for warner to make runs by his own account. Thus he put the individual in front of the team on that basis
Actually paine went over the allotted time he had made by his own account he put the individual before the team and allowed warner extra minutes going back on his word and plan for the team . Paine has acknowledged this. Im not buying all this concern about the rain, when I looked at the forecast it was two sessions to be lost at most with overs given back and given the bowling we have right now which is lethal at Adelaide DN. Should have gone for it. Warner was scoring quickly. Once again all the talk is about bradmans record which makes me laugh. Warner should not be mentioned in the same breath at Bradman who has three scores in the top ten. The article here is click bait though
He’s certainly riding his fair share of luck with no balls but he was already on 150 anyway by then so it was already a great knock.
We need an article on labuschagne , he was top bat at brisbane and a huge innings at adelaide . He saved our hind at lords in the last session actually which also allowed us to draw the series when smith was out.
On Warner once again its all about bradmans record despite people telling me its taylors record he broke. Im just shocked he’s mentioned in the same breath as bradman who has three top 10 australian innings and made his away at headingly . What bradman did given the bat being thinner, lack of modern day sports science , diet and conditioning on foreign soil was miraculous and today someone posted he had to face a new ball every 10 to 15 overs apparently. Im guessing most would agree with that though. Time to move on and acknowledge a great innings by warner. This article was rubbish if not slightly funny given how serious every one is about warner right now
So wickets not as good could play in the batsman favour too, giving the bowlers nothing. Bowlers I assume were not as fast then as they are now. Today we have highly trained atheletes on elite training programs. Trying to compare two completely different and vastly contrasting eras is a fools game. Bradman was the best of his time. Smith seems to be the best in his time, with Warner, when he is on, also up there.
Any knob that is suggesting that the record be corrected needs an uppercut. Shall we go back and award NZ the World Cup for incorrectly counting the over-throws as 6 instead of 5? Should we go back and double check for all the no balls that aren’t called and give them a run even though the balls cannot be bowled again?
He did pass 334 because the Umpire said so.
Not sure one single right minded person has suggested Warner’s innings makes him better than Bradman. Who exactly are you directing this highly impassioned, but utterly unnecessary defence toward?
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Also graeme someone told me in the dons era they had to face new balls every 20 to 30 overs. the bats were nothing like now. Warner and co get to use thick power clubs. That thing called the war and 9 years out in prime must have had quite a large effect on the stats too. Its like comparing rod laver to the great tennis players today pointless. They did it much harder on so many levels. The fact bradman has three top scores inside the top 10 aussie totals is even more remarkable really . there will never be another like him
Pierro
Roar Rookie
I believe bradman used to face a new ball ever 20 to 30 overs too which made batting harder much of the time chris. Not to mention someone has pointed out poor protective gear (body line really brusied them up more, playing through pain barriers would have been harder due to less protection ) , the omission of 9 to 10 key years due to the war out of his cricket record in his prime and thin bats (warner and co get to use thick power bats now) . So many other factors back then too medicine and science was so far behind as was conditioning diet and they had to work other day jobs too. Comparisons are silly but fact bradman can be in the top ten list of aussie scores 3 times on top of that speaks for itself.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
the short answer is yes, he definitely gave warner an extra few mins to get bradman /taylor score. He said it himself. It was sort of my point in the beginning general. Im sure at the time you must have felt some confusion over the decision like many did as he’d already let him go on . Funny enough chris and I may have hit the nail on the head in saying they could have gone to tea and it would then be silly to bring the team out again only to change it . Warner would have passed most of the other foreign greats and no damage done to tea. It was truly the night session we needed the new ball at. It would have been similar to a taylor dec then i.e. don’t bother bringing the team out again after a proper session stoppage. A day and a good part of session was an early finish and It was a little predictable against pakistan, the weather was only going to be ropey for two sessions the next day and we were making up overs. Maybe would have lost one full session . Anyway we will never know how far warner would have gone now. Lets just agree it was a great knock because it was. On to perth we go. Im considering one rotation there actually lets move on to perth. The kiwis are surely going to be more interesting to play
Pierro
Roar Rookie
There is a difference and taylor was a very good captain for me he still had a choice. I just think it was an odd time declare. Agreed we wanted most of the night session. I was honestly really surprised by the declaration at that point, I think most people were actually and had a really good look at the weather. Warner may have got past a lot of foreign batsman and got in just behind lara and hayden. To that extent we compare it to taylors dec, perhaps if paine had taken it to tea it then would have been egotistical to bat further coming out again. That would be similar to taylors position a bit more for me tactically at least. No point bringing the field out to change it again after the dinner break , but hmm say warner was 380 at tea, 20 off the world record surely you’d let him do it given the series win was ours. We will never know now. We wouldn’t have lost any ground batting to tea for me and warner would be sitting right behind Hayden id say although he was scoring really quickly after 300
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I must admit to thinking they would probably have wanted to leave the declaration until a bit later, actually purely from a D/N game point of view. Taking the new ball around half an hour after the dinner break thus giving you the brand new ball as the lights are fully taking effect. That's the main reason why I'd have thought they might have wanted to bat on a bit longer. But surely you can admit that there's a big difference between delaying a declaration by a few overs in the middle of the second session on day 2, and actually coming out and batting again the next day when you've already batted the first two complete days, and it's the right time to declare, but you just want to come out and break some records.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
Pierro, agree with Paul. In the interview with Langer after the game, he said there was a set time to declare at 5.40 I believe. They were a couple of minutes over. Did Paine give Warner those couple of minutes to pass Bradman and Taylor? If that was so I am not in full agreement with it. Also he had to declare around that time with the weather forecast as it was, and 60 Test championship points for us if we won the game (nothing if we drew). Ok so the rain did not come as expected, but no one is God. What would you have said if it turned out that the game was drawn, and the couple of hours extra for Warner cost us the win. TC points are more important than any personal record for Warner.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Actually, I think he was 226 when caught off the no ball. And it was basically a chanceless innings to that point. So he batted pretty well. One thing I can't get about the whole "passed Bradman's record" thing isn't whether it's Taylor or Bradman's record, it's neither. Hayden has the record. I can't remember ever hearing something that's the equal second best of something ever being referred to as a record except because it's Bradman. Certainly Bradman played in a different era, there's so much that can't be compared. Of course he didn't have the benefit of modern day sports science, mind you, neither did the bowlers he faced. But it doesn't really matter, his big record is the overall average and incredible ratio of hundreds to innings and big ones at that which will never be surpassed. But overall top score, total runs scored in career, things like that, lots of people go past, and that's fine. We don't need to get all defensive about those things. One thing interesting to look at some time is the list of fastest double hundreds in test cricket. The fastest by balls are all reasonably modern, but going back further (to Bradman's era certainly) they didn't record balls faced, so you only have fastest by time, but there were a lot of doubles scored back in the oldern days that, by time, were significantly quicker than the quickest by balls in modern times. There was some pretty fast scoring in those days. 8-ball overs might have helped get more balls bowled in the same space of time, but they still went pretty quick. One of Bradman's triples came in three sessions. Think of the hype when Warner managed a hundred in a session a few seasons back. Bradman basically did that three sessions in a row. Some of those innings must have been awesome to watch!
Paul
Roar Guru
fair call Pierro, but it certainly wouldn't have been too long after he was going to declare? Minutes, not hours, in other words.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Still taylor chose not to come back out the next day chris. He made a choice to declare the next day he could have gone on if he wanted to. Of course he would have looked even worse agreed but he did make a choice . Someone rightly pointed out there were three or four more batsman just above taylor and bradmans mark. More I think about it just seemed silly to declare so early he could easily have bat till dinner and got to laras but definitely another three or four batsman actually . Paine went past his alloted time. To me they just just wanted the second australian place. It doesn’t totally sound like putting team before individual entirely. On another note, This article is click bait. I notice theres a few videos on here that are posted to do that. Perhaps more comedy/wind up though
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Paul paine actually went past the time he alloted for warner to make runs by his own account. Thus he put the individual in front of the team on that basis
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Actually paine went over the allotted time he had made by his own account he put the individual before the team and allowed warner extra minutes going back on his word and plan for the team . Paine has acknowledged this. Im not buying all this concern about the rain, when I looked at the forecast it was two sessions to be lost at most with overs given back and given the bowling we have right now which is lethal at Adelaide DN. Should have gone for it. Warner was scoring quickly. Once again all the talk is about bradmans record which makes me laugh. Warner should not be mentioned in the same breath at Bradman who has three scores in the top ten. The article here is click bait though
Pierro
Roar Rookie
He’s certainly riding his fair share of luck with no balls but he was already on 150 anyway by then so it was already a great knock. We need an article on labuschagne , he was top bat at brisbane and a huge innings at adelaide . He saved our hind at lords in the last session actually which also allowed us to draw the series when smith was out. On Warner once again its all about bradmans record despite people telling me its taylors record he broke. Im just shocked he’s mentioned in the same breath as bradman who has three top 10 australian innings and made his away at headingly . What bradman did given the bat being thinner, lack of modern day sports science , diet and conditioning on foreign soil was miraculous and today someone posted he had to face a new ball every 10 to 15 overs apparently. Im guessing most would agree with that though. Time to move on and acknowledge a great innings by warner. This article was rubbish if not slightly funny given how serious every one is about warner right now
JamesH
Roar Guru
Perfect summary. This stuff about the short run is just clickbait.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
So wickets not as good could play in the batsman favour too, giving the bowlers nothing. Bowlers I assume were not as fast then as they are now. Today we have highly trained atheletes on elite training programs. Trying to compare two completely different and vastly contrasting eras is a fools game. Bradman was the best of his time. Smith seems to be the best in his time, with Warner, when he is on, also up there.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Any knob that is suggesting that the record be corrected needs an uppercut. Shall we go back and award NZ the World Cup for incorrectly counting the over-throws as 6 instead of 5? Should we go back and double check for all the no balls that aren’t called and give them a run even though the balls cannot be bowled again? He did pass 334 because the Umpire said so.
Justin Kearney
Roar Rookie
That’s my point. We’ll never know.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
Warne wasn't playing and Warner doesn't get to decide when to declare, that's up to the captain
Mitcher
Guest
Not sure one single right minded person has suggested Warner’s innings makes him better than Bradman. Who exactly are you directing this highly impassioned, but utterly unnecessary defence toward?
Mitcher
Guest
I can’t believe you actually gave this rebuttal in a serious manner. Reconsider your life choices.
Paul
Roar Guru
What do the cricket records show? Technically or otherwise :laughing: