You're right; he's a seasoned veteran- only 180 Tests off Tendulkar.
Why would you pick an arbitary player who has played nearly three times the amount and compare them?
Warner is the vice captain- has played 54 Tests which is roughly 5 years of Test cricket he's averaging close to 50 and 5000 Tests runs,
I think 50 or Tests is when you really know your craft- similar time frame to 100 NRL games.
Cricket sucks.
Because it pains me to watch the people I hold dear subject themselves to such things.Why the **** are you commenting on it then?
So what? Is there nothing in between? So your a rookie until the final years of your career when you are then classed as a veteran?
So you are classing nrl players as rookies up until there 100th game?
Jesus, Oates is doing alright for a rookie.
So you are classing nrl players as rookies up until there 100th game?
Jesus, Oates is doing alright for a rookie.
I said after about 50 Tests you're a Test player. By that time you should have played nearly everywhere and had a chance to show you can play in all sorts of conditions and pitches and be successful.
Hazlewood hasn't played against India in India, he has bowled in four Ashes Tests, hasn't played against South Africa and has been on one tour to Asia and we got pumped 3-0 and he took seven wickets for those three Tests.
Of his 20 Tests, 10 are against New Zealand or the West Indies.
That's not experience.
20 Tests is the equivalent of one NRL season- would he still be a rookie if he was an NRL player?
Would you feel more comfortable on Thursday if we had a 400 wicket 85 Test quick in our attack? All the experience that brings.
Do you think Rabada after eight Tests could be learning anything from Morkel and Steyn? Who tally up 658 wickets as an opening act.
"Huh thanks guys but eight Tests check it out; I've got this under control."
I'd be interested to know your take on a one Sir Donald Bradman. He only ever played his tests in Australia & England & only played 52 tests. Under your criteria would he be considered successful?
How would he not be considered successful? I haven't once mentioned the word successful- I specially said I am not talking about ability just that 20 Tests is not experienced. So you pick the best batsman ever who played 20 years of Test cricket.
You have to view things in context.
He played in an era where you played 52 Tests and that was your career- he had to work during the day, He also had a war in the middle of his Test career which took six years. It also took 6 months to get anywhere and he played against the countries he could play against- West Indies, England, South Africa and India.
I have only been talking about experience and again he played Test cricket for 20 years.
I'd be interested to know your take on a one Sir Donald Bradman. He only ever played his tests in Australia & England & only played 52 tests. Under your criteria would he be considered successful?