The Investec Ashes 2013 July 25, 2013

I needed to be dropped - Warner

  shares 78

David Warner has admitted he needed the "kick up the bum" of being suspended and ultimately dropped from Australia's Test side after his punch at Joe Root in a Birmingham pub. Warner's ban over the incident cost him his place in the first two Investec Tests at Trent Bridge and Lord's but he is firmly back in contention for a recall in the third Test at Old Trafford after his 193 during the ongoing match against South Africa A in Pretoria.

Warner was sent on the Australia A tour of Zimbabwe and South Africa after being left out of the Trent Bridge Test as the Australian camp sought a way to get him some game time following his suspension. His punch at Root on a night out during the Champions Trophy ultimately led to the sacking of coach Mickey Arthur, but for Warner personally, losing his place in the national side after playing 19 consecutive Tests was a wake-up call.

"Sitting on the sidelines and copping that punishment and not being selected it was a thing that I needed," Warner said from South Africa. "I definitely needed a kick up the bum. It was my own fault the incident that happened. My job was then to support our players, support the rest of the group and do everything I could to help them prepare for the games. I did that and I know the other guys on the tour did the same thing. We've all been working very hard."

Warner's partnership with Ed Cowan at the top of Australia's Test order appears to have been permanently split, with Cowan having been dropped after the loss in Nottingham. If Warner returns at Old Trafford it will likely be at No.6, although his heavy scoring against South Africa A - 193 from 226 deliveries - came at No.4.

Although his scoring rate was typically quick, Warner impressed by surviving for more than five hours at the crease in Pretoria, against a South Africa A attack boasting the extremely promising pace pairing of Kyle Abbott and Marchant de Lange. His 193 was not his highest first-class score but it was his longest stay at the crease in quite some time, after a lean few months in all formats.

"I set myself a goal of wanting to bat three hours out there," Warner said. "I batted an hour in Zimbabwe and I decided here I'd just come in and be positive from the start and when the ball was there to hit, I hit it. That's how I played and it came off.

"I hadn't really played for about 40 days so with no cricket under my belt I was fortunate enough to be sent here and get some game time in. I know I would have had to wait until after the first two Tests to get any game time over there otherwise."

Had he stayed in England, Warner's first opportunity for some time in the middle would have come in the tour match against Sussex, which begins in Hove on Friday. Warner's innings means that Phillip Hughes and Steven Smith especially will be under pressure to post decent scores against Sussex in the lead-up to the Manchester Test.

One man who won't be scoring any runs in Sussex is Shane Watson, who has stayed in London along with some other members of the squad to train ahead of the third Test. Watson was the subject of a Twitter rant from David Warner's brother Steve during the Lord's Test, but Warner said he had nothing but support for Watson.

"A hundred percent. I get along with Shane very well," he said. "I thoroughly enjoy batting with Shane, I know what he does for the team and I know what a team player he is, not just on the field but in and around the group how he supports the guys. He's fantastic."

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    Australia needs Warner that's for sure. He won't fix all their problems, far from it, but he does pack some hard Aussie attitude. It doesn't have to be punching someone in a pub, some confident body language and some aggressive cricket will do. He is a natural stroke maker.The Aussie lineup at least looks much better with him and if he can find some form they might be able to build some momentum with the bat. As some have said already, his road to redemption is a long one but at least his attitude is right.

  • POSTED BY desiboy454 on | July 25, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    Personally I think Warner needs to be in this Aussie side, maybe he will fail 1 or 2 tests, but he can win an entire test on his own. My playing XI for AUS: 1. Rogers 2. Cowan 3. Warner 4. Watson 5. Clarke 6. Khawaja/Smith 7. Haddin 8. Siddle 9. Faulkner 10. Harris 11. Lyon. They need lyon the spinner rather than Agar. For england if KP is not fit my XI 1. Cook 2. Root 3. Trott 4. Morgan 5. Bell 6. Bairstow 7. Prior 8. Broad 9. Swann 10. Finn 11. Anderson.. Reason for morgan I think the guys got flair, you dont need a nick compton or ravi bopara to replace KP, I think Morgan should be given a run again in tests.

  • POSTED BY nigelramcat on | July 27, 2013, 3:58 GMT

    Warner did OKAY but so did ELGAR - lets be realistic! The batting paradise does not mean Warner should be in the Ashes team. FLAT TRACK BULLY???

  • POSTED BY salazar555 on | July 27, 2013, 2:42 GMT

    Warner's knock was on an absolute road and he was playing no spinners. Quite a few players got big scores in that game. If he thinks old trafford will be a road he's in for a shock. It swings and spins in Manchester so it's going to be a test for any batsman, if you don't play spin or swing well then forget it.

  • POSTED BY 2MikeGattings on | July 27, 2013, 0:54 GMT

    Warner has the best Test average of anyone in the squad bar Clarke and with the side struggling for runs they can't afford to leave him out. He's a dangerous player but England will fancy their plan A against him. It will be a good contest.

    His disciplinary record is already legendary. Surely a betting scandal cannot be far off.

  • POSTED BY KhanMitch on | July 26, 2013, 19:32 GMT

    Rogers, Watson, Khawaja, Warner, Clarke, Smith as our top 6.

  • POSTED BY hycIass on | July 26, 2013, 17:50 GMT

    Well done to Warner but i wouldn't change the batting lineup yet. Rogers, Watson, Khawaja, Hughes, Clarke, Smith is fine for the Manchester test. Each has done enough to warrant their spot for the third test.

  • POSTED BY Beertjie on | July 26, 2013, 17:49 GMT

    Good comment @ Ameshisuto on (July 25, 2013, 23:06 GMT). Nevertheless, Australia need to show competitiveness now. The presence of 5 openers was always going to cause a problem which is exacerbated by the number of left-handers facing Swann on wearing wickets. That said, the best order seems to be Rogers, Warner, Khawaja, Clarke, Watson, Smith, Haddin, Siddle, Harris, Lyon, Bird. Warner as a later order bat will struggle facing Swann at OT. If he gets a start he'll do OK against him when he comes on. Watson has been practising better footwork against the England quicks, so give him a shot at #5. Hughes for Rogers at the top of the order is a possibility, but why continue to favour him when others haven't had opportunities? His test stats have been heading in the wrong direction for too long, so Rogers deserves another shot. Bird ahead of Starc is a tough call, but Harris and Siddle must play. Smith isn't great, but his spinners at OT may be OK. No instant solutions, just trial & errror

  • POSTED BY Paul_Rampley on | July 26, 2013, 17:32 GMT

    I wish warner all the best, he is a good batsman and will be stronger from the lessons he has learned. Tough one on who you drop, you would think that Watson, Rogers, Khawaja and Clarke are lock ins based on either runs in the Lords game or experience wise so that leaves Hughes and Smith as the guys whose spot he takes but i am not sure if i would drop those 2 as they have shown good form as well. I am happy i am not a selector.

  • POSTED BY Edwards_Anderson on | July 26, 2013, 16:51 GMT

    It's fair to assume the selectors had a long discussion about the batting lineup, and came to the conclusion that it was the best one available for the job. For that reason alone the Test team should stick with players on tour and have the coaches work with them to resolve technical and mental issues that are now so apparent. Players need to have some confidence in their position to perform without fear, which is why Lehmann came out and said what his opening partnership was going to be. It's wishful thinking to believe those not in the touring party are going to perform better immediately. Khawaja looked great in Lords and i would give him the full series. I would also stick with Smith and might consider Warner for Hughes and possibly Rogers. But show faith in our young batsman.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    Australia needs Warner that's for sure. He won't fix all their problems, far from it, but he does pack some hard Aussie attitude. It doesn't have to be punching someone in a pub, some confident body language and some aggressive cricket will do. He is a natural stroke maker.The Aussie lineup at least looks much better with him and if he can find some form they might be able to build some momentum with the bat. As some have said already, his road to redemption is a long one but at least his attitude is right.

  • POSTED BY desiboy454 on | July 25, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    Personally I think Warner needs to be in this Aussie side, maybe he will fail 1 or 2 tests, but he can win an entire test on his own. My playing XI for AUS: 1. Rogers 2. Cowan 3. Warner 4. Watson 5. Clarke 6. Khawaja/Smith 7. Haddin 8. Siddle 9. Faulkner 10. Harris 11. Lyon. They need lyon the spinner rather than Agar. For england if KP is not fit my XI 1. Cook 2. Root 3. Trott 4. Morgan 5. Bell 6. Bairstow 7. Prior 8. Broad 9. Swann 10. Finn 11. Anderson.. Reason for morgan I think the guys got flair, you dont need a nick compton or ravi bopara to replace KP, I think Morgan should be given a run again in tests.

  • POSTED BY nigelramcat on | July 27, 2013, 3:58 GMT

    Warner did OKAY but so did ELGAR - lets be realistic! The batting paradise does not mean Warner should be in the Ashes team. FLAT TRACK BULLY???

  • POSTED BY salazar555 on | July 27, 2013, 2:42 GMT

    Warner's knock was on an absolute road and he was playing no spinners. Quite a few players got big scores in that game. If he thinks old trafford will be a road he's in for a shock. It swings and spins in Manchester so it's going to be a test for any batsman, if you don't play spin or swing well then forget it.

  • POSTED BY 2MikeGattings on | July 27, 2013, 0:54 GMT

    Warner has the best Test average of anyone in the squad bar Clarke and with the side struggling for runs they can't afford to leave him out. He's a dangerous player but England will fancy their plan A against him. It will be a good contest.

    His disciplinary record is already legendary. Surely a betting scandal cannot be far off.

  • POSTED BY KhanMitch on | July 26, 2013, 19:32 GMT

    Rogers, Watson, Khawaja, Warner, Clarke, Smith as our top 6.

  • POSTED BY hycIass on | July 26, 2013, 17:50 GMT

    Well done to Warner but i wouldn't change the batting lineup yet. Rogers, Watson, Khawaja, Hughes, Clarke, Smith is fine for the Manchester test. Each has done enough to warrant their spot for the third test.

  • POSTED BY Beertjie on | July 26, 2013, 17:49 GMT

    Good comment @ Ameshisuto on (July 25, 2013, 23:06 GMT). Nevertheless, Australia need to show competitiveness now. The presence of 5 openers was always going to cause a problem which is exacerbated by the number of left-handers facing Swann on wearing wickets. That said, the best order seems to be Rogers, Warner, Khawaja, Clarke, Watson, Smith, Haddin, Siddle, Harris, Lyon, Bird. Warner as a later order bat will struggle facing Swann at OT. If he gets a start he'll do OK against him when he comes on. Watson has been practising better footwork against the England quicks, so give him a shot at #5. Hughes for Rogers at the top of the order is a possibility, but why continue to favour him when others haven't had opportunities? His test stats have been heading in the wrong direction for too long, so Rogers deserves another shot. Bird ahead of Starc is a tough call, but Harris and Siddle must play. Smith isn't great, but his spinners at OT may be OK. No instant solutions, just trial & errror

  • POSTED BY Paul_Rampley on | July 26, 2013, 17:32 GMT

    I wish warner all the best, he is a good batsman and will be stronger from the lessons he has learned. Tough one on who you drop, you would think that Watson, Rogers, Khawaja and Clarke are lock ins based on either runs in the Lords game or experience wise so that leaves Hughes and Smith as the guys whose spot he takes but i am not sure if i would drop those 2 as they have shown good form as well. I am happy i am not a selector.

  • POSTED BY Edwards_Anderson on | July 26, 2013, 16:51 GMT

    It's fair to assume the selectors had a long discussion about the batting lineup, and came to the conclusion that it was the best one available for the job. For that reason alone the Test team should stick with players on tour and have the coaches work with them to resolve technical and mental issues that are now so apparent. Players need to have some confidence in their position to perform without fear, which is why Lehmann came out and said what his opening partnership was going to be. It's wishful thinking to believe those not in the touring party are going to perform better immediately. Khawaja looked great in Lords and i would give him the full series. I would also stick with Smith and might consider Warner for Hughes and possibly Rogers. But show faith in our young batsman.

  • POSTED BY leave_it_to_the_umps on | July 26, 2013, 16:35 GMT

    I think Lyon needs to come into replace Agar as he hasnt really performed with the ball and not sure what lyon actually did to deserve being dropped! Also it might be left field but on a pitch that supposedly suits spin could Warner come in to replace Pattinson? Watson can play as a the 3rd seamer with warner and smith providing spin support for Lyon. This might be what we need given it has been the batting not the bowling which has struggled Team - 1. Warner/Watsson 2. Rogers 3. Khawaja 4. Watson/Warner 5. Clarke 6. Hughes 7. Smith 8. Haddin 9. Siddle 10.Harris/Bird 11. Lyon

  • POSTED BY Sunil_Batra on | July 26, 2013, 16:32 GMT

    Warner may come in for Hughes of Smith but not sure if i would change the lineup yet.There wasn't much good to come out of the last game minus Rhino's performance. But to see Clarke and Khawaja fight it out with the ball turning a mile showed the other batsman that we can fight. Khawaja is not a natural spin player and much more comfortable against spin but he fought it out for a well made 50 and it would have been good for the other lefties in the side to see how he handled him. We can come back in this series but like Gilchrist has mentioned we need to fight and show some grit which we aussies are well known for. Gilchrist's innings with Langer in Hobart against Pakistan was a good example of that.

  • POSTED BY R_U_4_REAL_NICK on | July 26, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    Note that Dean Elgar is currently on 258 as I type in that same game; and that's against the much hyped Hazlewood/Coulter-Nile too...

    Just goes to show how meaningless one good knock in a game like that on a pitch like that really is, and how players like Warner are vastly overvalued.

  • POSTED BY Frog1963 on | July 26, 2013, 12:35 GMT

    One should question the eagerness to rush Mr Warner back into the test side. Based on this one innings, in a match that has produced 900+ runs, and still counting, for the loss of 10 wickets. It may be concluded that the pitch is certainly bowler friendly, NOT.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 12:12 GMT

    I hope Warner plays at Old Trafford as it will add some much needed spice to what threatens to degenerate into a dull walk-over. But is he likely to score runs against Anderson, Broad, Swann and Co? I can't see it happening. Warner has still played so little first class cricket that he doesn't have a solid enough technique to fall back during the tough times. Sure, he can blaze 180 against a feeble Indian attack at Perth, but I can't see him grinding out a century against high quality swing and spin. Then again, the only Australian batsmen who could are retired or dead.

  • POSTED BY DustyBin on | July 26, 2013, 12:05 GMT

    I too advise England fans not to expect 5-0. The good weather is breaking up, rain is bound to save the Aussies at least once.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 10:14 GMT

    Australia has had England on the ropes every innings they have batted but have allowed a couple of good partnerships which get England off the hook. You poms can bag our batsmen as much as like but at least our players will improve and yours are on the plateau as soon as our attack clicks (should be from now on if they pick 4 fit bowlers) you guys will be real strife and our batsmen won't look so mediocre. I must admit this isn't the strongest top 6 in Australia as Clarke and Watson would be 5 & 6 and the top 4 would be Rogers/Klinger, Warner, Ferguson and Bailey/Voges. The current order is defiantly for the future.

  • POSTED BY CutHis_ArminHalf on | July 26, 2013, 9:37 GMT

    @Jordanius77 - are you sure you are looking at the correct twitter account and not a parody?

    Warner was in the plans. He will be in them again now he's had a knock.

    I don't think australia want to change their top3 again. At some stage their needs to be some sort of settled side and chances given. Assuming you have decided that these are the guys you are backing for the next 2 years. So maybe Rogers is not that guy as he is old.

    I also don't think they want even more lefties in the line-up. So I think Hughes will be taking a rest unless he scores at least 100 against sussex.

    so for me. It is only Rogers or Hughes who will get dropped for Warner. Without a crystal ball its a hard one. Very harsh on either one if they are dropped but Warner is the only top5 batsmen who looks like he could become world class out of all the batting options in the first two tests - bar Clarke who obviously has already proved he is world class.

    I think Steve Smith needs to be retained..

  • POSTED BY Barnesy4444 on | July 26, 2013, 9:06 GMT

    I can see him making 6 his long-term position. It suits him perfectly. If we are 4 for not many he can grind it out. If the situation allows him to take on the bowlers, he can. He would be great with the tail as he can smash boundaries, score quickly and also farm the strike. Leave him at 6 and then it's only 4 other positions to fill.

  • POSTED BY R_U_4_REAL_NICK on | July 26, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    1 good innings out of at least 4 is the norm. for Hughes/Warner. Not test standard at all, and the sooner Aus. understand that, the sooner they can become competitive at test cricket again.

  • POSTED BY calcu on | July 26, 2013, 8:07 GMT

    As a neutral supporter, I will advise the english fans not to be overconfident of a 5-0. Australia are a fighting side and I wont be suprised if they win the next test.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 8:02 GMT

    Warner is potentially much much more than a 20/20 slogger as as his his debut hundred on a Bellerive greentop showed. It's not even because he lacks intelligence that he does and says stupid things on and off the cricket pitch but his fiery temperament. If Warner can restrain his aggressive instincts and pick his moments to explode upon the opposition then there wont be a bowling attack on this planet that will be able to contain him. I find it quite amusing (though admirable) that he wants to model himself on Hussey and that spells trouble for all his future opposition because if he learns to stay at the crease as long as Hussey he will no doubt hit twice as many boundaries. Once he gets going he is like a relentless boundary cracking machine that not even he himself can stop!

  • POSTED BY BigDataIsAHoax on | July 26, 2013, 7:53 GMT

    Have no problem with Warner being a BRAT as long as he can BAT.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 7:46 GMT

    Warner.... I have already selected him in my Fantasy team, expecting him to fetch more points for me. My Playing XI for OZ: 1. Warner, 2. Watson, 3. Cowan 4. Hughes, 5. Clarke, 6. Smith, 7. Haddin, 8. Faulkner, 9. Siddle, 10. Harris, 11. Lyon

  • POSTED BY ghostcall on | July 26, 2013, 7:10 GMT

    Warner is too desperate to get back in the fold. He did his best with the bat in Africa and leaving no stone unturned with his mouth either.. I m really fed up with his recent regular apologetic interviews.I would love him to concentrate more on his batting skills rather than enhancing his articulation skills. Afterall nobody can doubt the opportunity for him to prove his mettle in the current Ashes and it will come sooner in 3rd or 4th match but if he fails I m pretty sure that he will not be asked to turn up in baggy green Down under atleast in Ashes again. Best of luck Davy

  • POSTED BY ravi_hari on | July 26, 2013, 6:59 GMT

    Warner is that kind of a batsman who can change the game in a single session. However, for that to happen he should open. Alogside Watson, I think he will blossom. The question is whether Clarke and Lehmann have the confidence to pick him as an opener? In my opinion, Aussies should drop Hughes and Haddin and pick Warner and Wade. Watson, Warner, Rodgers, Khawaja, Clarke, Wade, Smith, Siddle, Harris, Starc and Lyon should be the line up. If you have to stop England it has to be done upfront and hoping that Aussies bat first, a Warner blast will unsettle the England team and Aussies can bounce back. If Engalnd are made to chase around 275 in the 4th innings with Lyon around, I think Aussies can fancy their chances. With the change in mindset, Warner will be a dangerous batsman to handle for England. The entire team, including Clarke can ride on Warner's exploits. However, if Warner and Watson fail, the story will just be a repeat of the first two tests. Yet, its worth the try.

  • POSTED BY salazar555 on | July 26, 2013, 6:52 GMT

    Panic and more panic. Everyone who hasn't played is obviously better than people playing. This sounds familiar to an English fan who used to see the same thing with England in the 90's. Changes were made and when that person failed it was a case of why's such and such a person not in the team, they are better than him. Changing the order, bringing players in and throwing them out after a failed test, Australia really are in a bad place, the wheels have fallen off and panic has set in in.

    They could bring anyone and everyone into this team and move every player around the order, it won't change a thing, they aren't very good, what little confidence they did have left after the first test has faded fast after getting hammered at Lords. Bring in Warner and it will be the same result as everyone else, If Anderson doesn't get him, Swann will

  • POSTED BY BigDataIsAHoax on | July 26, 2013, 6:40 GMT

    For the life of me, i cannot understand why Steve Smith is in the team. He is JUST NOT test match material. Smith OUT. Warner in. Clarke at #4 is an ABSOLUTE MUST!!! I will stick with Rogers, simply because there is no other option. Wade is a good batsman but not an opener. Too bad CA kicked Katich out. Talk about chopping off your only leg with Gimli's AXE. A critical blunder from CA is the the number of left-hand batsmen they have on tour. Clarke at #4 will address that issue. With Khawaja coming in at #3 it's just stupid to have Hughes at #4. Makes it easy for Swann to settle in. Bowling wise I will have Bird ahead of Starc. Bird, Harris and Siddle will be plenty to handle. All accurate bowlers.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | July 26, 2013, 6:22 GMT

    People obsess over technique... Katich and Chanderpaul both have strange techniques while shane Watson and Shaun Marsh have textbook techniques, yet which pair make runs in test cricket? Technique is one thing but it doesn't make a batsman... Phil Hughes has the ability to make and has more centuries than Watson, Smith and Khawaja at both FC and test level... He has the ability he just needs tp be played in his proper position (no 1) and regain his confidence.. the spin weakness is still their but Ponting also displayed a similar weakness to off spin early as did tendulker with left arm spin... Hughes, Rogers, Khawaja, Warner, Clarke, Smith should be the top 6..

    Warner is the only Aus batsman to make runs at 4 in any level other than Clarke but he doesn't want to play there in tests

  • POSTED BY HiyerNHiyer on | July 26, 2013, 6:15 GMT

    As an Indian cricket fan, I understand the Aussie supporters sentiments. There is too much chopping and changing. I for one am of the belief that you need five frontline bowlers to win a Test match. If 6 batsmen cannot do the job, I doubt the seventh can. As regards Rogers, he has not exactly brought solidity to the opening combination and not sure of him against spin either. I would still go with Watto and Warner because they can take the game away from the opposition if they bat one complete session. Smith, is a decent leggie and can bat but yes he will go for runs as well. As regards Agar, I thought he should have been managed better by Clarke. He was bowling round the wicket to Root and Bell but should have come Over the wicket and bowled into the rough / footmarks to create some impact. Lets also not forget Wade either in place of Haddin as a better keeper. My team would be Watto, Warner, Khwaja, Wade /Huges, Clarke, Smith, Starc, Agar, Lyon, Siddle, Harris

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 6:13 GMT

    Let him let his bat do the talking and them we will see

  • POSTED BY spindizzy on | July 26, 2013, 6:02 GMT

    I'd actually go for something like this:

    Rogers Cowan Warner Bailey Clarke Khawaja Wade Agar Starc/Siddle Bird Harris.

    Tough on Siddle but he leaks too many runs early in a match, usually when pressure needs to be applied. Starc at least provides a different angle and height.

    Hughes and Watson should both be history based on oh so many performances, so why not give Bailey a go?

    Cowan's slow scoring rate is a benefit - he takes a lot of balls and takes the shine off it. That's traditionally an openers job.

  • POSTED BY King-Cobra on | July 26, 2013, 5:55 GMT

    Oh boy! this is hilarious. Am loving this transition from Australia: Dominance -> Below average -> Experimentation -> Desperation !!!!

  • POSTED BY jawaharjj on | July 26, 2013, 5:25 GMT

    Australian top order needs some fearless attitude towards Anderson and other England seamers. He won't fix all their problems but when compared to some players in Aussie squad, Warner is much more better than them. More over the batting order also should be changed and Warner should open along with Watson. Maxwell should be included . My XI for the next test is:

    1. Warner 2. Watson 3. Ed Cowan 4. Khawaja 5. Clarke 6. Maxwell 7. Haddin 8. Siddle 9. Harris 10. James Faulkner 11. Lyon

  • POSTED BY 777aditya on | July 26, 2013, 5:25 GMT

    What's the point in breaking Warner's spirit? Too much is being said to him. After all, the punch did not connect, right? The whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 4:23 GMT

    re warners 193 - hugely entertaining knock off 226 balls SR 85 - track is flat, bowling decent. At Manchester will be a bit more movement and bounce (raining now) and not so dry so less spin - this will help and so Oz will be more competitive and if England falter (and they do from time to time) a win is def possible. My view - Warner should be at home and not in contention based on his behaviour over the last 6 months - If Oz pick him it is out of desperation - just how desperate are you? KP out maybe? - Good time to bring in Bopara who strengthens the bowling and has a terrific record at manchester - Maybe if they are bold Rashid will get the call, def turning into a very good all rounder these days at county level Bowling - No changes Eng - but you gotta give Lyons a bowl and dump Agar or dump one of the failing batters and keep Agar if you want to maintain the obsession with mediocrity

  • POSTED BY Jordanious77 on | July 26, 2013, 4:01 GMT

    If anyone has seen David Warner tweet you will realize how little being dropped changed him. He's constantly complaining about Watson, constantly crying about every little decision that goes against him. He's a hot-head (with terrible Grammar) and seems very arrogant.

    The comments he's making in this article are most likely just a ploy to get back into the aus team. I don't think he has learned anything.

  • POSTED BY Jordanious77 on | July 26, 2013, 3:58 GMT

    @cameron turner. It's all very well looking at long-term stats, but knowing how he gets those stats is what shows people up.

    Look at Peter Fulton for example, amazing first class batsman, averages over 80 over the last 2 seasons in first class, but just can't play test match cricket because of poor technique.

    Hughes is a country mile off looking like he can play spin. Like someone just said before, every spin ball looks like a wicket taking ball when hes at the crease. Not only does he only average 27 in the last 45 test matches, but every time he plays a team with a decent spin option he has looked out of his depth. The reason for his FC record is most likely the lack of quality spin in FC.

    People would much rather invest (in the short term) into smith and Khawaja because they seem to have a stable all-round game which could construct a good innings. If england want to get Hugh all they need to do is bring in Swanny.

  • POSTED BY RodStark on | July 26, 2013, 2:55 GMT

    For me the big problem with Warner and Watson is that they seem to be entirely one dimensional batsmen--get on top of the bowlers by attacking everything from the start, and most likel;y not last long. If I was Australia, I wouldn't pick either of them--well, maybe one of them, because if by some slim chance they happen to come off, it could be match-changing.

    I'd definitely keep Smith, largely because of his bowling. He may not be very good, but English batsmen do have a history of panicking if they hear the words "leg spin". For that reason, I'd be sending for Ahmed, but if not, then Lyon should definitely replace Agar; his batting is not likely to come off again, and his bowling seems pretty poor.

  • POSTED BY mixters on | July 26, 2013, 2:34 GMT

    not makeing a comparison but people used to say Bradman would never amount to anything because of his technique, Hughes seems to be all brilliant eg vs South Africa or bloody useless eg India (or any other good spinners) yes like swann before froot- foot- lunge chimes in. If there was an alternative comming thru they might replace as all seems lost leave him there to work it out or sink, Anyone remember Greg Blewett?

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 2:17 GMT

    Phil's got some justification if he wanted to complain though. He had one of the best innings of his career in the first test, batting at 6. This after batting at 3 for the previous 7 tests, he's never done well batting at 4.

    Warners test stats are still better than anyone in the side except Pup, 193 is enough for him to show he can still be a game changer with that average nearly 40 he'll be brought back.

    Rogers Cowan Khawaja Warner Clarke Hughes Haddin Agar Siddle Bird Harris

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 2:12 GMT

    Lesson learnt, now get him in the Aust team now!

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 1:41 GMT

    The one absolute imperative is that Steve Smith must never bat for Australia in a Test match again. He has neither the eye nor the technique for this grade of cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 1:40 GMT

    Rogers has failed, Warner should replace him at the top of the order. Warner could be an ideal no 3, but there is a dearth of good openers.

  • POSTED BY disco_bob on | July 26, 2013, 1:36 GMT

    Warner is not fit to play for Australia in this series. His role in, sending the Australian Ashes plans into a tailspin should even have his recall for the home series questioned. Now that the series is as good as over, I am not sure that it's worthwhile keeping Rogers in the squad but anyway... Watson, Cowan, Rogers, Khawaja, Clarke, Hughes, Haddin, Starc, Siddle, Harris, Lyon.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2013, 1:27 GMT

    Simple. Warner for Hughes; Llyon for Aagar; Bird for Pattinson; and Faukner for Smith. The whole game will change with this combo.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 26, 2013, 0:43 GMT

    I'm thinking that Hughes is probably most under pressure to keep his spot if the selectors want to get Warner into the side. He did score 81* at Trent Bridge but has failed three times since. He's looked pretty poor against spin and Old Trafford is expected to turn. With that in mind, keeping Smith in the side to bowl some leggies would be desirable and Khawaja looked fairly solid in the second innings at Lords, although he also didn't look great against Swann in the first innings. I'd say all three will be keen to make some runs against Sussex.

  • POSTED BY BigDataIsAHoax on | July 26, 2013, 0:23 GMT

    Get him into the team. He is dangerous. So is Watson. Next test may well be a destructive batting performance by the duo. Petersen may not play. HUGE psychological blow for England too. Only guy who is genuinely performing is Ian Bell. Joe Root will nick a few to the cordon early on. Just have to take the catches. England is PRETTY VULNERABLE in batting. Anything is possible.

  • POSTED BY thecricketdiary on | July 26, 2013, 0:19 GMT

    Warner's realized that he made a mistake and deserved this, now that's the first step. He's scoring runs, that's the second step. And now, he needs to sort out all these off-field issues and that will be the final step to get his place back into the Aussie team. Although there's no guarantee he'll be an opener, he may get a spot at #6, if Steve Smith performs poorly.

  • POSTED BY Kallman on | July 26, 2013, 0:08 GMT

    To all Hughes doubters. You didn't take long to forget that beautiful 81 not out he made did you? He hasn't had time to get in during his last 3 innings and has had to deal with a rampaging Graeme Swann. Also some of the calls against him have been 50/50. You will find that Hughes has the highest FC tour average of any Australian batsman and the highest career Sheffield Shield average in the team. Im not defending poor performance but I seriously doubt that he will be dropped. I expect that Rogers or Smith could be cut for Warner.

  • POSTED BY northumbriannomad on | July 26, 2013, 0:06 GMT

    Speaking as an England fan who would like a good series, I really hope Cameron Turner isn't an Australia selector. I fell asleep before I got halfway through that barrage of meaningless statistics.

    Hughes is a good player but he isn't in a good place. Smith is a decent cricketer. Khawaja has something about him, as his 2nd innings at Lord's showed. Warner is a wild card and might jump-start the team a bit. But none of them is going to wave a magic wand. The first and main thing they have to do is come together as a team and gel. Not sure they have the right captain to bring that state of affairs about.

  • POSTED BY hhillbumper on | July 25, 2013, 22:58 GMT

    depending on what team gets picked looks like it will be 3-2 to the Aussies.I mean so far they have only lost due to be bad luck and bad umpiring. They will surely go on to beat what is a poor useless England team.

  • POSTED BY Guthers007 on | July 25, 2013, 22:44 GMT

    Understatement Mr Warner, that you "needed to be dropped"! You should have been on he first plane home after that cowardly attack. Your character is forever tarnished!

  • POSTED BY GrindAR on | July 25, 2013, 22:38 GMT

    Ppl dont even have a clue of how destructive Hughes can be. He need to pull his socks to have a good show. If not his 1st test innings, Aussie wud've lost handsome overdone by eng.Why he was bombarded to a new position in the very 2nd innings? Clarkie doent lie him succeed?

  • POSTED BY hhillbumper on | July 25, 2013, 22:30 GMT

    the wolvarun. Old ball or new ball he will still get handled by England.You are right though he is like Symonds.They both got in trouble having a night out on an Ashes tour.

  • POSTED BY GrindAR on | July 25, 2013, 22:29 GMT

    @nlight: What if after 3rd it stands at 2-1 and after 4th 2-2... just for the sake of it... which is absolutely possible... if Aussies decide to go for a ruthless grind...

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 21:53 GMT

    As Cameron Turner points out, Hughes's stats are better than others mentioned but 350 of his 1535 runs (22%) came in his first 2 matches (4%). Indeed 275 runs came in just one of those. In the subsequent 24 matches he has averaged 27.55, with only one 100 in 45 innings.

    As for being in form, in India he averaged 18.38 over 8 innings and in the first two tests here 20.75 over 4. That would be in form for a useful No9 batsman, not top 6.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 21:45 GMT

    @Cameron Turner : You're argument is wonderfully constructed. But maybe this is the problem with Cricket in Australia that everybody just analyzing the numbers.

    If you watched the India-Australia series Hughes looked completely amateurish against India's decent spin attack. It was an embarrassing sight. He looked like he can get out on every ball he is about to play.

    Against a world class spinner like Graemme Swann he is a gift, you rather bring him back to pavilion before the obvious arrives on the score card. I'd be glad if he proves this wrong in the remaining three tests. But he's got no clue what to do, defending is a guess work for him, can't rotate the strike etc etc.

    Right, at Lords both Khawaja and Smith got out to spin, but overall they looked more composed and at ease against spin than Hughes.

    Hughes may have been scoring heaps of runs in past, but currently he looks terrible against spin, not like a Test player. But I am sure his average tell a different story.

  • POSTED BY SidsIPLTeam on | July 25, 2013, 21:36 GMT

    Australia's Team for the Third Test: Watson, Rogers, Khawaja, Warner, Clarke(C), Smith, Haddin(WK), Siddle, Harris, Agar, Bird/Lyon (if the surface has a lot for spinners). Australia as desperate for runs and Lyon doesn't look like running through the opposition batting. So, I would be tempted to play Agar one more time and hope he gets some runs and then bowl a tight line and length helping get a few wickets too. But, there is no doubting the fact that Lyon is definitely the better spin bowler. Also, I would choose to play Warner ahead of Hughes because even though he scored some runs in the 1st Test 1st Innings, his technique looks very ordinary against Swann and he doesn't have the ability to rotate the strike. He gets bogged down and lets Swann set him up. Warner might take the attack to Swann and that is perhaps the best chance to overcome his challenge. Anderson apart, the others have not looked that penetrative so far. And that could be Australia's best chance.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 21:03 GMT

    So far the comments have been unanimous in disparaging Phil Hughes, and his poor technique, in favor of Smith and Khawaja should Warner return to the side. Technique is what allows you to score runs and not get out, the mark of a good technique is the scores it produces. So let's examine the evidence, and let it choose among Hughes, Smith and Khawaja.

    First class record Hughes ave 44.56, 100 matches, 21 centuries. Khawaja ave 42.11, 66 matches, 11 centuries. Smith, ave 40.97, 46 matches, 6 centuries.

    High score in the series so far: Hughes 81*, Khawaja 54, Smith 53.

    This year in Shield Hughes 6 matches, 673 runs @ 56, 3 centuries. Khawaja 6 matches 438 @ 39, 1 century. Smith 5 matches 296 runs @ 37, 0 centuries.

    Test record Hughes ave 32.65, 26 mat, 3 centuries. Khawaja ave 30.09, 7 mat, 0 centuries. Smith ave 29.00, 9 mat, 0 centuries.

    So really on any metric you want to pick Hughes is the superior, most experienced, and in form batsman. Evidence instead of vague feelings.

  • POSTED BY DeckChairand6pack on | July 25, 2013, 19:59 GMT

    SA 'A's reply is rapidly putting Warners knock into context, the track is a road. Having said that 193 is still a great knock and against de Lange and Abbott. 2 bowlers who at their best would be worthy of consideration into either of the 2 teams contesting the ashes.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 19:51 GMT

    @Benn Kempster: That will be hard to say. We can never know until Australia draft in these players and give them a run in the 3rd test. What if Warner and co. perform well ? We should never rule out improvements in performance from players like Warner. If he clicks, that could create a huge degree of self confidence in the Australian ranks. Sure, England have one of the best attacks in test cricket but it doesn't hurt to try. Cause if Australia don't play well at Old Trafford, a lot of bad things are going to happen to Australian cricket. A weak Australia is bad for world cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 19:07 GMT

    Runs against an 'A' side whose quickies aren't noted for their accuracy is not runs against one of the best all-round attacks in the world. Australia will, again, be guilty of trying to shoehorn someone into a role that they are not built for and will fall flat on their faces again.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 18:49 GMT

    Whats the fixation with Phillip Hughes? He has a major deficiency in his technique, he used to score more runs when it was worse. He can't play quality spin, he's a sitting duck against Graeme Swann.

    I understand from the first test that he has the patience to bat for long innings. But he's a feast of famine type of player. His biggest problem it seems he can't rotate the strike and relies on big shots for his percentage runs. Against quality attack like England its not the most suitable method.

    Smith also has some deficiencies but looks more sorted and has the character to grind it out. Looks more comfortable against spin and has been constantly improving his batting. He can bowl more than decent leg spin and get a top 6 English batsman out.

    I think Smith currently is a better Work in Progress than Hughes.

    PS: Hughes looks a bit like Clayton Lamber, sometimes more ugly.

  • POSTED BY nlight on | July 25, 2013, 18:43 GMT

    Starc for Pattinson; Warner for Hughes. If Agar unfit, then Lyon. Faulkner should be given a chance at some stage, after the series is lost.

    If kp unfit, then Taylor. Tremlett should get a go, after the series is won.

  • POSTED BY gtr800 on | July 25, 2013, 18:12 GMT

    Not too convinced by this 193 as I haven't seen the match but its good to know he spent some time middle. Batting for long periods is crucial if not essential in test match cricket. So, if he can somehow come to England start getting used to the pace & movement of pitches here & play by the 4th test it would be good. His series in India wasn't exceptionally bad it was just devoid of long innings.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 17:40 GMT

    I am a great admirer of David Warner for his aggressive style of batting. A real talent and a spirited team man. Once he gets going its nightmare for the opposition! Brilliant fielder and an effective part time bowler too! Australia should provide him one more opportunity. Please for god's sake bring him back for the crucial 3rd test. Come on Aussies show your fighting spirit to the Poms and show the cricketing nations what you are capable of!

  • POSTED BY dinom on | July 25, 2013, 17:29 GMT

    3rd test: Watson, Rogers, Khawaja, Hughes, Clarke(C), Warner, Haddin(WK), Siddle, Harris, Bird, Lyon Bird should be given a chance now that Pattinson is out, Lyon deserves a chance too as Agar is still very inexperience, Warner should be at no 6 and he can bowl a bit to support Lyon as well.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 17:27 GMT

    @cricketmatchspecial chris rogers is a opening batsmen. he has never played in middle order. warner should bat at no 4. hughes should be dropped and lyon and bird should replace agar and pattinson.

  • POSTED BY thelapal on | July 25, 2013, 17:22 GMT

    England bowlers very well know where to bowl to warner. If he opens the innings it will be very difficult for him to safeguard his wicket for first 10 overs. James anderson loves to bowl left handers added warner also has some weakness against spin bowling. swann will keep his fingers licking when he comes to the crease for batting.

  • POSTED BY Informed_Player_Management on | July 25, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    @The_Wolvarun

    The problem is, when the ball gets old, England still look lethal with reverse swing. Warner will still have to check himself for most of it. I think the best hope Australia have is just defending like mad for 120 overs. Forget scoring, just try to stay alive. Then capitalise on tiring bowlers. England's mastery of reverse swing means that you can't really get away with the traditional approach of seeing off the new ball then going on the attack. The process needs to be delayed 60 overs.

  • POSTED BY CricketMatchSpecial on | July 25, 2013, 17:06 GMT

    1) If Warner is able to negotiate the new ball better in shorter format, that is his strength. Can he play the slow bowlers well? May be. From what I have seen so far, he is not a good player of spin. He is an average player. The current tactics mean that he will become a Swann bunny.There is no reason to ignore his strength and try something else.

    2) Chris Rogers is a good middle order player. Why is he thrust into an opener's role?

    Agar is not a mature spinner yet. He was hurriedly called into the side. Lehmann wanted to create sort of sensation.

    My line up for the 3rd test would be: Warner, Watson, Khawaja, Clarke,Rogers, Hughes, Haddin, Lyon, Harris, Siddle and Starc.

    I have a comment about the circusesque nature of the team. Players are assembled at will and then thrust into unfamiliar roles. A team should practice together, spend time to bond adequately and build teamsmanship ahead of the test match. One player from here, one player from there is taking this team nowhere.

  • POSTED BY CricketChat on | July 25, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    Warner has grown in stature be admitting his mistakes and taking corrective steps. One can only hope he can translate his immense potential to making some big scores that Aussies so desperately need in the remaining 3 matches of the series.

  • POSTED BY Jagdish3k on | July 25, 2013, 16:46 GMT

    It's a pity that whole Aussie team has become apologetic.They are always in doubt. In fact, success breeds confidence & failure brings insecurity and vise versa. I don't think the team or players are that bad and talk of Shefield pitches is all rubish. The crux of problem lies in insecurity. Certainly these players are not in the league of Heyden Ponting. But they need the confidence and faith of selectors to feel secure. The performance will improve when they are given the backing. I be lieve Ponting was a great captain as he backed talents to the hilt. Success of Andrew Symonds proves it. The worst thing about Clarke has been his inability to back and give confidence in young players.

  • POSTED BY razeez on | July 25, 2013, 16:46 GMT

    Unfortunately, it is always easy to say the right things after a discretion. Betraying the public trust and undervaluing the blessing of playing for one of the greatest Test playing nations in history cannot be rectified in a matter of weeks or months. Fortunate few get to wear the baggy green and as such it should be treated with a certain level of respect and humility in a consistent and honorable fashion. Good on him for having the right intentions, but the road will and should be a long one to regaining the public trust.

  • POSTED BY 2MikeGattings on | July 25, 2013, 16:44 GMT

    Hughes, the other displaced southpaw, has been a lightweight presence down the order and Warner's century could be the knockout blow. The selectors clearly think he has a future so I'm sure he will take it on the chin. But England's bowling might put up more of a fight than the Saffer second string.

  • POSTED BY Blade-Runner on | July 25, 2013, 16:34 GMT

    The credits should go to Mahela Jayawardene for the discovery of David Warner "THE MIDDLE ORDER BATSMAN". I'm being serious here. It was Mahela who asked Warner to play the KP's role in the last IPL. Warner failed as an opening batsman and Mahela sent him down the order n gave him the responsibility of building the innings as a middle order batsman. Warner excelled with 2 50's. Then all of a sudden CA wanted Warner to be a middle order batsman. So, Cricket Australia, pls consider this as a gift from Sri lanka to you. Cheers !! :)

  • POSTED BY The_Wolvarun on | July 25, 2013, 16:15 GMT

    Good on ya Warner, can do no wrong!

    It will be fantastic to see Warner come in at No.6 - when the ball is old and doing nothing- and see him do what he does best HIT HARD without worrying about edging to gully. He can really take the game away from the opponents if he settles in, much along the lines of Andrew Symonds (former No.6).

    The only question that remains is Smith or Hughes. If Hughes goes, bring in the Lyon for Agar but if Smith goes play two spinners Agar and Lyon, then use Watto as 3rd pacer and possibly bring him down the order...

  • POSTED BY The_Wolvarun on | July 25, 2013, 16:15 GMT

    Good on ya Warner, can do no wrong!

    It will be fantastic to see Warner come in at No.6 - when the ball is old and doing nothing- and see him do what he does best HIT HARD without worrying about edging to gully. He can really take the game away from the opponents if he settles in, much along the lines of Andrew Symonds (former No.6).

    The only question that remains is Smith or Hughes. If Hughes goes, bring in the Lyon for Agar but if Smith goes play two spinners Agar and Lyon, then use Watto as 3rd pacer and possibly bring him down the order...

  • POSTED BY Blade-Runner on | July 25, 2013, 16:34 GMT

    The credits should go to Mahela Jayawardene for the discovery of David Warner "THE MIDDLE ORDER BATSMAN". I'm being serious here. It was Mahela who asked Warner to play the KP's role in the last IPL. Warner failed as an opening batsman and Mahela sent him down the order n gave him the responsibility of building the innings as a middle order batsman. Warner excelled with 2 50's. Then all of a sudden CA wanted Warner to be a middle order batsman. So, Cricket Australia, pls consider this as a gift from Sri lanka to you. Cheers !! :)

  • POSTED BY 2MikeGattings on | July 25, 2013, 16:44 GMT

    Hughes, the other displaced southpaw, has been a lightweight presence down the order and Warner's century could be the knockout blow. The selectors clearly think he has a future so I'm sure he will take it on the chin. But England's bowling might put up more of a fight than the Saffer second string.

  • POSTED BY razeez on | July 25, 2013, 16:46 GMT

    Unfortunately, it is always easy to say the right things after a discretion. Betraying the public trust and undervaluing the blessing of playing for one of the greatest Test playing nations in history cannot be rectified in a matter of weeks or months. Fortunate few get to wear the baggy green and as such it should be treated with a certain level of respect and humility in a consistent and honorable fashion. Good on him for having the right intentions, but the road will and should be a long one to regaining the public trust.

  • POSTED BY Jagdish3k on | July 25, 2013, 16:46 GMT

    It's a pity that whole Aussie team has become apologetic.They are always in doubt. In fact, success breeds confidence & failure brings insecurity and vise versa. I don't think the team or players are that bad and talk of Shefield pitches is all rubish. The crux of problem lies in insecurity. Certainly these players are not in the league of Heyden Ponting. But they need the confidence and faith of selectors to feel secure. The performance will improve when they are given the backing. I be lieve Ponting was a great captain as he backed talents to the hilt. Success of Andrew Symonds proves it. The worst thing about Clarke has been his inability to back and give confidence in young players.

  • POSTED BY CricketChat on | July 25, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    Warner has grown in stature be admitting his mistakes and taking corrective steps. One can only hope he can translate his immense potential to making some big scores that Aussies so desperately need in the remaining 3 matches of the series.

  • POSTED BY CricketMatchSpecial on | July 25, 2013, 17:06 GMT

    1) If Warner is able to negotiate the new ball better in shorter format, that is his strength. Can he play the slow bowlers well? May be. From what I have seen so far, he is not a good player of spin. He is an average player. The current tactics mean that he will become a Swann bunny.There is no reason to ignore his strength and try something else.

    2) Chris Rogers is a good middle order player. Why is he thrust into an opener's role?

    Agar is not a mature spinner yet. He was hurriedly called into the side. Lehmann wanted to create sort of sensation.

    My line up for the 3rd test would be: Warner, Watson, Khawaja, Clarke,Rogers, Hughes, Haddin, Lyon, Harris, Siddle and Starc.

    I have a comment about the circusesque nature of the team. Players are assembled at will and then thrust into unfamiliar roles. A team should practice together, spend time to bond adequately and build teamsmanship ahead of the test match. One player from here, one player from there is taking this team nowhere.

  • POSTED BY Informed_Player_Management on | July 25, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    @The_Wolvarun

    The problem is, when the ball gets old, England still look lethal with reverse swing. Warner will still have to check himself for most of it. I think the best hope Australia have is just defending like mad for 120 overs. Forget scoring, just try to stay alive. Then capitalise on tiring bowlers. England's mastery of reverse swing means that you can't really get away with the traditional approach of seeing off the new ball then going on the attack. The process needs to be delayed 60 overs.

  • POSTED BY thelapal on | July 25, 2013, 17:22 GMT

    England bowlers very well know where to bowl to warner. If he opens the innings it will be very difficult for him to safeguard his wicket for first 10 overs. James anderson loves to bowl left handers added warner also has some weakness against spin bowling. swann will keep his fingers licking when he comes to the crease for batting.

  • POSTED BY on | July 25, 2013, 17:27 GMT

    @cricketmatchspecial chris rogers is a opening batsmen. he has never played in middle order. warner should bat at no 4. hughes should be dropped and lyon and bird should replace agar and pattinson.