Wait… David Warner.
I can’t be the only one whose jaw fell to the floor in disbelief when the identity of the Player of the Series between Australia and South Africa was announced.
Heck, even Warner himself could scarcely believe it.
“He said it himself – ‘oh, that’s surprising’,” captain Pat Cummins said after play of the veteran opener’s reaction to the gong. That would be putting it mildly.
Not since Billy Slater in the 2018 State of Origin series has a player of the series award been so bafflingly awarded, and so thoroughly, thoroughly undeserved.
It’s not just that Warner had just one big score for the series – his magnificent 200 in oppressive heat in Melbourne. It was that for the other two Tests (that’s two-thirds of the series for the maths nerds) he was functionally useless.
In three out of four innings, he was dismissed before South Africa had even made it to the five-over mark. Not only did he muster just 13 runs in those innings, but he dismally failed in the opening batter’s primary role: to soak up the new ball and protect the rest of the batting order.
No one can dispute the brilliance of his Melbourne double-century. Warner withstood a serious working-over from the ultra-impressive Anrich Nortje, which he later described as the fastest spell of bowling in his career, all the while continuing to score freely and set up a massive Australian lead.
Against the backdrop of his milestone 100th Test, and with conditions at the MCG so severe he could barely hobble off after cramping badly during his double-century celebration, it holds a very high place among Warner’s finest innings – and there have been plenty.
HE'S DONE IT. ????????????
— Fox Cricket (@FoxCricket) December 27, 2022
200 for Warner. A truly sensational performance!
???? Watch #AUSvSA on Ch. 501 or stream via @kayosports https://t.co/fcn3yeDj7D
BLOG https://t.co/jDRWQDrM8P
???? MATCH CENTRE https://t.co/VWSOJuubJi pic.twitter.com/AgcqzpL0gw
He was the obvious choice for player of the match in Melbourne – but to extend that innings to cover the whole series doesn’t just contradict logic, but cliche as well. One swallow, apparently, does indeed make a summer.
You can only wonder whether Cummins cost Usman Khawaja, who like Warner had three ghastly performances before his epic 195 not out in Sydney, the gong by declaring with him five short of his own double-ton. If that was all the selectors needed to justify Warner’s nomination, then surely Khawaja, who made a colossal 14 runs across his other three innings for the series – one more than Warner – couldn’t be overlooked.
Cummins mentioned after the game that, from what he had heard, there were a number of candidates vying for the award, and that Warner pipped them all by a narrow margin.
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch international cricket on KAYO
But by my count, I could genuinely name eight players more deserving of the award – and they aren’t even all Australians.
David Warner of Australia walks to the podium after being named Player of the Series against South Africa. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
The obvious choice was surely Cummins himself. In a series won due to the Australians’ dominance over the Proteas’ brittle batting line-up, the captain claimed a series-high 12 wickets at an incredible 16.91.
He wasn’t just a one-trick pony, either: Cummins was just as fearsome on the flat decks of Melbourne and Sydney than he was on the borderline unplayable Gabba pitch. His average of 25.2 on those two pitches still comfortably outstrips any South African, and no one watching could take their eyes off his extraordinary spell of bowling on the fourth evening at the SCG.
Nathan Lyon, too, would have been a worthier winner than Warner, if only due to the abject gap in class between he and South Africa’s top spinner Keshav Maharaj. Once again, in Australian conditions that aren’t favourable to finger spin bowling, Lyon claimed 10 wickets at 26.2. Quite literally ten times better than Maharaj (1 wicket at 260), with only his inability to get anything out of the last-day SCG track marking against him.
But if they were going to give it to a batter, Warner wasn’t even the top choice there either. Steve Smith scored a full 18 more runs than Warner for the series, and contributed crucial innings in all three Tests.
His 36 was the second-top Aussie score on that Gabba minefield, while he threw away a century with 85 in Melbourne before at last getting there with 104 in Sydney. Smith’s sole failure was his ugly edge behind when trying to get the first Test over and done with on the second evening.
Equal with Warner for runs, but far, far ahead in terms of impact, was Travis Head. The South Australian’s three 50s for the series was the most by anyone (three times more, as it happens, than Warner); but with Head at the moment, it’s as much about the way he’s scoring runs than the amount of them he makes.
His 92 in Brisbane was a masterclass of spicy-pitch batting, and orders of magnitude better than even Warner’s double-ton given the conditions and circumstances involved. Made off just 96 balls, he mastered the surface better than anyone else, and was a clear and deserving player of the match.
In Melbourne and Sydney, too, he boshed quick declaration runs at a breakneck pace before falling, sacrificing his wicket with one big shot too many for the good of the team. Had he needed to come in earlier, in the form he’s in, a century was almost inevitable in at least one of them.
Not to mention, he took a wicket with his handy off-spin in the final Test, and at times looked more dangerous than either of the frontline spinners in Lyon and Ashton Agar.
Just four runs behind Warner, but with a heftier average courtesy of being unbeaten on 195, was Khawaja, who would have been just as silly a choice, but then at least we’d be able to blame recency bias instead of whatever burst of madness infected the minds of the judging panel when they landed on Warner.
As for the South Africans, Nortje himself would have been a more popular choice. Lionhearted in every spell, he was so clearly superior to the rest of his bowling attack as to make comparison farcical. Rabada may have claimed more wickets, but Nortje’s raw hostility, sheer pace and accuracy were a lethal combination all series, and he was unlucky to go at 31 for his seven series wickets.
With the bat, Kyle Verreynne still managed to pass 50 more times than Warner for the series, establishing himself as quite possibly the Proteas’ most accomplished batter. He took the fight brilliantly to the Aussie attack in Brisbane for a pre-Head onslaught on Day 1, while his twin scores of 52 and 33 in Melbourne were both part of determined rearguard efforts to help save face.
Neither of the Proteas’ pair have stats to rival Warner’s for the series, but both unquestionably provided more across its entirety.
Neither had a high as high as Warner did, either. But unlike Warner, neither could be adequately replaced with a house plant for two of the three Tests.
Warner’s bizarre nomination as Player of the Series is enough to cast a pall over all previous awards, making the gong a little less prestigious in the process.
It’s enough to question whether the award needs a rethink – be it a group of judges tasked to make an informed and considered decision, similar to Allan Border Medal voting, or something more vibes-based handled by, perhaps, the broadcasters themselves. Either would be a better, fairer, less ludicrous result than the one we got.
Because if they’re going to give Player of the Series honours to Warner for the ultimate one-hit wonder, then it’s clear they’ll give it to basically anyone.
Help shape the future of The Roar – take our quick survey with a chance to WIN!
>Cricket News
%20(3).jpeg)
0 Comments