'Never beaten, never dead': How Warner got his mojo back and set himself up for Ashes domination

There are worse coaches around Paul. Neil D'Costa frinstance...

Yep and Finch is a prime example of why the different forms are different. There's something interesting. Of the 11 Oz players who took part in the T20 semi v Pakistan, five are in the first choice XIs of all three formats, which puts a bit of a ding in your position. But even more interesting though is that all five are from one State...

Not wound up at all dude. I just thought of something extra and was kind enough to share it with you so you would hopefully learn some more stuff about better analysing cricket. But don’t thank me for that whatever you do. _________________ And if you want to worship averages, then know that the 335 not out made his average rise by nearly two whole runs, which is nearly 4% – that’s from one solitary innings out of a massive sample size of 159. _____________________ How does making a ton only once every 4.3 overseas series given you a great career?

You're getting so wound up in trying to convince me that Warner's 300 isn't worthy that you're ignoring the fact he has made >7k runs at >48. Whatever you dig up or how you want to frame it, that is a great career, great. And I will not be convinced otherwise.

His OS average of 35, whilst way down on the rate at home, is still better than most of his current teammates bar Smith and Labu.

That’s not true at all Matth, you are conveniently forgetting that Renato Carini smashed the Bradman glorifying myth of him even being the best performed Australian batsman against bodyline, let alone the complete nonsense that he stood up manfully to it and even half succeeded against it. As Renato pointed out, on average, every 36 balls Larwood bowled to Bradman, he conceded a mere 21 runs in exchange for his wicket. Bradman scored the majority of his runs against Gubby Allen, Hedley Verity (whose test career strike rate of a wicket every 77 balls is only 7 less than Mark Waugh’s) and batting allrounder Wally Hammond. Bradman’s strike rate that series was 74, 20% higher than his career 61. Why was this? I’m guessing, he was frantically trying to make as much hay as possible while those three non-bodyline bowlers were operating before the sun stopped shining once more and Larwood inevitably returned to account for his bunny. The three innings I am talking about were his 66 off 71 balls in the second innings in Adelaide, 76 off 138 in the first innings in Brisbane and 71 off 69 balls in the second innings in the 5th test back in Sydney where he also perished for 48 off 56 in the first innings there. In the 66 and 71 he was dismissed by Verity, presumably trying to be too aggressive, while in the 76 in Brisbane he was bowled by Larwood, who had presumably played along for an over or two to Bradman’s desperate tactic of backing right away to the leg side to try and cut him through the vacant offside. After manipulating Bradman into moving further and further backwards, then a simple matter to aim a low full toss at his middle and off stumps, by now well out of reach of Bradman’s bat. The scores leading into the balls Verity got him out for those aforementioned 66 and 71 respectively were 2 for 100 and 1 for 115. In the second case, they were nearly 100 in front in 3rd innings, with the 19 run deficit on the first innings counterbalanced by England having to bat last. In the first innings 48 he was 3rd out with the team total only on 64, bowled by Larwood again, and the rest of the team were able to bat on to 435, which is an outstanding recovery from 3 for 64 even if your best batsman stayed in for most of the subsequent time, let alone already out. How should Bradman have played it? Well, maybe his big comparative advantage was that along with McCabe he was far more nimble and adroit on his feet than the rest of his team mates, for he only got hit once all series high up on the shoulder I believe. Maybe stay where he was and just duck and weave, as Larwood and Voce could not bowl for ever, and then take his usual systematic and ruthless, rather than frantic and desperate approach when those aforementioned three lesser bowlers were forced to be brought back on? It seems to me that Bradman never sat down with himself to formulate any sound sort of plan to counter bodyline working to his strengths. Backing away to try and cut would only have greatly encouraged Larwood and to a lesser extent Voce. People mistakenly think Mark Waugh did the same thing against the West Indies in 1991, 1992-93 and 1995 but he did not. Mark’s feet stayed planted right where they were and he merely arched his upper body backwards to cut far more successfully over a packed slips cordan. Bradman also tried to move down the order and batted 4 instead of 3 in three of his first four innings that series, which would not have inspired his team mates, especially the one who had to now go in ahead of him, withstanding the openers of course who obviously went in ahead of him in any case.

I think a 50% failure rate sounds about right for Bradman. Scoring less than 50 isn't necessarily a failure but as you say scoring more may sometimes not be what a team needs either if you don't go on. Having said that scoring 66 and 76 against Bodyline being considered a failure because he "should have done more" is holding Bradman to a different standard of failure than all his teammates.

I've read this piece a few times now and there seems to be an assumption this guy is a good coach. As you say, he's clearly a very good mental coach, but there's nothing to suggest he can help a batsman with their technique. I'd have thought this is a part of the game that's just as important for many players, especially when they're struggling. Maybe that's in part II. If not, I question whether he's a good cricket coach or a good sports psychologist?

To digress slightly Matth, in the case of Bradman, it would be crucial we define what we consider failing? Is it scoring less than 50, or less than one’s average? The latter would be fair and proper and just for tailenders, but since Bradman has so much padding for the near 100 average, I’m happy to go the former, which would mean, strictly speaking, he failed in 39 of 80 test innings. However, I can think of at least three times he made between 66 and 76 inclusive which were failures in terms of what the team needed, and at least two of those innings he didn’t approach his task in anything like what might be deemed the right way. I am talking of course about the Bodyline series. It’s all relative isn’t it.

I think that the point the batting coach is trying to make (rather clumsily), is that by now the David Warners and even Mitchell Marshes have a decent technique, given they have played a lot of International cricket. They have also played all three forms a fair bit and know what's required. when you are coaching a player like that, as opposed to teaching someone the basics, I'd imagine getting their mindset and confidence right is much more important than checking their front elbow is nice and high. In that respect I agree. Warner is a confidence player. Once he goes, he tends to go very well. Once he fails a bit, he tends to take time to get himself out of negative mindset. The best way to see what sort of confidence level Warner has is to look at his pull shot. When his confidence is low he tends to play that half hearted little scoop pull, which gets him out. When he's confident he remembers that short balls are meant for the fence.

Bradman does too in fact. It's a lame excuse. Of course everybody fails, and it's ok for someone like Head to fail on days when he's not needed to succeed. But there are going to be times when Warner, Smith and Labu all fail on the same day, and a number 5 or 6 who don't have enough class to stand up and deliver on those days is extremely low value to the team. Think Larry Gomes.

Every batsmen not called Bradman fails in significantly more innings than they succeed. you know that.

Whatever happened to Ronan? Didn’t he make a comeback a few months’ back? Or was that last season?

Interesting Troy. No doubt he takes the mental side very seriously. His recommendation to DW to practise on hard surfaces was interesting too, though I did wonder - his batting in the semi looked at its most fluent and confident so far, maybe because this pitch wasn’t as tired as the others and the ball came on nicely.

I agree that he is up there with the greats. But I also think when comparing greats we should put a premium on OS performance - it’s harder, greater variety of conditions, and more comparable to your peers who play only a fraction of the games you do on your home surface.

Pakistan not quite bottom placed?

Yep and Finch is a prime example of why the different forms are different. And Mitch Marsh.

I was beginning to think this Woodfull guy is pretty sharp until the bit about Mitch Marsh and “batting is batting”. I wouldn’t say Marsh couldn’t do it but there is no logic to it. He only played one Shield game last year for a grand total of 46 runs. And the Aussie white ball skipper is exhibit A in the case against “batting is batting”.

And of course the other thing you need to ask yourself, is how many of test cricket’s triple tons have been the only century in the match, only century for their own team in the match, or even the only one in that particular team innings. These are also in the tiny minority, which is further rather unneeded proof that triple tons are only ever scored when batting conditions are easy. ______________________________ I could name an Australian batsman of the last 30 years of whose 20 test tons, 13 fitted into one of those three categories, 12 against the top half of the test hierarchy of the time, and indeed six of them fitted into that first and most elite of those aforementioned categories. Five of those six matches were won by his team, and the one draw was in a deciding test in which he prevented a series defeat. That is what impact is, not scoring 335 out of 3 for 589 or 334 out of 4 for 599. ___________________________ That same batsman I am talking about, in those 13 tons that fitted into one of those three categories, the average bowled out team total was 370, and on average there was only 1.4 other half centuries in the same team innings. That is class.

All good. I was a bit harsh too.