Posted by That is the subtext of any comment from captain or coach after David Warner has behaved like a bit of a prick. “He’s an aggressive player and we don’t want him to lose that edge,” they say.
They say this because they know the truth: picking fights with people as a fielder has a direct impact on Warner’s batting. It’s hard for you to comprehend, because watching on TV you can’t actually see his special superhero belt. But it’s there. It’s real. He wears it underneath his whites; it has a series of lights along it; and they illuminate as he powers up.
Warner gains energy from behaving like a six-year-old, so he needs to ‘get involved’ and showcase his complete inability to see another person’s perspective every chance he gets. Each time he does this, another of his belt lights goes on until he is fully powered-up and ready to bat. At that point, he finally turns his attention to cricket.
SO, as it’s taken for granted that at some point soon a player is going to be punched on the field should we:
1) Assume David Warner will be the puncher?
2) Tell him that some people’s beards are genuine and do not constitute good cause to throw fists around?
We can only hope that when it happens he picks on someone like Mohammad Irfan.
David Warner: would he fit into the Australian team of the early 00’s? Being both a damned good batsmen and a grade A arsehole, he seems to be rather overqualified.
The TV companies want this, and I presume the ICC knows it, so yes, nothing will be done at the top level to turn off the verbals and everyone is sitting around with fingers crossed for a few punch-ups.
For my part, I’m so glad that as everyone predicted, the death of Phil Hughes will be a wake-up call that will galvanize cricketers to doing something about zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Ministry of Truth has put together a step-by-step guide to understanding and using Doublespeak:
1. Watch the video of Warner discussing things with Rohit Sharma, with particular reference to Warner’s facial expression.
2. Look up the word “polite” in a dictionary.
3. Formulate a meaningful sentence incorporating this word to describe Warner’s request to Rohit to change language, without (and this is the key step) using any negatives.
Once you have mastered this, you too will be able to say things like “I advocate cheating, but what Broad did was cheating”, and you will become eligible for a job with Cricket Australia.
Further details can be found in David Warner’s new book:
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/daveys-in-trouble-again-david-warners-antisledging-book-20150119-12t85w.html
Please tell me he got Joe Root to write the foreword.
Or at least gave him a free copy (Root being in the target demographic after all).
Warner gave him one, all right.
This might sound stupid given his huge success, but I don’t rate Warner as a batsman. I reckon he’ll get found out soon, particularly in English conditions. He just throws his hands at anything outside off stump and a lot of the time he gets lucky. He’s got a great eye, but the technique isn’t there.
I’ve always felt this too, but never bothered to check his overseas record.
Warner’s had all of five series outside of Australia. Three of them feature his three lowest series averages (in WI, England, and India), but he’s averaged more than 50 in the UAE and South Africa (actually 90-odd in SA).
So basically, if we drop his first series (the WI tour) and South Africa, where conditions are very similar to Australia, he’s got one good series (albeit only four innings) and two not-good ones (comprising fourteen innings).
I tend to rate Warner, but there might be something to your theory.
Much as I would like this to be true, I’m not sure it is. Yes he’s on a good run and will have lean times, but he does look pretty tidy and compact to me. If you’re looking for someone hitting through the line with hard hands and no thought I can think of 2 members of the Australian white ball top 3 ahead of him.
I know it is a sign of encroaching age to hark back to better times, but am convinced that the Aussie villains of my youth were a better class of villain.
Players such as Lillee, Thommo, Marsh, Chapelli, Merv, Warne to give just a few examples, were all masters of the “mental disintegration” school, yet there was something human and knowing about their methods. There was a twinkle in the eye. There was some humour to it.
David Warner comes across to me quite simply as a nasty, humorless oik. That might be unfair, but that is the way it comes across. A quite extraordinary lack of mitigation.
He’s Australian. He’s not a oik, he’s a bogan.
Not at all, daneel.
The point (and indeed the use of the word oik) is not a reference to class in the bogan, chav, larrikin sense, but instead refers to Warner’s uncouth, obnoxious behaviour.
Posh boys can behave like oiks too, but they can never be bogans, chavs or larrikins.
I do agree with much of the article and the comments, but there’s something about Warner – I cannot quite bring myself to dislike him as much as I do Gambhir or Broad. Probably because he’s only five feet tall and constantly needs attention?
Thinking Warner – the guy who actually uses his brain during ordinary conversations – is actually quite self-aware and that’s always a likeable quality.
Emotional Warner – the guy who reacts to things and goes looking for things to react to – is a king-size cock.
It’s the “goes looking for things to react to” bit that is worst about him. This wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment response, and even if you believe Warner’s (incorrect) view of the event, it wasn’t a particularly bad thing that happened. He was wrong about a trivial thing that didn’t affect him or the match, and some appreciable time later he decided to make an issue of it. And it’s hard to see anything other than genuine hatred in his face when he is making his language suggestion to Rohit. While pondering the event, he turned it into a matter of personal pride for which he then needed to get redress. If he did nothing, Rohit would have “won”. That couldn’t be allowed, Warner had to win, he always has to win.
I’ve known a few people like this, mainly in rugby – nice and reasonable if and only if everything is going their way, else nasty. The former doesn’t cancel the latter; in fact it makes it worse. Warner is simply a dick, a nasty little shit with massive talent, massive arrogance, and little else. The good thing is that the Australian press has generally seen this for what it is and criticised Warner roundly. The bad thing is that the people in charge of the team still think that sporting aggression and personal nastiness are the same thing, and are too frightened to address one for fear of damaging the other.
Yeah, the sanctimony is hilarious. Boorish sanctimony might well be the “spirit of the Baggy Green”. I think we know now that it is Davey who draws “the line” that international cricketers must not cross. I think we also know that he draws it such that the opposition is on the wrong side. That was about running on an overthrough… FFS.
Throw… jeez.
I’m not always a fan of Cricinfo’s India-centric cartoonist, but this is a top-quality depiction of “Little Davey”: http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/822687.html