GarlicJam wrote: and that would be a good thing because.......?
I think you are missing the point, somewhat. The generally accepted idea is that sledging a player alters their mindset, resulting in them adapting their game against their own better judgement in most ideal case scenarios. If Warner was to react to the sledging by going out with a mindset of slogging the hell out of everything, the plan to alter his mindset would have worked, regardless of the result. It wouldnt matter how he performed or the net result.
If I were to get you drunk out of your head, and get you to bet your house and savings on rolling 6 straight 6's on a dice, would my plan have been foolish had you then gone and done it, despite the fact that the probability of such an outcome favours me 117,000 times to 1? No, of course not. Id be an incredibly rich man if I replayed that scenario in any greater frequency than one occurrence, with the average expected result incredibly stacked in my favour to the point its comfortably easy to say that any repeated scenario on similar odds is an impossibility that it ever works well for you. You are essentially infering that the only incidents of good and solid judgement are exclusively ones that have perfect outcomes, and do not take into account intangibles such as luck.
It would generally be accepted that a batsman looking to hit every ball for 6 in a test would be a negative, and lead overtime to getting far less value for each wicket.
So yes, the plan would work.