No I can’t feel anything for Smith and ‘The young newbie’ as everyone defending him is trying to make out he was.
They could and should have bailed out when Warner was pushing. They could have done easily. They are totally complicit in my opinion.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] Aussie Cheats!
- Thread starter lawros left foot
- Start date
No I can’t feel anything for Smith and ‘The young newbie’ as everyone defending him is trying to make out he was.
They could and should have bailed out when Warner was pushing. They could have done easily. They are totally complicit in my opinion.
100% this.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
You wonder how often the Australian cricket team have cheated in recent times. Probably many. They certainly have taken the game downwards with their approach on and off the field. In this particular case their tears are those of people who have be caught, they wouldn’t have been crying if they hadn’t been exposed. Won’t be long before they’re back and sledging again
No one is letting them off. They've been slapped (by Cricket Australia) with by far and away the largest ever ban for ball tampering in cricket history. It's good to see today that both Smith and Bancroft have indicated they will accept the full bans and not contest them. Will be interesting to see what Warner does, as he's not made his statement yet.
As far as premeditation is concerned: ball tampering is always premeditated. Trescothick premeditated when he did his experiments to figure out which mints were best. The players who admitted to using bottle tops to scratch the ball in the past premeditated. Philander knew exactly what he was doing before he did it when he used finger nails to scratch the ball. Faf du Plessis knew what he was planning to do with that sweet in his mouth before he ever touched the ball in Hobart, and he certainly knew what he was planning when he chose to wear trousers with a zippered pocket when he got caught the first time around. It's not the "premeditation" that's got people so worked up this time around; that's just being used as a cheap hook.
As far as life bans are concerned ... I firmly believe in giving people a second chance. We're all human, and humans make mistakes. That doesn't mean they should then be tarred by those mistakes for life; as long as they learn from the mistakes and change their approach and don't repeat the offence, then I'm cool with having them back again. Smith and Bancroft's comments over night both indicate they are determined to do all the right things to get themselves back into the game, so why shouldn't they be given that chance?
The blame for this specific incident lies entirely with the men involved. But the incident happened within the context of a global cricket culture that has allowed certain types of ball tampering to become accepted, and that has historically treated ball tampering as a minor offence (Faf du Plessis didn't even get a ban when he was caught at Hobart, and he wasn't the first to be let off so lightly). The blame for that *does* lie with the ICC. It's important to draw the distinction between the two: in no way am I trying to shift the blame from the Aussie trio for what they did. What I am doing is drawing a distinction between what they, personally, are to blame for and what the ICC, as the custodians for the game, are to blame for. Something that the ICC themselves have accepted.
I'm not going to go through any of the rest of your response, because to be honest I don't like the way you're cherry picking quotes out of my responses and using those to twist my words to fit your own narrative. Suffice to say that what I'm seeing a lot of in this thread is arguments that are based on "they are guilty of the ball tampering and guilty of a couple of lies in the first press conference, therefore they must be guilty of all these other things as well" when there's no proof on those "other things" and there's perfectly viable alternative interpretations that also can't be proven but probably should be considered.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
I'll just wipe a tear from my eye...me thinks someone doth protest too much
That's fair enough, but it didn't come across like that in your earlier post.
I simply quote the bits I feel like commenting on. You've posted a lot on this thread, I can't reply to all of it. I'm not twisting your words, just saying what I think.
Worried Man Blues
Well-known member
I suppose what is wrong is the authorities not laying down what the penalties would be so everyone has an idea of the punishment. Personally I would make them life bans so there is no quibble but we're all different. We'll see what happens to them and if the ban stops others. Cheers
Raleigh Chopper
New member
If it was the English that were cheating, and even if we sacked everyone involved and started again, the Aussies would never let us forget it every time we played them, that is the crowd, the press and the sledging would have been endless.
If they now realise that their attitude was all wrong and they are going to change why did they not realise that earlier, why wait until you have been caught cheating to realise that it's gone too far, no way would they have changed if they had not been caught.
It's all bollox, absolutely no sympathy from me, I am loving watching the mouthy Aussies bleating like school girls.
If they now realise that their attitude was all wrong and they are going to change why did they not realise that earlier, why wait until you have been caught cheating to realise that it's gone too far, no way would they have changed if they had not been caught.
It's all bollox, absolutely no sympathy from me, I am loving watching the mouthy Aussies bleating like school girls.
I tried to explain to my missus why I had no sympathy for them, and actually was enjoying their downfall - but without the 40+ years of history she didn't really get it. I then received an email from my mate which simply said "such a shame about the Aussies" - I know I don't have any explaining to do there!
Thecoffeecake
New member
I don't know anything about cricket, but it's been interesting following the story. It's been all over Al Jazeera this week. The scores always drive me nuts, like 344-6 to 200. What the hell does that mean?
I was surprised to find this guy was playing in India. I know it's the biggest cricket country in the world, but I imagined it would be difficult to get Aussies and other players from developed countries to live in India.
I was surprised to find this guy was playing in India. I know it's the biggest cricket country in the world, but I imagined it would be difficult to get Aussies and other players from developed countries to live in India.
Lindfield23
Well-known member
- Dec 14, 2016
- 762
The larger number at the front (e.g. 344) = number of runs amassed by the batting side
The number following the dash/hyphen = amount of wickets taken by the bowling side in an innings (if 10 wickets are taken, the innings is brought to an end, similarly to when the pitching side takes all 3 outs in baseball)
Hope this helps
They’re being paid an absolute fortune for playing in the Indian Premier League, for actually not that much work. Sure they’ll either be in very smart hotels or apartment blocks with drivers and cooks etc.
And it only lasts six weeks of each year.
... unless you're in Australia who (for some reason) do it the other way round, ie 6-344
Simontheseagull
Eye from the sky
The Aussies have developed these wicket keeping gloves for use in their next test match
https://www.thatsclever.co.uk/product/sanding-glove/
https://www.thatsclever.co.uk/product/sanding-glove/
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
I recently went to India on holiday to meet some friends, absolutely amazing place and it wouldn't be any sort of hardship at all to spend an extended period of time there. I'd imagine the players live in absolute luxury, the high end hotels are top notch.
****ing Aussies! Next thing you know they'll be claiming the Albion keeper spot with some short bloke.