That's not cricket!

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Several decades ago, I remember some bowlers were putting globs of vaseline on their balls to get extra spin or something.

suresh should be able to tell us more about these things being well-worsed and wiiidely read.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The amusing thing is that Australia is full of cheats, but the Anglophile sport of cricket is essentially paid by business to represent the old school values no one follows anymore.
 
Bancroft got nine months, Smith & Warner got a year each. The whole thing is ludicrous-players tamper with the ball probably every match, only difference here is these guys got caught &the Aussie PM stuck his nose in leading to mass moral outrage. Richard Hadlee was on a podcast this week making the fatuous argument that ball tampering is fine if you use fingernails, saliva, sweets etc, but not if you use a foreign object such as sandpaper, a bottle top etc-as he said there has never been any clear definition of what cheating is, a batsman obviously hitting the ball & not walking is cheating but never punished, a wicket-keeper claiming a stumping that wasn't such as Ridley Jacobs who was banned for doing this is considered cheating & punished.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Bancroft got nine months, Smith & Warner got a year each. The whole thing is ludicrous-players tamper with the ball probably every match, only difference here is these guys got caught &the Aussie PM stuck his nose in leading to mass moral outrage. Richard Hadlee was on a podcast this week making the fatuous argument that ball tampering is fine if you use fingernails, saliva, sweets etc, but not if you use a foreign object such as sandpaper, a bottle top etc-as he said there has never been any clear definition of what cheating is, a batsman obviously hitting the ball & not walking is cheating but never punished, a wicket-keeper claiming a stumping that wasn't such as Ridley Jacobs who was banned for doing this is considered cheating & punished.
Yeah, too much ambiguity in the rules. About the outrage, maybe it's an overreaction after finding out that they can't cover it up anymore (caught on live TV with Smith admirably choosing to own up rather than throw Bancroft under the bus). For so many years, the Aussie establishment furiously denied allegations of cheating and/or sledging that was profane or were even racism-tinged. I remember when Ponting let a reporter have it for suggesting that he claimed a catch on a bump ball (and it was clearly a bump ball) but not a word from Cricket Australia (some writers, notably Peter Roebuck, criticised his behaviour). And it wasn't even the first such instance. Also, their curious insistence that batsmen from rival teams should walk when only Gilchrist from their side actually practiced it. I think the other teams have generally had a realistic approach (more than a couple of Indian players spoke out, saying the punishment given to Smith was too harsh), recognising that all is fair in love, war and modern sport. Australia maintained this curious holier-than-thou posture while playing as dirty as the other teams and it seems to have offended the public and the politicians badly to have been found out in a way that is impossible to deny. I mean, if the cricket-watching public in Australia actually believed their players when they said they played hard and fair, that is laughably naive.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, too much ambiguity in the rules. About the outrage, maybe it's an overreaction after finding out that they can't cover it up anymore (caught on live TV with Smith admirably choosing to own up rather than throw Bancroft under the bus). For so many years, the Aussie establishment furiously denied allegations of cheating and/or sledging that was profane or were even racism-tinged. I remember when Ponting let a reporter have it for suggesting that he claimed a catch on a bump ball (and it was clearly a bump ball) but not a word from Cricket Australia (some writers, notably Peter Roebuck, criticised his behaviour). And it wasn't even the first such instance. Also, their curious insistence that batsmen from rival teams should walk when only Gilchrist from their side actually practiced it. I think the other teams have generally had a realistic approach (more than a couple of Indian players spoke out, saying the punishment given to Smith was too harsh), recognising that all is fair in love, war and modern sport. Australia maintained this curious holier-than-thou posture while playing as dirty as the other teams and it seems to have offended the public and the politicians badly to have been found out in a way that is impossible to deny. I mean, if the cricket-watching public in Australia actually believed their players when they said they played hard and fair, that is laughably naive.
The public, politicians & fans were all fine with the endless sledging, swearing etc-even when Warner tried to attack DeKock backstage a week or so before, so I have no idea why this should be so unpalatable for them, certainly the real outrage started after the PM made his statement, I think without that this would have blown over. The ACB/CA stir it up on their press releases & social media pages-especially when England arrive for the Ashes down under every time, so the bad behaviour starts from the top-yet James Sutherland is still in his job after 20 years of appalling conduct from the players.
 
They were so severely punished merely to appease the sponsors and to calm the moral outrage.
Yep, without the PM I think it would have been fines & likely left at the ICC ban. Let us not forget this is a board who covered up the Mark Waugh & Shane Warne providing pitch information to bookies for several years until it came out & have let the abysmal behaviour of captains & their teams going back to Ian Chappell nearly 50 years ago pretty much go unpunished. As far as I can recall the only time they dished out any significant punishment previously was to the Packer WSC players & later the SAF rebel tour players.
 

Crocodile

Legend
They were so severely punished merely to appease the sponsors and to calm the moral outrage.
It's a very un-Australian thing for the sponsors and CA to behave the way they have. Yes the cricketers practised bad judgement and for that a penalty is to be served but when one makes a mistake in life at some stage you have to forgive and let go. I'd imagine right now Steve Smith would be in a bad place right now and needs surge support of his family. After all it's only a game of cricket, he didn't murder anyone.
Some of the sponsors should have a look in there own backyard.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It's never my style to get 'political' but there had just been a massive pay and conditions dispute between cricket authorities and the players which the players won.

There is more than a little desire for revenge in the way authorities managed this crisis and also glee at the destruction of their industrial enemy.

They'll look forward to the next round of discussions more eagerly.

A hysterical over reaction and pile on mentality of social media and the moral police.
 
It's never my style to get 'political' but there had just been a massive pay and conditions dispute between cricket authorities and the players which the players won.

There is more than a little desire for revenge in the way authorities managed this crisis and also glee at the destruction of their industrial enemy.

They'll look forward to the next round of discussions more eagerly.
That was more about the players at the lower end of the game than the superstars of the national team. Make no mistake, the only reason CA did what they did was because of the Prime Minister-if he hadn't made those statements this would have almost certainly blown over in a month or so & the public would not be so permanently outraged.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Our PM certainly likes to butt in on issues and disputes that don't really concern him, as he comes up to his thirtieth lost opinion poll.
 
Top