[Cricket] Poor Aussies

[Taybha]

Still can't quite get my head round why those responsible for blatant cheating are now back playing for their country , makes me wonder if some of our own did what the Australian's did would they be allowed to ever play the game again for their country ? i doubt it , , scummy fkwits i hope they get smashed , and i hope that every time these cheats walk out onto one of England's cricket pitches they get absolutely slaughtered by the crowd .

 

[Stat Brother]

I think Justin Langer needs to have a word with himself after this interview.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...warner?platform=amp&__twitter_impression=true

First of all, they cheated ..... so booing is always likely, as long as it doesn’t become abusive.

Secondly in the article he says about how booing isn’t in the spirit of the game, now on face value he is probably right but bearing in mind the circumstances of why they were banned I do believe he is an idiot to make that comment.

Finally as the article says the Aussies have actively promoted abusing players (Broad) and now the shoe is on the other foot they don’t seem to like it.

Poor sausage !!

So he took the opportunity to own decades of poor behaviour by himself and his national side.
Point to this as a leading cause of moving from 'gamesmanship' to outright cheating.
Accept complete responsibility.
Agree that the fans have every right and are justified in booing.
Before finally vowing Australia will never again lose slight of the fact it's just a game of stick and ball...









...oh
Perhaps next time.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Sorry, but that is simply untrue. Not with a foreign object, brought onto the field specifically to alter its state.

Shining the ball - scuffing the ball - even picking at the seam - these are things that go on. Some legitimate, some pushing the boundaries.

But there are lines that you don't cross. That nobody who understands or cherishes the spirit of the game of cricket, would EVER consider crossing. The 'golden rule' is 'don't be a cheating ****'.

Blimey, you really do think life could be a Utopian dream. Gravel, fingernails, scuffing one side deliberately, it has been going on for 50 years at least, in both the professional and amateur game. Even the act of polishing one side of the ball is designed to gain an advantage, some people just take it a little further. Do you ever speed in your car?

 

[Titanic]

Blimey, you really do think life could be a Utopian dream. Gravel, fingernails, scuffing one side deliberately, it has been going on for 50 years at least, in both the professional and amateur game. Even the act of polishing one side of the ball is designed to gain an advantage, some people just take it a little further. Do you ever speed in your car?

Gravel??

****ing BOO!!!

 

[blockhseagull]

I much prefer the idea of greeting Warner and Smith with absolute silence. These egos feed of the attention, so starve them of it.

No boos. No abuse. Just nothing. Beneath contempt.

#Silence4Steve

Possibly true for Warner, his ego is off the charts.

Smith to me however looks quite weak, probably bullied into it in the first place and certainly didn’t cope with being caught.

I think a constant summer of abuse could well effect his head.

 

[jakarta]

Smith to me however looks quite weak, probably bullied into it in the first place and certainly didn’t cope with being caught.
I think a constant summer of abuse could well effect his head.

Which will be a shame...

 

[Audax]

While you're all indulging in a spot of Aussie-bashing, let's not forget here that the main reason this blew up into the big scandal it became was because Aussies (the Aussie public, the Aussie cricket board) chose to make it a big thing. No other players in the history of cricket have received punishments for ball tampering that even come close to what these three received. That includes a player who was found guilty of ball tampering *after* the Cape Town incident (and whose board appealed the verdict), and also includes players who were on the field for South Africa in that game (Faf has been found guilty twice). It also includes players who never got caught and eventually came clean many years later (English players, who tampered during an entire Ashes series, having experimented on which sweets were the best ones to provide polish for the ball).

As an Aussie, I have no pride for what these guys did. If it was up to me, Warner would never come near the team again. Boo him as much as you like. However: Bancroft and Smith should be given second chances - they made big mistakes, but I have no doubt that both will have learned their lessons from this. Warner, on the other hand, has a history that suggests he'll become a problem again in future even if he's behaving himself now.

The real problem in cricket when it comes to ball tampering is with the ICC authorities and the way they have handled it historically. All the way up to Cape Town (and even since then - remember here that the ICC only handed down 1 match bans, it was the Aussie authorities who went for the full year bans) the ICC has treated ball tampering as a low-level offence. It wasn't even an automatic match ban under the rules that were in place up to that scandal. The ICC was complicit in allowing players to (over a prolonged period of time) develop a culture and mindset that established ball tampering as an "acceptable risk" to take when necessary. It was inevitable, in my opinion, that a Cape Town scale scandal would happen. It was just a question of which team would get furthest down the "must win at all costs" road first.

I hate that it was the Aussies - but let's not kid ourselves that it was only the Aussies who were headed that way, and definitely let's not kid ourselves that it was only the Aussies who ever took it to such extremes.

The only thing that stands out from this whole affair is that the Aussie public, and the Aussie cricketing authorities, are the only ones who ever took applying the punishment for ball tampering seriously.

I'd suggest we all take note of the way the South Africans responded. They were the victims, and yet they are the ones in all this who've been the most moderate in their reactions - they've recognised their own history, accepted that the incident cannot be taken in isolation, and they have since moved on.

 

[Audax]

Still can't quite get my head round why those responsible for blatant cheating are now back playing for their country , makes me wonder if some of our own did what the Australian's did would they be allowed to ever play the game again for their country ? i doubt it , , scummy fkwits i hope they get smashed , and i hope that every time these cheats walk out onto one of England's cricket pitches they get absolutely slaughtered by the crowd .

Some of your own did historically. They didn't get caught at the time, although an Australian player did (correctly, it turned out) call them out on it. The England players and board at the time (and press) howled the claims down. But, eventually, the truth came out. An entire Ashes series win for the English (2005) that will forever be tarnished by a ball tampering scandal that never became a scandal.

 

[Mackenzie]

While you're all indulging in a spot of Aussie-bashing, let's not forget here that the main reason this blew up into the big scandal it became was because Aussies (the Aussie public, the Aussie cricket board) chose to make it a big thing. No other players in the history of cricket have received punishments for ball tampering that even come close to what these three received. That includes a player who was found guilty of ball tampering *after* the Cape Town incident (and whose board appealed the verdict), and also includes players who were on the field for South Africa in that game (Faf has been found guilty twice). It also includes players who never got caught and eventually came clean many years later (English players, who tampered during an entire Ashes series, having experimented on which sweets were the best ones to provide polish for the ball).

As an Aussie, I have no pride for what these guys did. If it was up to me, Warner would never come near the team again. Boo him as much as you like. However: Bancroft and Smith should be given second chances - they made big mistakes, but I have no doubt that both will have learned their lessons from this. Warner, on the other hand, has a history that suggests he'll become a problem again in future even if he's behaving himself now.

The real problem in cricket when it comes to ball tampering is with the ICC authorities and the way they have handled it historically. All the way up to Cape Town (and even since then - remember here that the ICC only handed down 1 match bans, it was the Aussie authorities who went for the full year bans) the ICC has treated ball tampering as a low-level offence. It wasn't even an automatic match ban under the rules that were in place up to that scandal. The ICC was complicit in allowing players to (over a prolonged period of time) develop a culture and mindset that established ball tampering as an "acceptable risk" to take when necessary. It was inevitable, in my opinion, that a Cape Town scale scandal would happen. It was just a question of which team would get furthest down the "must win at all costs" road first.

I hate that it was the Aussies - but let's not kid ourselves that it was only the Aussies who were headed that way, and definitely let's not kid ourselves that it was only the Aussies who ever took it to such extremes.

The only thing that stands out from this whole affair is that the Aussie public, and the Aussie cricketing authorities, are the only ones who ever took applying the punishment for ball tampering seriously.

I'd suggest we all take note of the way the South Africans responded. They were the victims, and yet they are the ones in all this who've been the most moderate in their reactions - they've recognised their own history, accepted that the incident cannot be taken in isolation, and they have since moved on.

So you've taken the moral high ground.

Textbook.

 

[Greavsey]

Let's not forget their sledging of Bairstow about his Dad's suicide.

Really? This actually happened??

 

[Triggaaar]

Australian’s have always been very good at dishing it out and then play the moral indignation card when they get some back....this article sums it up quite well.

http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1181098/the-ugly-australian--the-evolution-of-a-cricket-species

Would one of our resident Aussies like to read that and remind us that there isn't a racism problem in Australia?

 

[Mellotron]

While you're all indulging in a spot of Aussie-bashing, let's not forget here that the main reason this blew up into the big scandal it became was because Aussies (the Aussie public, the Aussie cricket board) chose to make it a big thing. No other players in the history of cricket have received punishments for ball tampering that even come close to what these three received. That includes a player who was found guilty of ball tampering *after* the Cape Town incident (and whose board appealed the verdict), and also includes players who were on the field for South Africa in that game (Faf has been found guilty twice). It also includes players who never got caught and eventually came clean many years later (English players, who tampered during an entire Ashes series, having experimented on which sweets were the best ones to provide polish for the ball).

As an Aussie, I have no pride for what these guys did. If it was up to me, Warner would never come near the team again. Boo him as much as you like. However: Bancroft and Smith should be given second chances - they made big mistakes, but I have no doubt that both will have learned their lessons from this. Warner, on the other hand, has a history that suggests he'll become a problem again in future even if he's behaving himself now.

The real problem in cricket when it comes to ball tampering is with the ICC authorities and the way they have handled it historically. All the way up to Cape Town (and even since then - remember here that the ICC only handed down 1 match bans, it was the Aussie authorities who went for the full year bans) the ICC has treated ball tampering as a low-level offence. It wasn't even an automatic match ban under the rules that were in place up to that scandal. The ICC was complicit in allowing players to (over a prolonged period of time) develop a culture and mindset that established ball tampering as an "acceptable risk" to take when necessary. It was inevitable, in my opinion, that a Cape Town scale scandal would happen. It was just a question of which team would get furthest down the "must win at all costs" road first.

I hate that it was the Aussies - but let's not kid ourselves that it was only the Aussies who were headed that way, and definitely let's not kid ourselves that it was only the Aussies who ever took it to such extremes.

The only thing that stands out from this whole affair is that the Aussie public, and the Aussie cricketing authorities, are the only ones who ever took applying the punishment for ball tampering seriously.

I'd suggest we all take note of the way the South Africans responded. They were the victims, and yet they are the ones in all this who've been the most moderate in their reactions - they've recognised their own history, accepted that the incident cannot be taken in isolation, and they have since moved on.

How can you write so many words yet still completely miss the point altogether?

 

[Audax]

So you've taken the moral high ground.

Textbook.

No, just looking at the bigger picture. That day in Cape Town is a black mark on Aussie cricket that will never go away. That it became the scandal it did is because of the super-high standards that the Aussie public in general hold that team to. For those unaware, the position of Captain of the Australian cricket team is a big deal in Australia. That's why the Aussie board took the stance they did and threw the book at those guys. Rightly so, as well, and I'm glad it triggered a deeper look at the culture in the Aussie team (which I firmly believe had gone far too far into "win at all costs" mentality).

It's just a shame that the ICC has dragged it's feet (even after Cape Town) on sorting out the problems in their own rule book, and it's also a shame that even after that day Chandimal still felt it was an acceptable risk to take and the Sri Lankan board chose not to follow the example the Aussie board set.

It's also a shame that the England board and public has never properly acknowledged what went on during the 2005 Ashes.

Say what you want about the 3 players, but I firmly believe everyone needs to take a long, hard look at the bigger picture and at least acknowledge *how* cricket got to the point where the Aussie players involved could have a belief that what they did was in anyway an acceptable risk.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Blimey, you really do think life could be a Utopian dream. Gravel, fingernails, scuffing one side deliberately, it has been going on for 50 years at least, in both the professional and amateur game. Even the act of polishing one side of the ball is designed to gain an advantage, some people just take it a little further. Do you ever speed in your car?

Whatever.

I'm pretty comfortable with my knowledge and understanding of all levels of cricket. There is a huge chasm between a player 'carelessly' stopping a ball with his studs, or 'absent mindedly' flicking threads on the seam with his fingernails, and the systematic, pre-meditated cheating this Australian team were guilty of.

As I opined - there is a line - and everyone who understands the GAME of cricket, knows where it is.

 

[Audax]

Would one of our resident Aussies like to read that and remind us that there isn't a racism problem in Australia?

There's a massive racism problem in Australia. Same as there is here in the UK, in the US, and just about everywhere in the world.

 

[Mellotron]

No, just looking at the bigger picture. That day in Cape Town is a black mark on Aussie cricket that will never go away. That it became the scandal it did is because of the super-high standards that the Aussie public in general hold that team to. For those unaware, the position of Captain of the Australian cricket team is a big deal in Australia. That's why the Aussie board took the stance they did and threw the book at those guys. Rightly so, as well, and I'm glad it triggered a deeper look at the culture in the Aussie team (which I firmly believe had gone far too far into "win at all costs" mentality).

It's just a shame that the ICC has dragged it's feet (even after Cape Town) on sorting out the problems in their own rule book, and it's also a shame that even after that day Chandimal still felt it was an acceptable risk to take and the Sri Lankan board chose not to follow the example the Aussie board set.

It's also a shame that the England board and public has never properly acknowledged what went on during the 2005 Ashes.

Say what you want about the 3 players, but I firmly believe everyone needs to take a long, hard look at the bigger picture and at least acknowledge *how* cricket got to the point where the Aussie players involved could have a belief that what they did was in anyway an acceptable risk.

Thoughts on this article?

http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1181098/the-ugly-australian--the-evolution-of-a-cricket-species

 

[Audax]

Thoughts on this article?

http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1181098/the-ugly-australian--the-evolution-of-a-cricket-species

As mentioned in one of my other replies here - the culture in and around the Aussie cricket team was piss poor. As an Aussie, I expect that team to play hard, and yes I expect a bit of banter / sledging as part of that. But not to the point it gets toxic, and that's where it was during that South African tour (from both sides, but that doesn't excuse it) and where it had been for some time before that. It started with Steve Waugh's side, but was entering "I don't like this" during Clarke's captaincy and then Smith oversaw it going too far. I certainly don't like the hypocritical approach that was taken at times where it was deemed acceptable for an Aussie to cross the line a time or two, but any opposition player who even approached the line got called out. It was wrong, and it always has been. I'm not a huge fan of Langer and his approach, either. But equally I'm not a huge fan of a lot of what I'm seeing in this thread either - while justified, it's over-the-top, and it's time to move on.

I haven't played outdoor club cricket in Australia for a very long time (my last game was late 90's, and it was a one-off). Most of my cricket playing in Australia was ACT competition level indoor cricket, which included playing alongside and briefly (before I had a major back injury) training with the ACT second XI. Within the indoor scene, the culture was fantastic - I never encountered any of the issues mentioned in the article. Lots of good-natured banter and the odd argument, but never anything overtly nasty.

I've been playing outdoor cricket with a club in the south east on and off over the last few years. I was playing in the lower divisions of the ESCL (7/8/9) prior to the formation of the new Sussex league. Again, vast majority of that has seen some jolly good natured banter. A lot of it aimed at me, from both my own club and opposition players. Being the only Aussie on a field full of English cricketers, it's to be expected. It remained good natured even after Cape Town - I even at times directed banter at myself because I found it helped get things going on the right foot. I usually open the bowling when I play, and I often wear an Aussie hat when playing so I'm an obvious target. I found getting it out of the way early on was a great way of establishing the right atmosphere for a game.

Having said that, over the years I have seen some genuinely ugly incidents in English club cricket. In the lower division, they're normally created because theirs no independent umpires You've got members of the batting team filling umpiring duties, and some are lacking in integrity. I've seen incidents where a youngster has been sent out to umpire while their captain is out batting. The captain is a big fella, with a ... shall we say, "forceful" nature. There's been situations where said captain has been given not out after getting a big nick behind, standing their ground, and staring aggressively at their own player blatantly intimidating them into giving the not out decision. Result: opposition captain, and hotheads within my own club, standing mid-pitch having a nasty exchange, and then even after being separated and the game continuing the atmosphere is from that point poisoned. And tends to carry on in the return match if the same players are on the field.

 

[the right footed denilson]

They'll have a lot more than a bit of booing to worry about when our Jofra is pinging it about their helmets all summer...can't wait!

 

[Greg Bobkin]

While you're all indulging in a spot of Aussie-bashing, let's not forget here that the main reason this blew up into the big scandal it became was because Aussies (the Aussie public, the Aussie cricket board) chose to make it a big thing. No other players in the history of cricket have received punishments for ball tampering that even come close to what these three received. That includes a player who was found guilty of ball tampering *after* the Cape Town incident (and whose board appealed the verdict), and also includes players who were on the field for South Africa in that game (Faf has been found guilty twice). It also includes players who never got caught and eventually came clean many years later (English players, who tampered during an entire Ashes series, having experimented on which sweets were the best ones to provide polish for the ball).

As an Aussie, I have no pride for what these guys did. If it was up to me, Warner would never come near the team again. Boo him as much as you like. However: Bancroft and Smith should be given second chances - they made big mistakes, but I have no doubt that both will have learned their lessons from this. Warner, on the other hand, has a history that suggests he'll become a problem again in future even if he's behaving himself now.

The real problem in cricket when it comes to ball tampering is with the ICC authorities and the way they have handled it historically. All the way up to Cape Town (and even since then - remember here that the ICC only handed down 1 match bans, it was the Aussie authorities who went for the full year bans) the ICC has treated ball tampering as a low-level offence. It wasn't even an automatic match ban under the rules that were in place up to that scandal. The ICC was complicit in allowing players to (over a prolonged period of time) develop a culture and mindset that established ball tampering as an "acceptable risk" to take when necessary. It was inevitable, in my opinion, that a Cape Town scale scandal would happen. It was just a question of which team would get furthest down the "must win at all costs" road first.

I hate that it was the Aussies - but let's not kid ourselves that it was only the Aussies who were headed that way, and definitely let's not kid ourselves that it was only the Aussies who ever took it to such extremes.

The only thing that stands out from this whole affair is that the Aussie public, and the Aussie cricketing authorities, are the only ones who ever took applying the punishment for ball tampering seriously.

I'd suggest we all take note of the way the South Africans responded. They were the victims, and yet they are the ones in all this who've been the most moderate in their reactions - they've recognised their own history, accepted that the incident cannot be taken in isolation, and they have since moved on.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[Audax]

They'll have a lot more than a bit of booing to worry about when our Jofra is pinging it about their helmets all summer...can't wait!

Looks like you've got a real star there, and one that follows in the proud English tradition of importing talent .

Might be a controversial thing to say, but for the Ashes I'd suggest you go with Anderson + Archer + whoever of Wood, S.Curran, Woakes is both fit and in form for the Ashes. Take the opportunity to say goodbye to Broad - you'll have a stronger batting line up, and with both Anderson and Broad getting close to retirement it's probably a good idea to try to separate out when they go. Broad's been inconsistent for a while now (periodically match-winning brilliant interspersed with periods of uselessness). Get rid now, get what you can out of Anderson until he chooses to go, and blood the young fellas alongside him.