Baggy Green ball tampering: Bancroft, Smith and the Aussie "Leadership Group"

[michaelm]

If it wasn't for Tubby, Ian Healy would have been captain, and the ball would have been rolling out of control

What Healy (fortunately) didn't do to cricket he has (unfortunately) done to commentating.

 

[michaelm]

[Moises] Making himself available for the allrounder spot? Strong team values, support and all that...

Hah - I see where you're going with this...What's the Australian Cricket Teams's strongest team value at the moment?

 

[Spikey]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cri...s-how-did-we-get-to-this-20180326-p4z6c3.html

heh, this article is actually good and identifies some important moments

 

[Spikey]

I partly agree with henriques, now that there's more stuff coming out. starc and hazlewood are spreading word they weren't part of any such meeting, and it seems bancroft was appointed chief ball shiner before this match, taking over from warner. so the idea that there was a senior players meeting and Bancroft happened to stroll past and offer his services is pretty clearly unlikely. more likely it seems warner and bancroft were discussing how to get the ball to do more, and this was their genius plan ("South Africa does it all the time!!!"). whether they took it to smith or was involved in the original discussion is up in the air but it hardly matters as he approved it anyway

 

[michaelm]

You'd hope this fiasco would lead to a period of introspection from Australian cricket that maybe the way you carry on on the field isn't acceptable, and that future Australian sides let their cricket do the talking rather than running their mouths all the time.

You have to be smart enough to realise you're being stupid.

Let's start with Warner...No?
OK, Smith...
Bancroft...surely!...
I know - Lehmann! Sadly no...Boof for Boofhead

...so nope, no hope I'm afraid...

 

[StephenZA]

I partly agree with henriques, now that there's more stuff coming out. starc and hazlewood are spreading word they weren't part of any such meeting, and it seems bancroft was appointed chief ball shiner before this match, taking over from warner. so the idea that there was a senior players meeting and Bancroft happened to stroll past and offer his services is pretty clearly unlikely. more likely it seems warner and bancroft were discussing how to get the ball to do more, and this was their genius plan ("South Africa does it all the time!!!"). whether they took it to smith or was involved in the original discussion is up in the air but it hardly matters as he approved it anyway

Never gonna convince me that the bowlers don't know what the players looking after the ball, are doing to get the ball moving.....

 

[Spikey]

eh, the designation of chief ball shiner surely means bowlers can, if they wish, take a see no evil approach to matters

 

[morgieb]

Never gonna convince me that the bowlers don't know what the players looking after the ball, are doing to get the ball moving.....

There's a difference between what you're suggesting and saying they were in the meeting to ball tamper, which is the main point of contention.

Granted that's being at least somewhat complicit in ball tampering, but IMO that really shouldn't be a hanging offence. I don't think any bowler in the world would refuse to bowl with a tampered ball.

 

[Starfighter]

Never gonna convince me that the bowlers don't know what the players looking after the ball, are doing to get the ball moving.....

The state of the ball is a dynamic thing, and can change quite noticeably between overs and even single deliveries. If a bowler is not in a plan to treat the ball a certain way then they may not notice. How does one distinguish shine produced from lightly sweetened saliva to that without, or that produced by sunscreen? How do you distinguish roughness produced from crud tape from that produced by the pitch? Is someone putting in the intense physical effort that is fast bowling necessarily going to cue on to someone else's actions that quickly?

You seem to be looking to blame more people than is actually necessary.

 

[StephenZA]

eh, the designation of chief ball shiner surely means bowlers can, if they wish, take a see no evil approach to matters

See no evil on the field, maybe... does not mean they don't know what evil is being done through discussion off the field. When you elect somebody to do a job like look after the ball, you gonna want to know that he can do the job as a bowler.

 

[Gnske]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cri...s-how-did-we-get-to-this-20180326-p4z6c3.html

heh, this article is actually good and identifies some important moments

**** me I didn't realise Sutherland had been in the job for that long.

 

[ankitj]

I think I am done having fun at the expense of Australians. I now want Smith to get redemption eventually and be able to walk with his head held high after whatever appropriate punishment.

 

[S.Kennedy]

DIY sandpaper - that is what it was. Make your own sandpaper.

Bancroft (or whoever led the scheme) did not even have the brains to bring a strip of genuine sandpaper haha! And combined with the ''down the pants it goes'' job when Lehman relayed Handscomb that the game was up, and the subsequent production of the cloth in front of the umpires, it may just be the most hair-brained bit of cheating in the history of sport.

 

[Spikey]

**** me I didn't realise Sutherland had been in the job for that long.

I pretty sure he's just on a year to year deal at this point. he might have gone already had their chosen guy not ****ed up the CBA

 

[quincywagstaff]

I partly agree with henriques, now that there's more stuff coming out. starc and hazlewood are spreading word they weren't part of any such meeting, and it seems bancroft was appointed chief ball shiner before this match, taking over from warner. so the idea that there was a senior players meeting and Bancroft happened to stroll past and offer his services is pretty clearly unlikely. more likely it seems warner and bancroft were discussing how to get the ball to do more, and this was their genius plan ("South Africa does it all the time!!!"). whether they took it to smith or was involved in the original discussion is up in the air but it hardly matters as he approved it anyway

Yeah it wouldn't totally surprise if Warner was the one behind the idea; I reckon Warner would've been driven more by bitterness over the verbals directed towards his wife moreso than SA's past record with ball tampering.

But while Henriques is trying to defend Smith as captain, even if his theory his true (which I don't really believe) it actually makes Smith look worse. It just makes him look like a feckless, weak leader who has no real authority on the culture of the team which is largely driven by Warner and Lehmann.

Like I posted earlier, I reckon as bad as the punishment Smith could get from this, I reckon the alienating the likes of Starc & Hazlewood could do him even more long-term damage. If they see that he implicated him falsely in this plan than that could lead to some serious bitterness when Smith does return. I wonder if one of the reasons Smith stood down during the Test was because Starc & Hazlewood didn't want to deal with him?

 

[StephenZA]

There's a difference between what you're suggesting and saying they were in the meeting to ball tamper, which is the main point of contention.

Granted that's being at least somewhat complicit in ball tampering, but IMO that really shouldn't be a hanging offence. I don't think any bowler in the world would refuse to bowl with a tampered ball.

I am in no way saying that they deserve to be punished... the ICC decided who should, and I'm happy with what has been done. What CA decide is their issue, I just would like Lehmann out of the camp, due to his toxic nature.

You seem to be looking to blame more people than is actually necessary.

I'm not blaming them as some sort of evil, I'm saying that it would be foolish to think they had no knowledge of what was going on.

I accept ball tampering happens in many forms, not even particularly against it within reason.... it is this oh I'm innocent, I knew nothing about this, attitude I don't like. The lying to the umpires, the behaviour of Lehmann that resulted in Bancroft lying to the umpires etc is what I find deplorable.

 

[Son Of Coco]

According to reliable sources, the moment questions about Bancroft's behaviour went from a suspicion something was going on to 100% certainty he was playing outside the laws of the game was when they panned back to him in his fielding position and he'd made this:

 

[Shri]

I think I am done having fun at the expense of Australians. I now want Smith to get redemption eventually and be able to walk with his head held high after whatever appropriate punishment.

We haven't even started. 'Indians should threaten to go home', will always be a funny dig at us and this should always be a dig at Aus whenever they pipe up about conduct of other sides.

 

[Spark]

I think I am done having fun at the expense of Australians. I now want Smith to get redemption eventually and be able to walk with his head held high after whatever appropriate punishment.

If he does get a short-ish ban it'll be very interesting to see how the crowds treat him next summer. He might get quite a few boos, and it'll take him a while of putting his head down and scoring oodles of runs without fanfare (so, basically, what he was doing up until the end of last year) to get credit back in the bank.

 

[Spikey]

DIY sandpaper - that is what it was. Make your own sandpaper.

Bancroft (or whoever led the scheme) did not even have the brains to bring a strip of genuine sandpaper haha! And combined with the ''down the pants it goes'' job when Lehman relayed Handscomb that the game was up, and the subsequent production of the cloth in front of the umpires, it may just be the most hair-brained bit of cheating in the history of sport.

I mean, Afridi still ate the ball