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

[silentstriker]

I don't think it's a big deal except finally we can stop hearing about their sanctimonious nonsense about how they play the game. They get to act like idiots and then hide behind their line of 'hard but fair'. Of course, they get to decide on a moving target of what's fair and what's not. Now their nonsense has been blown away - and that feels good.

 

[_Ed_]

Also, just felt it was a good time to mention that 'Baggy green ball' sounds deeply unpleasant.

 

[cnerd123]

I get that and as I said I do understand why much of the international reaction has been so savage. But I do think the standard you're referencing is aimed much more at the national marketing of the game than the international. I think in part its aimed at promoting that culture to our cricketers, in a sense saying "you will be held to a higher standard than others" (though tbf I'm not part of the cricketing fraternity, just a poster on CW). I think that's a noble aim, but I do see how it comes across as sanctimonious to outsiders.

Yea really it's nothing to do with Aussie 'culture', it's just these particular players who acted like sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, double standard dicks that got caught and we're all relishing it.

But I don't think, as an Indian fan, we would care if our cricketers got caught cheating. I mean, Azhar was involved with match-fixing and he was elected to office in India. We're very fast and loose with morals as a country. But we're pretty open about that too so I dont think the rest of the world will feel that sense of 'haha GOTCHA' that we do with Australia.

 

[Starfighter]

Also, just felt it was a good time to mention that 'Baggy green ball' sounds deeply unpleasant.

Fournier Gangrene?

(do NOT look that up by the way)​

 

[NZTailender]

I get that and as I said I do understand why much of the international reaction has been so savage. But I do think the standard you're referencing is aimed much more at the national marketing of the game than the international. I think in part its aimed at promoting that culture to our cricketers, in a sense saying "you will be held to a higher standard than others" (though tbf I'm not part of the cricketing fraternity, just a poster on CW). I think that's a noble aim, but I do see how it comes across as sanctimonious to outsiders.

I think if footage emerged of Trent Boult and Tim Southee benefiting from Kane Williamson getting Jeet Raval to rough up the cricket ball with makeshift sandpaper would be just as shocking if not more so - mostly because NZ have their own distinct way of playing the game in terms of sportsmanship. It would be completely image shattering, but in a completely different way to this one feels.

 

[social]

I don't think it's a big deal except finally we can stop hearing about their sanctimonious nonsense about how they play the game. They get to act like idiots and then hide behind their line of 'hard but fair'. Of course, they get to decide on a moving target of what's fair and what's not. Now that nonsense has been blown away - and that feels good.

Is it really any worse than teams denying all culpability despite being caught red handed

Not that it makes a shred of difference but the ONLY upside from this for Australia is that they at least admitted it and we havent had to witness CA sacrifice all integrity by attempting to defend the indefensible

 

[morgieb]

I think if footage emerged of Trent Boult and Tim Southee benefiting from Kane Williamson getting Jeet Raval to rough up the cricket ball with makeshift sandpaper would be just as shocking if not more so - mostly because NZ have their own distinct way of playing the game in terms of sportsmanship. It would be completely image shattering, but in a completely different way to this one feels.

Yeah I reckon a Warner/de Kock style incident would possibly have a similar sort of effect to NZ cricket that this one has to Australian cricket given that New Zealand try to define themselves as the nice guys of cricket ala Australia's "hard but fair" stuff.

 

[MagicPoopShovel]

I think if footage emerged of Trent Boult and Tim Southee benefiting from Kane Williamson getting Jeet Raval to rough up the cricket ball with makeshift sandpaper would be just as shocking if not more so - mostly because NZ have their own distinct way of playing the game in terms of sportsmanship. It would be completely image shattering, but in a completely different way to this one feels.

I can honestly say that if Dinesh Chandimal got Kusal Mendis to rough up the ball so that Nuwan Pradeep and Suranga Lakmal could get their averages sub-30 most Sri Lankan's would be ok with that.

 

[Ausage]

Is it really any worse than teams denying all culpability despite being caught red handed

Not that it makes a shred of difference but the ONLY upside from this for Australia is that they at least admitted it and we havent had to witness CA sacrifice all integrity by attempting to defend the indefensible

Apparently it's worse because sanctimonious, holier than thou, double standards.

Not that there's any of that on display in this thread. No sir.

 

[Pratters]

The Faf du Plessis and previous cases is as interesting one. Ideally, the others should have had similar bannings. Saying this is different as there was prior scheming and in others there wasn't is odd thing to say as usually the tampering is an organised effort where the team or a fair few of the team are involved. Why was Faf let off so easily???

 

[quincywagstaff]

What do you guys think would have happened if Smith had simply said "I take full responsibility. It was an error in judgment. Won't happen again" and left it at that. And maybe said "I will consider my position as Captain after this Test" without saying he thinks he's still the right man for the job when asked about it.

That would have been more or less what others have said/done in the same situation previously

I think the second he went into the leadership group stuff it just went from a comedy of errors type of affair to a full blown disaster for Australia.

I wonder what the thinking behind the things that were said by Smith were. I suppose they felt the footage was so incriminating to him, Bancroft, Lehmann etc that they had to go down this path but I feel like the same could have been achieved by just saying it's all his fault and then cop whatever came after..

Yeah, the Smith/Bancroft press conference only made things worse in multiple ways. As they said on The Cricketer podcast, if Smith and co had known in hindsight the outrage that the actions were to cause there's no way they would've been so open about what they did and rather flippant about the consequences of it.

Clearly Smith thought that the worst that could result from this was perhaps he and Bancroft getting 3 point sanctions and a bit of media criticism. His reference to still being the right man for the job just showed how naive he was about the whole thing and again showing why he's too immature to be captain.

Being so open about it pre-planned and then saying he was still the right man to captain Australia just poured maximum fuel on the fire.

 

[morgieb]

The Faf du Plessis and previous cases is as interesting one. Ideally, the others should have had similar bannings. Saying this is different as there was prior scheming and in others there wasn't is odd thing to say as usually the tampering is an organised effort where the team or a fair few of the team are involved. Why was Faf let off so easily???

A few reasons, but:

1. Mints are more morally ambiguous with regards to ball tampering than sandpaper/tape
2. No evidence that it was pre-planned, wrote off as a heat of the moment style brain fade.
3. Australia's "reputation" that they like to brag so hard about.

 

[cnerd123]

Apparently it's worse because sanctimonious, holier than thou, double standards.

Not that there's any of that on display in this thread. No sir.

There really isn't. None of us have gone "well OUR team would never cheat". If anything we've all said that every team does this, it's just that Australia got caught.

It's also ultimately why in cases like Faf or Afridi their respective boards didn't come down so hard. Because those teams weren't trying to preach to the world or their fans what good sportstmanship was. They didn't need to take a hard stance and make an example out of a player who was tampering the ball. CA has to because they backed themselves into this corner with all their past actions. They are now forced to walk the walk, and credit to them they are. But in doing so they're making a massive overreaction, and it's hilarious to the rest of us.

I genuinely don't think you'll see such a strong reaction if any other team gets caught doing the same.

 

[stephen]

If the bans are:

6 months - this hurts or World Cup preparation a lot since our two best batters won't get a chance to play the favourites at the world cup venues. It can't be understated how much this will set back our chances of winning another flag.

12 months - bye bye World Cup and say hello to the possibility of the greatest humiliation of all - losing to India at home.

2 years - so long World Cup, farewell dignity (losing to India) and au revoir Ashes.

Personally I think 6 months is enough, 1 year at the absolute maximum.

A nice long break from the game will probably help Smith get his head sorted out so he can go on another purple patch.

 

[cnerd123]

A few reasons, but:

1. Mints are more morally ambiguous with regards to ball tampering than sandpaper/tape
2. No evidence that it was pre-planned, wrote off as a heat of the moment style brain fade.
3. Australia's "reputation" that they like to brag so hard about.

Also no evidence that mints actually help the ball reverse swing. It's more of an urban legend than it is a concrete, proven way to tamper the ball. The benefit gained by using sugary saliva must be minimal. The benefit gained by actively roughing up the ball is far, far clearer.

 

[morgieb]

I will be interested to see what happens if someone tries a similar stunt against Australia in the future. Could lead to a massive furore especially if CA go hard on the culprits.

 

[Pratters]

A few reasons, but:

1. Mints are more morally ambiguous with regards to ball tampering than sandpaper/tape
2. No evidence that it was pre-planned, wrote off as a heat of the moment style brain fade.
3. Australia's "reputation" that they like to brag so hard about.

- Mint is also a foreign substance.
- Even without evidence, it's not like the mint appeared out of no where. It was very much a planned incident.

Yes, reputation has a part to play. Finally, people could say, **** you Australia, after years. To be honest, such a ban should have been meted out in earlier instances when such tampering (with foreign substances) was found out. I certainly wouldn't say Smith is the scapegoat, but he was at the tipping point of so many things and has to take the fall now (and rightly so as buck stops with the captain). I would have liked good, solid punishments on the likes of Dravid earlier too, but Dravid of course is a saint and can do no wrong. Heh.

 

[Starfighter]

Graeme Smith
@GraemeSmith49


I cannot believe the puppet show the @ICC has become, ball tampering allegations are a joke.
8:56 PM - Nov 18, 2016

I think they had an opportunity to set a precedent here. I think that it's too lenient... you know it's something that he's admitted that he's aware of that he was apart of that he planned to cheat... so you know that I felt that the ICC had an opportunity and that I my mind they haven't dealt with it effectively.

Hmm...

 

[Pratters]

Also no evidence that mints actually help the ball reverse swing. It's more of an urban legend than it is a concrete, proven way to tamper the ball. The benefit gained by using sugary saliva must be minimal. The benefit gained by actively roughing up the ball is far, far clearer.

It is tampering. Tampering doesn't have to be scruffing the ball. If we draw the line at foreign objects, mints are dire, like sandpaper.

 

[Starfighter]

Also no evidence that mints actually help the ball reverse swing. It's more of an urban legend than it is a concrete, proven way to tamper the ball. The benefit gained by using sugary saliva must be minimal. The benefit gained by actively roughing up the ball is far, far clearer.

I take it you haven't done much shining of the cricket ball in your time. Sugar is great, creates a varnish like effect and doesn't soften the leather up as much as ordinary saliva.