A cheat is a cheat

[Borges]

what i learnt here is that steve smith was only following the many examples of other famous captains when he cheated

Steve Smith's crime was deemed more serious (and worthy of retribution) because:

a) he superintend the cheating
b) his team got caught in the act
c) subsequently, he admitted to cheating
d) despite cheating, his team lost the game

While a) is normal and b) is barely acceptable, c) is unpardonable and d) obliterated any possibility of leniency.

 

[Howsie]

Has to be up there.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

McCullum's whole nice guy shtick is just utter nonsense. Bloke was a grub for always sitting on his high horse, presenting himself as some paragon of virtue

 

[stephen]

Look, other teams have to have something to complain about when one side is dominant for so long. The West Indies were unsporting during the 80s with all of their bouncers. They bullied the umpires and were arrogant AF.

Waugh appeals for catches that may or may not have been grassed and now Australia are a bunch of cheats and bullies etc...

I watched both of those Waugh videos. The first one Waugh lost sight of the ball before he grabbed it. It's highly likely he thought it was genuinely out. The Lara video was so low res I couldn't properly see what was happening in it but it did look as though it may have made contact with his forearm as he was rolling over it, giving the impression that the ball was trapped between chest and arm. In both cases it's not Waugh's job to give it out or not out. It's the umpire's.

Do we call every bowler who ever appeals for edges onto the pads as being a cheat? Because Damien Martyn smashed the ball into his pads twice at crucial moments in the 2005 Ashes series and was incorrectly given out. That would make the entire English team cheats (which, ftr, they were Murray mint sucking cheats).

McCullum was as much of a cheat as anyone else it there. The kiwis are not the paragons of virtue they make themselves out to be. No side is.

 

[trundler]

10 years from now Warner will just be a bloke caught in a bad place...

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think the biggest takeaway from this is that you should be careful who you label as a "cheat" in cricket, because if you're too liberal with the term then most players are "cheats".

If Warner & Bancroft are "cheats" for tampering with the ball then Tendulkar, Dravid, Atherton, du Plessis, every Pakistan player from the 90s, England's Test side from 2005-present, and many more are all "cheats" too

If Smith is a cheat for being captain of a team that tampered with the ball then virtually every captain in the history of cricket is a "cheat"

Best to reserve it for more serious stuff like match fixing, bribing officials (if that's happened) etc.

 

[trundler]

Well who knew, didn't even take 10 minutes.

 

[Burgey]

trundler, is it you whose school class is having to help build a dam in your local area?

 

[trundler]

In this thread I've learnt using mint is clearly cheating but sandpaper is a bit iffy.

 

[trundler]

trundler, is it you whose school class is having to help build a dam in your local area?

Don't let me living in a banana republic distract you from the fact that Waugh grassed catches, watched them touch the ground, picked them up and then claimed them.

 

[Burgey]

Im not. I’m still in shock about it tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In this thread I've learnt using mint is clearly cheating but sandpaper is a bit iffy.

both equally as bad IMO. You could argue that mints/lollies are worse because they actually work, but I'm happy to put them on par with each other

 

[GoodAreasShane]

The fact remains that Micheal Vaughan had no right to say a single word considering his own history. Blatant cognitive dissonance on his behalf.

 

[stephen]

The worst thing about the sandpaper is that a) it doesn't work, b) there's no legitimate reason to have it on the field and c) it's bloody fluro colours which makes it ridiculously obvious it's happening.

 

[the big bambino]

In this thread I've learnt using mint is clearly cheating but sandpaper is a bit iffy.

Then you need a re sit.

 

[Daemon]

Look, other teams have to have something to complain about when one side is dominant for so long. The West Indies were unsporting during the 80s with all of their bouncers. They bullied the umpires and were arrogant AF.

Waugh appeals for catches that may or may not have been grassed and now Australia are a bunch of cheats and bullies etc...

I watched both of those Waugh videos. The first one Waugh lost sight of the ball before he grabbed it. It's highly likely he thought it was genuinely out. The Lara video was so low res I couldn't properly see what was happening in it but it did look as though it may have made contact with his forearm as he was rolling over it, giving the impression that the ball was trapped between chest and arm. In both cases it's not Waugh's job to give it out or not out. It's the umpire's.

Do we call every bowler who ever appeals for edges onto the pads as being a cheat? Because Damien Martyn smashed the ball into his pads twice at crucial moments in the 2005 Ashes series and was incorrectly given out. That would make the entire English team cheats (which, ftr, they were Murray mint sucking cheats).

McCullum was as much of a cheat as anyone else it there. The kiwis are not the paragons of virtue they make themselves out to be. No side is.

I think the biggest takeaway from this is that you should be careful who you label as a "cheat" in cricket, because if you're too liberal with the term then most players are "cheats".

If Warner & Bancroft are "cheats" for tampering with the ball then Tendulkar, Dravid, Atherton, du Plessis, every Pakistan player from the 90s, England's Test side from 2005-present, and many more are all "cheats" too

If Smith is a cheat for being captain of a team that tampered with the ball then virtually every captain in the history of cricket is a "cheat"

Best to reserve it for more serious stuff like match fixing, bribing officials (if that's happened) etc.

You guys just can't cop some criticism without bringing other countries into it can you. So sensitive.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You guys just can't cop some criticism without bringing other countries into it can you. So sensitive.

is this because I brought India into it? No need to be so sensitive

 

[GIMH]

Right insufferable bunch of Aussies the CC mainstream these days. This place will be salty as **** when we take the Ashes back this summer.

 

[Starfighter]

Woo. Like anyone with sense thinks we can win in England.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Woo. Like anyone with sense thinks we can win in England.

With sensible selections, I think Aus have an ok chance actually