The Cricket Thread

dondo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,171
Australia involved in bad sportsmanship shocker 😀
Only thing I’m surprised about is it took them as long as 4 test matches to see it.
I’m half joking when I say that as it was hardly a massive incident but why couldn’t they just celebrate and enjoy the win?
 

punkisback

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
2,101
I think he’s been a terrible captain and it’s taken away from his batting. I’d like to see his averages with and without the captaincy.

Trouble is, who else do you give it to? Broad?
Definitely Broad, he's a leader and part of that old winning clique when we were the dominant test side. But he probably doesn't have that many years in him.
 

glospur

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
2,440
Yes, we often take fifteen sheets of fucking sandpaper onto the field of play and tuck it into our bollocks when we've been caught. We've very many times had a conspiracy of senior players to do that, a culture that's universally despised which festered and grew under Smith until it inevitably exploded in their faces.

It's not 'cheating' its CHEATING.

But suddenly, because its Smith, its not allowed to be referenced, you shouldn't boo him because 'it doesn't look good'.......forget how what they did looked, its not cheating is it? After all, he's the best player in the world, he can't possibly be a cheat. He can't possibly be a cheat and receive all that adulation from Australian cricket fans who rather conveniently now rail against any criticism of that weak willed cheating fuck and tuck what he did away and won't have him criticised. And we're the ones giving it the hypocrisy. Ha fucking ha.

:D

*Fuse lit......runs away

Apologies if a 'tone' is detected, it's intended as a friendly rant :D
Yeah, you lot just prefer the mints, right? What's the difference between the two? Both are still ball tampering. Those in glass houses, etc.

As for Smith, his was a failure of leadership, but he didn't do the cheating himself. Warner was the ringleader who coerced a naive, inexperienced player to partake in the exercise.

He was also punished far in excess of what was recommended by the ICC and to a far greater degree than any other nation, including England, has punished players for ball tampering before, and he took the majority of the public blame and vitriol here, when most of it should have been directed at Warner.
 

aussiespursguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,515
Yeah, you lot just prefer the mints, right? What's the difference between the two? Both are still ball tampering. Those in glass houses, etc.

As for Smith, his was a failure of leadership, but he didn't do the cheating himself. Warner was the ringleader who coerced a naive, inexperienced player to partake in the exercise.

He was also punished far in excess of what was recommended by the ICC and to a far greater degree than any other nation, including England, has punished players for ball tampering before, and he took the majority of the public blame and vitriol here, when most of it should have been directed at Warner.
This.
 

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
47,096
Yeah, you lot just prefer the mints, right? What's the difference between the two? Both are still ball tampering. Those in glass houses, etc.

As for Smith, his was a failure of leadership, but he didn't do the cheating himself. Warner was the ringleader who coerced a naive, inexperienced player to partake in the exercise.

He was also punished far in excess of what was recommended by the ICC and to a far greater degree than any other nation, including England, has punished players for ball tampering before, and he took the majority of the public blame and vitriol here, when most of it should have been directed at Warner.
haha Warner. Is this the same Warner who got straight back in the side the moment you could get him back in there, despite our being assured in this very thread that he would never play for Australia again? The bans both received weren't that harsh really when you consider Australia played very few test matches during that time and it conveniently ended in time for the world cup/ashes. It was more cosmetically harsh if you ask me :D

The mints stuff is bollocks, but if that's how you square it with yourself, feel free. The straws you want to clutch are that way ---->

As for Smith, he didn't do the cheating himself.
That's right up there with 'I was only obeying my orders'........It's a ridiculous thing to say, some of the most despised figures in history didn't do any of the actual deeds themselves, they innocent too are they? :D

They are cheats. Warner is worse, due to his natural born ****yness more than anything and he should certainly have been banned for longer but overall, it seems to me like a lot of people who were outraged at the time now want to either sweep it under the carpet or are now actually trying to make it alright because someone once sucked a polo :D
 
Last edited:

Spurslove

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
1,473
I'd like to see Curran play in the last test. Jury is very much still out regarding his bowling. He has a very low slingy action, so doesn't produce much bounce. Neither is he particularly fast, bowling around the 80mph mark or lower. Yes he can get a bit of swing, but it's quite predictable. In-swing from over the wicket to right handers. Smith may well have a field day against him. Or, he may be that something different that gets him in a bit of trouble.

What is for sure is that we certainly have missed his batting at 8. Woakes has been horrendous and despite hanging on well in the last Test, Overton doesn't look like someone who can match his ability with the bat.

I agree with the lack of red ball spinners. Lyon has shown the importance of a good Test match spinner. We never replaced Swann adequately. Ali, bar the the odd good performance, seems to take his wickets when batsmen underrate him and try and take him on, getting themselves out more so than Ali getting them out.

Rashid doesn't have the attitude to bowl maidens. Won't hold a line and length and create pressure. A few dot balls and he'll pitch it up further or bowl a short one. When you go at over 4 an over, you can't be an effective spinner as it's the pressure as much as anything that gets batsmen out, when they don't score and get a bit edgy. When you bowl 2 peaches and then gift them a 55mph full toss for them to get four, the previous two balls are pointless.

Going back to my original point about re-shaping the team, yes I understand this has been a long-standing issue and yet we've seen little reaction. This was partly due to the fact that we seemingly got away with it more often than not, but also due to the fact that the management was completely focussed on the World Cup. I think losing the Ashes at home for the first time since 2001, will send a shockwave. It will provoke a reaction.

Good post full of good points. I just wanted to say I also feel the inclusion of young Sam into the next test side might be a very good idea, but as a batsman first and foremost. Of course, The Oval is Sam's home ground so I'm sure he'd be highly motivated to produce something special and to make a statement (I guess you might say the same for Jason Roy too, to be fair).

As we approach a new Head Coach being appointed, I wonder who you guys and gals would choose. My own shout would be for Mickey Arthur as he has now left his role as Head Coach for Pakistan. On commentary on the last day of the last test, it was suggested that Chris Silverwood might get the job, but I'd be very interested to hear the general views of others.

.
 

Spurslove

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
1,473
haha Warner. Is this the same Warner who got straight back in the side the moment you could get him back in there, despite our being assured in this very thread that he would never play for Australia again? The bans both received weren't that harsh really when you consider Australia played very few test matches during that time and it conveniently ended in time for the world cup/ashes. It was more cosmetically harsh if you ask me :D

The mints stuff is bollocks, but if that's how you square it with yourself, feel free. The straws you want to clutch are that way ---->


That's right up there with 'I was only obeying my orders'........It's a ridiculous thing to say, some of the most despised figures in history didn't do any of the actual deeds themselves, they innocent too are they? :D

They are cheats. Warner is worse, due to his natural born ****yness more than anything and he should certainly have been banned for longer but overall, it seems to me like a lot of people who were outraged at the time now want to either sweep it under the carpet or are now actually trying to make it alright because someone once sucked a polo :D
I have always felt their bans were way too lenient. No way should either of them have been free to play in the World Cup or the next Ashes series. I hate cheats of any kind and it makes no difference to me which country they play for, so I won't accept being told 'yeah but what about Atherton' or any other so and so...they're all the same to me. Cheats. I love the sport for the overwhelming level of people involved directly with it who play it cleanly, professionally and respectfully, so I feel a very strong sense of outrage when anyone, especially of such a high status as an international player sees fit to cheat to gain an edge. They get no respect from me, whoever they are. Warner, Smith and Bancroft are all cheats, pure and simple. I can barely stand to look at any of them.

.
 

dondo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,171
Good post full of good points. I just wanted to say I also feel the inclusion of young Sam into the next test side might be a very good idea, but as a batsman first and foremost. Of course, The Oval is Sam's home ground so I'm sure he'd be highly motivated to produce something special and to make a statement (I guess you might say the same for Jason Roy too, to be fair).

As we approach a new Head Coach being appointed, I wonder who you guys and gals would choose. My own shout would be for Mickey Arthur as he has now left his role as Head Coach for Pakistan. On commentary on the last day of the last test, it was suggested that Chris Silverwood might get the job, but I'd be very interested to hear the general views of others.

.


With stokes unlikely to bowl at the oval I would play Curran instead of Roy and move stokes to 4 Buttler to 5 Bairstow to 6 and have Curran at 7 and 4th seamer.
 

dondo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,171
Yeah, you lot just prefer the mints, right? What's the difference between the two? Both are still ball tampering. Those in glass houses, etc.

As for Smith, his was a failure of leadership, but he didn't do the cheating himself. Warner was the ringleader who coerced a naive, inexperienced player to partake in the exercise.

He was also punished far in excess of what was recommended by the ICC and to a far greater degree than any other nation, including England, has punished players for ball tampering before, and he took the majority of the public blame and vitriol here, when most of it should have been directed at Warner.

Every team tampers with the ball in someway. Spitting and shining the ball is technically cheating. Most teams use mints or sweets I would guess (including Australia) but sandpapering the ball is taking it a tad further don’t you think?
It’s like comparing murder to shoplifting
 

dimiSpur

There's always next year...
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
4,989
With stokes unlikely to bowl at the oval I would play Curran instead of Roy and move stokes to 4 Buttler to 5 Bairstow to 6 and have Curran at 7 and 4th seamer.
Having seen Roy's post with the gear from Spurs on Instagram, I strongly disagree that he should be dropped. He's clearly been our best batsman. He's just been unlucky with jaffas and a poor mindset and technique. We shouldn't be too harsh on him.
 

Arnoldtoo

The thinking ape's ape
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
24,823
Only change I'd make for the Oval is Curran in for Roy. But that's because Stokes can't bowl, and doesn't mean I would be leaving Roy at home for the winter tour.
 

dondo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,171
Having seen Roy's post with the gear from Spurs on Instagram, I strongly disagree that he should be dropped. He's clearly been our best batsman. He's just been unlucky with jaffas and a poor mindset and technique. We shouldn't be too harsh on him.

New information has been brought to light, Roy must be backed and can bat wherever he likes
 

glospur

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
2,440
haha Warner. Is this the same Warner who got straight back in the side the moment you could get him back in there, despite our being assured in this very thread that he would never play for Australia again? The bans both received weren't that harsh really when you consider Australia played very few test matches during that time and it conveniently ended in time for the world cup/ashes. It was more cosmetically harsh if you ask me :D

The mints stuff is bollocks, but if that's how you square it with yourself, feel free. The straws you want to clutch are that way ---->
Agreed, Warner is a ****. You'll see no argument from me on that point.

But why is the mints stuff bollocks? Both are forms of ball tampering, are they not? At least we had the courage to do something about it and even suspend our captain and best player for a period of time that was well in excess of what was recommended by the ICC. I'm remarking on the hypocrisy from some sections of the English fans and press, for example, Steve Harmison.

That's right up there with 'I was only obeying my orders'........It's a ridiculous thing to say, some of the most despised figures in history didn't do any of the actual deeds themselves, they innocent too are they? :D

They are cheats. Warner is worse, due to his natural born ****yness more than anything and he should certainly have been banned for longer but overall, it seems to me like a lot of people who were outraged at the time now want to either sweep it under the carpet or are now actually trying to make it alright because someone once sucked a polo :D
But that's why he was suspended, because of that failure of leadership when he should have known about it and taken action himself. I'm not saying he should have been let off completely. He should have been punished, and he was.

No one wants it 'swept under the carpet,' but an acknowledgement that Smith was adequately (some would even say harshly given the ICC recommendation) punished and that he should be allowed to get on with his career is fair, don't you think? (haha just realising as I'm writing this the futility of asking you of all people this question, A&C)
 

Spurs_Bear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
14,304
@glospur

"When you walk...through a storm...hold your heaaaaaaad up high..."

Mints = Sandpaper.

Leave the thread,

Go.

Do not review.

No umpires call.

Do not collect £200.
 

al_pacino

woo
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,172
The whole Aussie team knew about the sandpaper. What did the bowlers think when the ball turned up in their hands, they would've known something had gone on?
 
Top