Bancroft given a 0 match suspension for blatant ball tampering - LOL

[Rabish Binney]

Why won't you answer MY question ?

Australia and South Africa play by different sets of rules.
It's never ok for an Australian to cheat, whether it's a local sport (hiiii Essendon) or international (Australian Cricket team!).

Different set of rules? Please explain.

It seems that youre ok for Du Plessis and Philander to be found guilty twice then?

 

[Xtreme]

We are not talking about South Africa, we are talking about Australia. It is different.

The Australian cricket team and board built a myth going all the way back to Bodyline about Australia playing the game in the right spirit unlike the evil Poms who bowled Bodyline, or the Indian pitch doctors, or the WI overusing short pitched bowling, or Pakistan and their umpires, etc.....This has been reinforced for a long long time - even when it seemed to be obviously bullshit.

And that is why this was a much bigger deal in Australia than it would have been in any other country. Those three killed the Aussie cricket myth.

Edit Xtreme beat me to it but same same.

Not even from a cricket point of view but every sport world wide

Whether it's sailing, tennis, or lawn FREAKING bowls we've had the reputation of playing fair, being good sports and not cheating.

** I'd be absolutely devastated if/when Cadal Evans "doped" and his TDF win becomes less heroic

 

[PhatBoy]

WTF has this myth got anything to do with it?

I asked the question of the OP….and he won’t answer it.

He doesn’t need to.

All your question does is further highlight the exact point you’re replying to:

Australia has an obsession with the behaviour of other teams and as highlighted, it dates back to bodyline.

‘We don’t cheat and we always know where the line is and never cross it.’

When you make that your mantra, and your team breaks it, you leave yourself with little choice but to punish your players at a higher level than others.

Imagine if an afl club was perpetually in the media telling anyone who will listen about how ‘these six other clubs have a drug problem and we would never let that happen’ and then it’s revealed that two of their players were on smack and their captain knew about it. You don’t think the reaction from that club would be severe?

 

[big_e]

Wait, people think Australia has a reputation of being good sports?

 

[corbies]

Some of you really have never listened to a South African cricketer talk in your entire lives if you don't think they say they play cricket in a morally superior way to everyone else.

 

[corbies]

He doesn’t need to.

All your question does is further highlight the exact point you’re replying to:

Australia has an obsession with the behaviour of other teams and as highlighted, it dates back to bodyline.

‘We don’t cheat and we always know where the line is and never cross it.’

When you make that your mantra, and your team breaks it, you leave yourself with little choice but to punish your players at a higher level than others.

Imagine if an afl club was perpetually in the media telling anyone who will listen about how ‘these six other clubs have a drug problem and we would never let that happen’ and then it’s revealed that two of their players were on smack and their captain knew about it. You don’t think the reaction from that club would be severe?

Cricket South Africa's defence of Du Plessis' ball tampering was literally "everybody else does it".

Here is AB De Villiers literally saying the words "we don't cheat" while being clearly shown to cheat and then getting done for cheating another 2 times after that.

'We don't cheat' - AB de Villiers

South Africa are claiming innocence over the ball-tampering penalty they were hit with after the 30th over of Pakistan's second innings on the third day in Dubai

www.espncricinfo.com

"We play in a fair manner, we want to swing the ball as much as we can, we try and get it to reverse, putting more sweat on one side and things like that, but we don't cheat. It's as simple as that."

i.e. we know where the line is and we don't cross it.

 

[Rabish Binney]

He doesn’t need to.

All your question does is further highlight the exact point you’re replying to:

Australia has an obsession with the behaviour of other teams and as highlighted, it dates back to bodyline.

‘We don’t cheat and we always know where the line is and never cross it.’

When you make that your mantra, and your team breaks it, you leave yourself with little choice but to punish your players at a higher level than others.

Imagine if an afl club was perpetually in the media telling anyone who will listen about how ‘these six other clubs have a drug problem and we would never let that happen’ and then it’s revealed that two of their players were on smack and their captain knew about it. You don’t think the reaction from that club would be severe?

I never once alluded to, or mentioned the penalty handed out to the Australian trio in my posts at all.

Nor did I at any stage defend the trio or offer my opinion as to whether or not the penalty was justified.

The OP said he didn't want them back playing - that is his opinion and he is entitled to that.

What I asked him is does he hold the same view of other countries players who were found guilty (some of them twice) of ball tampering?

It is a simple question to answer. Its either yes he does or no he doesn't

 

[PhatBoy]

Cricket South Africa's defence of Du Plessis' ball tampering was literally "everybody else does it".

Here is AB De Villiers literally saying the words "we don't cheat" while being clearly shown to cheat and then getting done for cheating another 2 times after that.

'We don't cheat' - AB de Villiers

South Africa are claiming innocence over the ball-tampering penalty they were hit with after the 30th over of Pakistan's second innings on the third day in Dubai

www.espncricinfo.com

i.e. we know where the line is and we don't cross it.

Whereabouts - while I acknowledge the relevance of referencing him defending them for something they were found guilty of doing - have they spent an eternity pointing the finger at opponents?

Again if they’ve done it and I’ve not seen or read or heard them do it fair enough. But as I’ve said if you are going to be incredibly vocal about the behaviour of every other team, then it stands to reason that you come down harder on your own players.

I don’t agree with the ‘everyone else does it’ defence. What other teams do is irrelevant and SA’s officials should know better.

But it’s not their responsibility either to mete out the same punishment to their players, if they haven’t spent the better part of a century bleating about the actions of other sides.

 

[corbies]

Whereabouts - while I acknowledge the relevance of referencing him defending them for something they were found guilty of doing - have they spent an eternity pointing the finger at opponents?

Again if they’ve done it and I’ve not seen or read or heard them do it fair enough. But as I’ve said if you are going to be incredibly vocal about the behaviour of every other team, then it stands to reason that you come down harder on your own players.

I don’t agree with the ‘everyone else does it’ defence. What other teams do is irrelevant and SA’s officials should know better.

But it’s not their responsibility either to mete out the same punishment to their players, if they haven’t spent the better part of a century bleating about the actions of other sides.

I don't know how recently you had to be bleating about the opposition before it was okay because it hasn't been an eternity of it, but here's AB De Villiers and team management pointing fingers and claiming England were cheating in 2010:

England accused of persistent cheating during Test series by South Africa

AB de Villiers said that England's cricketers were guilty of working on the ball at the second Test in Durban as well as in Cape Town

www.theguardian.com

This is at least as direct a pointing of fingers about ball tampering as any Australian has ever done. I'd say it's even moreso.

If I'm following correctly, the logic follows that by bleating about the opposition here, South Africa then had to hold themselves to a higher standard when they were actually caught committing the same offence (3 times)?

In Faf's book released last year he said:

"It's no secret that all cricket teams want the ball to reverse. Not everyone knows how to accomplish this, especially not inexperienced players. But everyone knows it's wrong to change the condition of the ball. We, too, have pushed those boundaries."

Again pushed the boundaries (line) but never went over it (despite clearly going over it).

I can go back to 1998 and find Allan Donald accusing Atherton of cheating (not for ball tampering this time). I don't really know how much more you want before we've reached an eternity of pointing fingers at opponents.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't know how recently you had to be bleating about the opposition before it was okay because it hasn't been an eternity of it, but here's AB De Villiers and team management pointing fingers and claiming England were cheating in 2010:

England accused of persistent cheating during Test series by South Africa

AB de Villiers said that England's cricketers were guilty of working on the ball at the second Test in Durban as well as in Cape Town

www.theguardian.com

This is at least as direct a pointing of fingers about ball tampering as any Australian has ever done. I'd say it's even moreso.

If I'm following correctly, the logic follows that by bleating about the opposition here, South Africa then had to hold themselves to a higher standard when they were actually caught committing the same offence (3 times)?

In Faf's book released last year he said:

"It's no secret that all cricket teams want the ball to reverse. Not everyone knows how to accomplish this, especially not inexperienced players. But everyone knows it's wrong to change the condition of the ball. We, too, have pushed those boundaries."

Again pushed the boundaries (line) but never went over it (despite clearly going over it).

I can go back to 1998 and find Allan Donald accusing Atherton of cheating (not for ball tampering this time). I don't really know how much more you want before we've reached an eternity of pointing fingers at opponents.

Then they should have come down harder shouldn’t they.

 

[Rabish Binney]

I don't know how recently you had to be bleating about the opposition before it was okay because it hasn't been an eternity of it, but here's AB De Villiers and team management pointing fingers and claiming England were cheating in 2010:

England accused of persistent cheating during Test series by South Africa

AB de Villiers said that England's cricketers were guilty of working on the ball at the second Test in Durban as well as in Cape Town

www.theguardian.com

This is at least as direct a pointing of fingers about ball tampering as any Australian has ever done. I'd say it's even moreso.

If I'm following correctly, the logic follows that by bleating about the opposition here, South Africa then had to hold themselves to a higher standard when they were actually caught committing the same offence (3 times)?

In Faf's book released last year he said:

"It's no secret that all cricket teams want the ball to reverse. Not everyone knows how to accomplish this, especially not inexperienced players. But everyone knows it's wrong to change the condition of the ball. We, too, have pushed those boundaries."

Again pushed the boundaries (line) but never went over it (despite clearly going over it).

I can go back to 1998 and find Allan Donald accusing Atherton of cheating (not for ball tampering this time). I don't really know how much more you want before we've reached an eternity of pointing fingers at opponents.

Interesting that in his autobiography, Marcus Trescothick admitted that the England ashes side of 2005 used breath mints to help shine the ball which is classed as ball tampering (which was one of Du Plessis crimes).

That side was captained by Michael
Vaughan.

Vaughan would have known about the mints, yet he was one of the more vocal critics of the Australians.

Talk about being a f**** hypocrite.

I’m amazed that no-one from the Australian media (or any media for that matter) has never raised it, seeing that the Poms always take the high moral ground.

I don't know how recently you had to be bleating about the opposition before it was okay because it hasn't been an eternity of it, but here's AB De Villiers and team management pointing fingers and claiming England were cheating in 2010:

England accused of persistent cheating during Test series by South Africa

AB de Villiers said that England's cricketers were guilty of working on the ball at the second Test in Durban as well as in Cape Town

www.theguardian.com

This is at least as direct a pointing of fingers about ball tampering as any Australian has ever done. I'd say it's even moreso.

If I'm following correctly, the logic follows that by bleating about the opposition here, South Africa then had to hold themselves to a higher standard when they were actually caught committing the same offence (3 times)?

In Faf's book released last year he said:

"It's no secret that all cricket teams want the ball to reverse. Not everyone knows how to accomplish this, especially not inexperienced players. But everyone knows it's wrong to change the condition of the ball. We, too, have pushed those boundaries."

Again pushed the boundaries (line) but never went over it (despite clearly going over it).

I can go back to 1998 and find Allan Donald accusing Atherton of cheating (not for ball tampering this time). I don't really know how much more you want before we've reached an eternity of pointing fingers at opponents.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Oh great.. Another ton.
Really does look like the filthy cheat will be Warner's replacement

 

[Santana]

Smith and Warner are already in the team. Does it really matter because of sandpaper gate if Bancroft gets back in? I'd be more concerned if he doesn't make more runs than he did his first main stint in the team than the cheating stuff from over 5 years ago

 

[RightWingRoo]

People really, truly have to let it go. It was 5 and a half years ago and everyone has served their penalties. And they were penalties far more severe than anyone else has served for ball-tampering.

Smith is a generational player, he was never going to be left out. Warner still has it in white-ball cricket, despite his test struggles.
And Bancroft's form over the last couple of years, should have him comfortably in front to have the first crack for the Windies and NZ series.

 

[Rabish Binney]

People really, truly have to let it go. It was 5 and a half years ago and everyone has served their penalties. And they were penalties far more severe than anyone else has served for ball-tampering.

Smith is a generational player, he was never going to be left out. Warner still has it in white-ball cricket, despite his test struggles.
And Bancroft's form over the last couple of years, should have him comfortably in front to have the first crack for the Windies and NZ series.

At last, someone who gets it.

 

[corbies]

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

Pretty blatant from current New Zealand Test player Henry Nicholls and he's been cited by the umpires.

It will be interesting to see what sort of punishment he gets.

 

[frankrizzo]

Smith and Warner are already in the team. Does it really matter because of sandpaper gate if Bancroft gets back in? I'd be more concerned if he doesn't make more runs than he did his first main stint in the team than the cheating stuff from over 5 years ago

My only concern is does he still fall across his front pad way he used to? poms worked him out after one test and from that point he looked like a tailender against them, its sort of flaw you can maybe get away with at shield level but top draw test quicks will expose early and often.

He served his time for ball tampering and he is a great fielder so if he has fixed up his technical issues i agree should be no issue with him getting another shot, be good for lyon at least warner was a great ground fielder but not that great close in for lyon but bancroft is up with best i have seen close in to spinners.

 

[The 747]

My only concern is does he still fall across his front pad way he used to? poms worked him out after one test and from that point he looked like a tailender against them, its sort of flaw you can maybe get away with at shield level but top draw test quicks will expose early and often.

He served his time for ball tampering and he is a great fielder so if he has fixed up his technical issues i agree should be no issue with him getting another shot, be good for lyon at least warner was a great ground fielder but not that great close in for lyon but bancroft is up with best i have seen close in to spinners.

A 30 year old who averages 26 at Test level over 10 Tests, and averages less than 40 after 143 first class games.

Leaving aside the ball tampering is this the best we can do for a Test opener?

 

[frankrizzo]

A 30 year old who averages 26 at Test level over 10 Tests, and averages less than 40 after 143 first class games.

Leaving aside the ball tampering is this the best we can do for a Test opener?

I think renshaw would have been best of the 3 if they had backed him but seems like selectors rate bancroft and harris very highly so if its a race between those two still want bancroft over harris but i agree its a sorry state of affairs when these guys are first in line.

 

[BACCS]

A 30 year old who averages 26 at Test level over 10 Tests, and averages less than 40 after 143 first class games.

Leaving aside the ball tampering is this the best we can do for a Test opener?

Why does his past Test record matter? He's made a mountain of runs over a sustained 18 month period now in first class cricket, that's worthy of an opportunity. If you banish cricketers for life after 10 Tests, then we wouldn't have got our golden generation of the 2000s.

 

[The 747]

Why does his past Test record matter? He's made a mountain of runs over a sustained 18 month period now in first class cricket, that's worthy of an opportunity. If you banish cricketers for life after 10 Tests, then we wouldn't have got our golden generation of the 2000s.

Because the record shows his performance at Test level? 143 first class games with an average of under 40 is more relevant though.

 

[BACCS]

Because the record shows his performance at Test level? 143 first class games with an average of under 40 is more relevant though.

From over 3 years ago, it sounds like according to better cricket experts than me that he’s made improvements to his game. He’s made an insane amount of runs over 18 months, that’s exactly what should get you promoted to Test level.

 

[The 747]

From over 3 years ago, it sounds like according to better cricket experts than me that he’s made improvements to his game. He’s made an insane amount of runs over 18 months, that’s exactly what should get you promoted to Test level.

OK, and he still averages under 40 at first class level after that "insane amount of runs". 143 matches is a pretty large sample size.

 

[BACCS]

OK, and he still averages under 40 at first class level after that "insane amount of runs". 143 matches is a pretty large sample size.

So? Are you saying recent form over an 18 month period should be ignored because of his career average? Luckily I don’t believe the selectors think this way and Bancroft plays this Summer

 

[The 747]

So? Are you saying recent form over an 18 month period should be ignored because of his career average? Luckily I don’t believe the selectors think this way and Bancroft plays this Summer

I am saying he is not very good - to have an average under 40 after 143 games. And so I was asking was this the best we can do?