• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Australia V India

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voice of fair play said:
It's like anything mate, when Stokes was banned, he was always coming back into the side no matter what the other all rounder did, as he was too good to leave out, same applies to Warner.

Now just to make it clear I am not comparing what they did, as Warner was 100 times worse.

I am comparing that they both too good to leave out of their respective sides
Click to expand...

I don't think they will pick Warner. I think he is seen by the Aussie public and the new regime as systematic in everything bad about that side and not just the ball tampering incident. He is also the most unrepentant and unlikely to change. The image of Australian cricket has become bigger than winning and losing because of that incident. Time will tell.
 
rentaghost said:
I don't think they will pick Warner. I think he is seen by the Aussie public and the new regime as systematic in everything bad about that side and not just the ball tampering incident. He is also the most unrepentant and unlikely to change. The image of Australian cricket has become bigger than winning and losing because of that incident. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Guess it boils down to mate, whether they want to put the correct principle and right thing to do above winning the Ashes.

And not sure they do.

I think because they currently have such a poor batting team that will sway the balance to them picking him, but think it will be a close call.

I mean tbh to give a proper opinion on it, would need to be in Australia to understand the true feeling, so just a hunch on my part.
 
SAFC 2012 said:
:lol::lol: Nah im joking. Be up there when hes finished though
Click to expand...

Yip - he will be amongst those players talked about in those discussions. He's a fantastic player.

Voice of fair play said:
Guess it boils down to mate, whether they want to put the correct principle and right thing to do above winning the Ashes.

And not sure they do.

I think because they currently have such a poor batting team that will sway the balance to them picking him, but think it will be a close call.

I mean tbh to give a proper opinion on it, would need to be in Australia to understand the true feeling, so just a hunch on my part.
Click to expand...

This is quite a good article I think. When push comes to shove they may get him back in but feelings do run deep.

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Guess it boils down to mate, whether they want to put the correct principle and right thing to do above winning the Ashes.

And not sure they do.

I think because they currently have such a poor batting team that will sway the balance to them picking him, but think it will be a close call.

I mean tbh to give a proper opinion on it, would need to be in Australia to understand the true feeling, so just a hunch on my part.
Click to expand...
This is my general feeling too. It's an interesting dilemma for them, as the self appointed moral guardians of the game ( :lol: ) if they pick Warner now, it'll be thrown back in their faces whenever they try and preach about what constitutes going too far or the spirit of the game, but if they leave him out, their chances of winning the Ashes are drastically reduced.

If they do pick him, it'll be great to see the meltdown in the Aussies after the Barmy Army are on his back non-stop from ball 1 at Edgbaston.
 
chelt_mackem said:
This is my general feeling too. It's an interesting dilemma for them, as the self appointed moral guardians of the game ( :lol: ) if they pick Warner now, it'll be thrown back in their faces whenever they try and preach about what constitutes going too far or the spirit of the game, but if they leave him out, their chances of winning the Ashes are drastically reduced.

If they do pick him, it'll be great to see the meltdown in the Aussies after the Barmy Army are on his back non-stop from ball 1 at Edgbaston.
Click to expand...
I hope they do pick him, if he walked off because Hughes' brother called him a disgrace to Cricket Australia he won't even get to the boundary rope in the Ashes :lol:
 
I see Smith has come out and said he 'didn't do enough to stop the sandpaper plan', the implication being it wasn't his plan, but Warner's.

I don't believe for one second their bowlers didn't know about this, but have got away Scot free.
 
smoker said:
I see Smith has come out and said he 'didn't do enough to stop the sandpaper plan', the implication being it wasn't his plan, but Warner's.

I don't believe for one second their bowlers didn't know about this, but have got away Scot free.
Click to expand...
Not just an implication he said ti wasn't directly. He said he leart about it from an overhead conversation in the dressing room. He wouldn't comment on which players were having the convo.

Which makes you think.
Cricket Australia cannot ever have him as captain again after a failure of leadership like that.
Can CA pick him even as a player when he know who the cheaters are but refuses to say?

Isn't there some kind of principle that if you want forgiveness you have to come clean?
 
Bri said:
Not just an implication he said ti wasn't directly. He said he leart about it from an overhead conversation in the dressing room. He wouldn't comment on which players were having the convo.

Which makes you think.
Cricket Australia cannot ever have him as captain again after a failure of leadership like that.
Can CA pick him even as a player when he know who the cheaters are but refuses to say?

Isn't there some kind of principle that if you want forgiveness you have to come clean?
Click to expand...
Is this not coming clean if he says he didn't stop it?
 
mikemanc said:
Is this not coming clean if he says he didn't stop it?
Click to expand...
No. He knows who the guilty parties are but won't say.

And given we already know two names the fact that he won't say is a pointer towards that there's at least another person to be exposed. Smith is protecting wrong-doers, that's not captain-like.
 
Bri said:
No. He knows who the guilty parties are but won't say.

And given we already know two names the fact that he won't say is a pointer towards that there's at least another person to be exposed. Smith is protecting wrong-doers, that's not captain-like.
Click to expand...
Lyon.
 
Bri said:
No. He knows who the guilty parties are but won't say.

And given we already know two names the fact that he won't say is a pointer towards that there's at least another person to be exposed. Smith is protecting wrong-doers, that's not captain-like.
Click to expand...
Suppose, I'd guess he won't play if he hasn't named them privately. Or Cricket Australia are hoping it blows over but that would be a dangerous skeleton for them to have come out down the line
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top