Steve Smith

[smoker]

was guilty of poor captaincy by not chasing down and stopping the behaviour when he heard about i

Bollocks. The decision to cheat was made during the lunch real by 'the leadership group' which includes Smith. Their words.

After crying about Body line, Murray Mints, Atherton's pocket of dirt, non-English born players etc you can wear this one.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I think a lot of posters seem to forget that Australian cricketers were born to cheat, always have done always will. Theres not a cricketing 'gentleman/sportsman' amongst them. Hate them as much as the Mags.

Adam Gilchrist and Brett Lee came across as top top blokes.

Especially Gilchrist who would be the last person to cheat,

 

[SuperMarcoRowell]

Adam Gilchrist and Brett Lee came across as top top blokes.

Especially Gilchrist who would be the last person to cheat,

I like the aggressive way the Aussies play but like all top teams who bristle at the oppo they go over the top at times. I agree they have had some real gentlemen play for them but they’ve been let down by true plums like Warner. Everyone looks back at Merv Hughes with affection but he was better at sledging than bowling.
Some of my favourite players have been Aussies, Lillee, Gilchrist, Warne, Alderman..all of em played their very best on the pitch but would share a beer with the oppo after play.
Unlike Warner who is a prize tit.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I like the aggressive way the Aussies play but like all top teams who bristle at the oppo they go over the top at times. I agree they have had some real gentlemen play for them but they’ve been let down by true plums like Warner. Everyone looks back at Merv Hughes with affection but he was better at sledging than bowling.
Some of my favourite players have been Aussies, Lillee, Gilchrist, Warne, Alderman..all of em played their very best on the pitch but would share a beer with the oppo after play.
Unlike Warner who is a prize tit.

Yeah people like Warne for example played hard but was first to shake your hand when you did well.

 

[ozcat]

It’s not about being on a moral high ground, it’s about not wanting to be down in the gutter with the likes of Smith and the rest of the cheats.

How do we know Smith didn’t plan the ball tampering?

Even if he didn’t, he’s as complicit in it as the other two, arguably more so as captain.

Then there’s all the other on, and off the field shenanigans that went on in the last Ashes, ‘Gary’ Lyon’s ‘ending careers’ crack, the way they behaved to Trott, Clarke to Anderson, Broad’s treatment, etc etc.

The sweets stuff is neither here nor there, shining the ball is allowed. Roughing it up is not. I’d have banned Atherton as well.

But after the way the Aussies have behaved over the last few decades and the carry on over Faf Du Plessis, well they’re hypocrites and liars to me when all is said and done and I’ll never give Smith credit no matter how many runs he scores or games he wins he team.

“Neither here not there”!

Shining the ball with an artificial substance is not allowed in the slightest. Check your rule book.

Players the world over have tampered the ball consistently for years. Smith and co paid a penalty 1000x worse than the rest of them combined.

They’ve done their time and don’t deserve a second’s more punishment. Their penalty was draconian.

The rest of the garbage goes both ways. It’s often an ugly game at the highest level. Clarke to Anderson? I’m sure Jimmy was totally petrified... what about Anderson telling George Bailey he was going to knock him out? Nobody can claim the moral high ground.

 

[Salem Street South]

“Neither here not there”!

Shining the ball with an artificial substance is not allowed in the slightest. Check your rule book.

Players the world over have tampered the ball consistently for years. Smith and co paid a penalty 1000x worse than the rest of them combined.

They’ve done their time and don’t deserve a second’s more punishment. Their penalty was draconian.

The rest of the garbage goes both ways. It’s often an ugly game at the highest level. Clarke to Anderson? I’m sure Jimmy was totally petrified... what about Anderson telling George Bailey he was going to knock him out? Nobody can claim the moral high ground.

And you’ve got the nerve to call my post garbage...

 

[ozcat]

And you’ve got the nerve to call my post garbage...

Calls to ban him for for life - over an offence that attracted a one game ban - are complete, unadulterated garbage.

There wouldn’t be many players left under your system.

Smith did the crime and did the time, and paid an enormous, draconian price - a year out of the game, more than $5m cash, being publicly paraded in the shackles to the bemusement of the baying masses.He’s paid for his sins many, many times over with a penalty that’s worse than every other ball tamperer in history combined.

He steps straight back in and belts back-to-back centuries. What a player.

 

[chelt_mackem]

Calls to ban him for for life - over an offence that attracted a one game ban - are complete, unadulterated garbage.

There wouldn’t be many players left under your system.

Smith did the crime and did the time, and paid an enormous, draconian price - a year out of the game, more than $5m cash, being publicly paraded in the shackles to the bemusement of the baying masses.He’s paid for his sins many, many times over with a penalty that’s worse than every other ball tamperer in history combined.

He steps straight back in and belts back-to-back centuries. What a player.

Surely you can see that using sandpaper to tamper with the ball is more serious than the other examples you've mentioned purely due to how premeditated it was and the fact that it used an external object that had no other purpose for being there.

It doesn't take a genius to work out how dirt can get onto the ball and therefore how that can be taken one step further. Same with the sweets, lots of players chew gum or eat sweets during the game, easy to see how it becomes a useful tool if you discover it shines the ball better.

I'm not excusing anyone who has tampered with the ball and anyone guilty of it should face a lengthy ban, equally there should be degrees of severity based on the method used, which is why it's ridiculous to suggest that Smith's ban was too severe. What's more accurate is that other players' bans have been too lenient. I also can't help feeling Cricket Australia did what they did to prevent further investigations into something that had clearly been going on for a long time before that.

However, credit where it's due to Smith, a fantastic performance in this match with some incredible run scoring.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Surely you can see that using sandpaper to tamper with the ball is more serious than the other examples you've mentioned purely due to how premeditated it was and the fact that it used an external object that had no other purpose for being there.

It doesn't take a genius to work out how dirt can get onto the ball and therefore how that can be taken one step further. Same with the sweets, lots of players chew gum or eat sweets during the game, easy to see how it becomes a useful tool if you discover it shines the ball better.

I'm not excusing anyone who has tampered with the ball and anyone guilty of it should face a lengthy ban, equally there should be degrees of severity based on the method used, which is why it's ridiculous to suggest that Smith's ban was too severe. What's more accurate is that other players' bans have been too lenient. I also can't help feeling Cricket Australia did what they did to prevent further investigations into something that had clearly been going on for a long time before that.

However, credit where it's due to Smith, a fantastic performance in this match with some incredible run scoring.

Good post that imo, of course using sandpaper is more serious, I do think it’s ridiculous to suggest the ban was too severe, however it’s also silly for some posters to suggest should have been banned for life.

I think a two year ban was about right.

People praise the length of bans the Aussies gave them but it was rather contrived. They banned the 3 of them from relatively nothing series and made sure they were back for the huge occasions of the world cup and the Ashes.

I wonder how long their bans would have been if they'd be caught a bit closer to the world cup? Not as long would be my guess.

I very begrudgingly praise Smith. 2 great knocks but I don't like his style at all and I hope he fails miserably from here on in.

It was the timing really, they didn’t really ban them for a nothing series they banned them for 2 years, they were lucky it that aspect.

If it happened two months before the World Cup and ashes they still would have been banned imo, as the Aussies had no choice really to ban them, whether they wanted to or not, it was just lucky the timing of it.

 

[Salem Street South]

Good post that imo, of course using sandpaper is more serious, I do think it’s ridiculous to suggest the ban was too severe, however it’s also silly for some posters to suggest should have been banned for life.

I think a two year ban was about right.


It was the timing really, they didn’t really ban them for a nothing series they banned them for 2 years, they were lucky it that aspect.

If it happened two months before the World Cup and ashes they still would have been banned imo, as the Aussies had no choice really to ban them, whether they wanted to or not, it was just lucky the timing of it.

They didn’t ban them for two years, Smith got 12 months and a further 12 months ban from captaincy, Warner got 12 months and a life ban from a ‘leadership’ role and Bancroft got 9 months.

Two years would have perhaps been more of a fitting punishment but when you consider all their other activities, I don’t think it’s silly whatsoever to say they should have been banned for life, particularly the first two. Taking sandpaper onto the field with the sole intention of tampering with the ball, then lying about it, is totally unforgivable in my opinion and no way comparable to shining a ball, with or without the aid of sweets and it is ‘unadulterated garbage’ to suggest it is.

I also agree with the above comment about CA doing what they did to prevent further investigation, while it is blatantly obvious that more than the three caught were involved in the whole caper.

 

[JL1985]

What were Smirhs scores like in the South Africa series when he was caught cheating? Was he dominating their bowling attack as well?

 

[Voice of fair play]

They didn’t ban them for two years, Smith got 12 months and a further 12 months ban from captaincy, Warner got 12 months and a life ban from a ‘leadership’ role and Bancroft got 9 months.

Two years would have perhaps been more of a fitting punishment but when you consider all their other activities, I don’t think it’s silly whatsoever to say they should have been banned for life, particularly the first two. Taking sandpaper onto the field with the sole intention of tampering with the ball, then lying about it, is totally unforgivable in my opinion and no way comparable to shining a ball, with or without the aid of sweets and it is ‘unadulterated garbage’ to suggest it is.

I also agree with the above comment about CA doing what they did to prevent further investigation, while it is blatantly obvious that more than the three caught were involved in the whole caper.

I thought I said of course sandpaper is more serious in my post.

 

[dangermows]

Left arm spin appears to be his only weakness.