So Ashamed of Our Cheating Cricket team

So out of sheer perplexity over what was going on.. I checked into this...

I had a good laugh after reading what went on... It almost looked to me like a very clumsy attempt to appear to "throw the match into question" and give an excuse for SA's defeat of Aus.... And in this regard - it was perfectly successful... There is no great fame for the SA team beating the Aus team.. Their win is now diminished by the cheating accusations against the losing team..

And I came to the conclusion that the people in question were very likely NOT in fact "Cheaters"....

A. Ham fisted, amateurish, and obvious attempt (my 6 year old kid is more subtle than this..)
B. Ineffective - nothing was actually accomplished (The referees checked the balls in question and found no problems at all).
C. So obviously caught on film..

And I suppose the real "Shame" felt is that if you are going to cheat:
Accomplish it
Don't be an idiot and get caught like a little kid reaching into the cookie jar..

And any accomplished sports player can easily do this... Every high school pitcher I have ever met knows "all the tricks" to get that teeny edge on the ball... And of course - the ref's know what to look for... So returning the ball to play signals nothing happened....

I was shocked to hear this news and was thinking that this was incorrect news.

Now reading about it and having some time to think it comes back to my personal feelings about cricket. I am perplexed that this has happened and why it was necessary to tamper the ball. Australian cricket have lost matches before and nothing has changed the next match comes along and the previous one is forgotten(almost). It is always on the current match and what can change during that match.

I am sad that this has happened as I enjoy watching Steve Smith bat I hope that the punishment is fair and just. One thing thou it will be hard for everyone to forgive and forget after the punishment has been concluded as social media does not often forgive.

As for me I will continue to watch cricket as I love the game.

The thing is... One "bad pitch" into the dirt or one fouled hit off the side of the bat is all it takes to rough up the ball enough for a good pitcher to wreak havoc on an opponent... One lumpy stitch on the ball... Why would anybody need to get sand on some tape and scrub a spot onto the ball? That's why this is so ridiculous to me..

Here's another piece of perspective. I'm not condoning it in any way.
our team has lost it's way. Let's work on returning them to the fold of Australian values. :rolleyes:

TT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truckjohn

So returning the ball to play signals nothing happened....

---

What has the whole country upset is that it was pre-meditated, discussed and planned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truckjohn

The thing is... One "bad pitch" into the dirt or one fouled hit off the side of the bat is all it takes to rough up the ball enough for a good pitcher to wreak havoc on an opponent... One lumpy stitch on the ball... Why would anybody need to get sand on some tape and scrub a spot onto the ball? That's why this is so ridiculous to me..

---

Yes, all the things that happen naturally wear the ball down. They are random, and part of the nature of the game, just as the pitch (as in the strip of ground) breaking down over the 5 days duration, and the weather over 5 days, are all natural influences that can only sometimes be predicted accurately.

However, what they are seeking to do is to rough up one side of the ball and keep the other side shiny. This has a great effect on what the ball does through the air before it bounces after the bowler releases it. It can swing one way in the air and bounce t'other way off the pitch. Then there are the cracks in the pitch after a few days that can cause different bounces in different directions.

This sideways movement in the air is what you would call a curve ball in Baseball, and is called "Swing". After a while, and depending on whether it is overcast or not, the ball can start to "reverse swing" (go the opposite way to normal) which often results in a delivery that is either unplayable or forces an error that gets the batter out. A few unplayable deliveries in a row and the batter doesn't know what's coming next.

They were seeking to invoke reverse swing by roughing up one side only.

Note that the ball is replaced every 80 overs (6 deliveries per over), and always at the start of a new innings. If a ball becomes misshapen or fatally damaged before the 80 overs are up then a ball of similar age can be selected to replace it.

"One lumpy stitch on the ball" is cause for the ball to either be "clipped" by the Umpires, or replaced.

There even rules about how many bounces the ball can have when being returned from the outfield. If the fielding team throw the ball back to the wicketkeeper and continually make sure it drops short (and bounces often more to get more wear) then the umpires will have something to say about it. Same goes for the pitch - the bowlers aren't allowed to scuff it up deliberately (they have spikes in their shoes), even though natural wear and tear causes it to degrade.

It's just 'not cricket'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truckjohn

So out of sheer perplexity over what was going on.. I checked into this...

And I came to the conclusion that the people in question were very likely NOT in fact "Cheaters"....

B. Ineffective - nothing was actually accomplished (The referees checked the balls in question and found no problems at all).

And any accomplished sports player can easily do this... Every high school pitcher I have ever met knows "all the tricks" to get that teeny edge on the ball... And of course - the ref's know what to look for... So returning the ball to play signals nothing happened....

---

it's a lot more subtle

a cricket ball wears as it is used. This is expected.
teams are allowed to "polish" the ball during play to even out the wear, or to make one side less worn (i.e. shinier) than the other. Players are allowed to use sweat, saliva, and their clothing to polish a ball. (If you watch enough games you will recognise the persistent ball polishers by the red stain on their trousers in the groin area.) Players are not allowed to use foreign material -- i.e. mints, floor polish, etc -- to polish the ball. Likewise players are not permitted to use foreign matter (sand paper, dirt, gravel, etc) to rough up the ball.

All other things being equal. As a ball wears through use, the advantage is generally thought to move from the bowling team to the batting team and back to the bowling team based on the ability of the bowling teams bowlers. (Typically a team will contain several specialist bowlers -- some specialise at bowling the ball when it is new, others when it is well worn, and a few are good in between.)

In this case it appears that the intent was to adjust the rate of wear on the ball to favour the skill set (speed, swing through the air, cut off the pitch) of one of the Australian bowlers. If attempt had been successful the bowler would have had a longer sweet period, or their sweet period would have occurred at a different time in the innings.

The fact that the umpires allowed the ball to remain in play doesn't imply they found "no problems at all", rather it only suggests that in the umpires' opinion the ball in question wasn't damaged enough to warrant replacing. Which is an entirely different situation. A ball might remain in a playable condition, but because that condition hasn't been reached by "fair wear and tear", the team responsible for the ball being in that condition can be penalised.


The other thing to remember is that in Australia, the position of Captain of the Australian Test team carries higher social standing and prestige than does any other public office, including that of Prime Minister or Governor General.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

The other thing to remember is that in Australia, the position of Captain of the Australian Test team carries higher social standing and prestige than does any other public office, including that of Prime Minister or Governor General.

---

Indeed Ian.

We expect our politicians to be, well, at least a little bit dodgy and we are rarely surprised when they are caught out doing something they shouldn't be, and they very often are. We have more or less given up respecting them or looking up to them. The days of genuine leaders are long gone unfortunately.

We expect our Governors General to be a rubber stamp who does what they are told, and we don't generally care who they are or what they have stood for (a largely ceremonial position that is more or less redundant and expensive).

We expect our Australian Cricket Captain to be morally sound, a great leader to be looked up to (albeit at only 27-35 years of age, sometimes even younger), fair, and vastly talented at their chosen profession, with an excellent strategic mind. I can't think of a regular Captain in the last 50 years that wasn't all of those things. Perhaps Kim Hughes wasn't the greatest strategist.

What’s happened has happened, I’m not looking for nor advocating someone’s head on a plate, it’s one of those “it seemed like a good idea at the time” situation and a lack of maturity and the $$$ pressure caused a failure to think of or consider the consequences. I’m trusting the investigators to do a fair and thorough investigation and determine what punishments are applicable. Time for all involved to ‘fess up and cop it on the chin.

My disappointment will diminish, the memory is perhaps another thing. There are many in the press and the alternative press aka social media (not really social) who are calling for all sorts of nastiness. The degree of fairness they feel has been “injured” needs to be addressed severely yet they prefer to see themselves as judge, jury and executioner ~ doesn’t seem to really fair to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

We expect our Australian Cricket Captain to be morally sound, a great leader to be looked up to (albeit at only 27-35 years of age, sometimes even younger), fair, and vastly talented at their chosen profession, with an excellent strategic mind. I can't think of a regular Captain in the last 50 years that wasn't all of those things. Perhaps Kim Hughes wasn't the greatest strategist.

---

And yet FF there has been a growing disquiet over the amount/tone of sledging maybe since Border took over. It seems from the reactions from other teams that what ever the line was, it was being crossed in a deeply personal way. Sledging was happening before this era but sounded like it had a different form. I wonder if this has contributed to the deteriorating group think bubble that is the Australian test team. I get sledging to a point, but the stuff being dished out is unmanly and only provokes an escalation. The result is MAD, mutually assured destruction.

TT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

I get sledging to a point, but the stuff being dished out is unmanly and only provokes an escalation.

---

my favorite is from Victor Richardson
"Which one of you bastards called this bastard a 'bastard'?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

my favorite is from Victor Richardson
"Which one of you bastards called this bastard a 'bastard'?"

---

Or “tickets please”.

TT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

And yet FF there has been a growing disquiet over the amount/tone of sledging maybe since Border took over. It seems from the reactions from other teams that what ever the line was, it was being crossed in a deeply personal way.

---

Yes, I have no doubt it is on the increase, particularly with Warner, but much of it was hearsay evidence before stump-mikes were in place.

TBH, I think those in the slips and any other positions close to the batters should be made to be silent while the bowler is running in (so from when he is just about to turn around) and until after the ball has been hit (or not). Maybe that's supposed to be the case now, but I'll bet it rarely happens.

They should all be banned for life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Yes, I have no doubt it is on the increase, particularly with Warner, but much of it was hearsay evidence before stump-mikes were in place.

TBH, I think those in the slips and any other positions close to the batters should be made to be silent while the bowler is running in (so from when he is just about to turn around) and until after the ball has been hit (or not). Maybe that's supposed to be the case now, but I'll bet it rarely happens.

---

Good point. Much like a golfer teeing off.


TT