Aussie Test bowlers release statement on ball tampering rumours

Find it hard to believe that the bowlers wouldn't know. Probably they were not told what exactly would be done to the ball so that they can claim they didn't know. Bancroft was dispensable, bowlers can't be, if it got found out. One can argue that it was Warner who hatched it up totally on his own and convinced Bancroft to do the dirty work. However, to expect the bowlers not noticing the condition of the ball is hard to accept. Also, I find it hard to believe that the coach wouldn't be aware of it at all. Both him and the captain were found to be the biggest weaklings in this saga. Its sad to see people pushing Smith to captain the side again. I don't believe Australian cricket is so short of quality players and leaders. Great batsman, Smith. But Australian cricket deserves a better leader than him.

Semantics again. There's only room enough for one cranky old man here & you can have it.....

“I have to accept the bowler’s versions of events.” Well actually you don’t HAVE to at all. You may chose to, but as I said, that would seem to be next level naive to me. The least likely explanation is that the bowlers are unaware of an activity whose only purpose is to benefit them.

Christo the Daddyo, Maybe, maybe not. Until evidence conclusively suggests otherwise, I have to accept the bowler's versions of events. Maybe JFK was killed by a mafia gang or oil business cartel. But for the moment, I will have to accept a single gunman did it. Maybe all the moon landings were all done in a back lot in Arizona. But I'm happy to accept they actually happened. Probably some, or all 5 bowlers, knew what was going on. But for the moment I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. There's also a lot of semantics at play here, like when, at what point in the game, did they know what they knew. I'm an advocate of Occam's Razor philosophy where the simplest theory of many competing theories is usually the correct one. You know, almost every Australian back in 1980 said Lindy Chamberlain was guilty of killing her daughter. But guess what, it was the dingo after all..... How could about 98% of one country get it so wrong???

no. McGrath was clearly the verbal leader after 95 in the Windies. Smith debuted in 2002. so, do you think Cummins, Haze and Starc are serial sledgers? I don't.

Couple of things this morning have brought me back: watching Cummins' 17-18 Ashes wickets, primarily from short balls at the body. And Geoff Lemon in some other publication, aligning in some way with the Rowdy and Brettig view re the prevalence of ball work to get reverse. He says: "This was midway through a series in which Australia sent the ball around corners in the first Test at Durban, and had it reversing all day long during the second at Port Elizabeth. Warner was publicly accused of tampering in that match, which was why he roped in the lower-profile Bancroft in Cape Town. But apparently it was not CA’s remit to look at any of this. There was no TV sting to force the issue." I went back and checked the cricinfo commentary of the first two tests just to have a re-run. It's not science. But it's circumstantial. First test: - no record of SA reversing it in our first dig - we got reverse in the 48th over. It was a different ball, changed 6 overs earlier. Starc went thru them. - again no record of them getting reverse - we again had a ball change in the 38th but no real reverse detected (reported on) until the 80th over. as with the Ashes, Cummins and Lyon bowled long spells in tandem during the "middle overs". when interviewed after the game, Starc said his wrist position always feel more natural for a reverse than a conventional swing delivery. Second test: - Rabada got reverse in the 51st over and destroyed us - we got it in the 48th _ Rabada got it in the 43rd --- The point of this post is that the conspiracy threatens to imperil every Australian win and wicket, and every bowler. And hyper-exaggerated statements like Lemon's add fuel to this fire. And don't we know the English would be happy to put an asterisk against the 17-18 loss, where they were soundly thrashed, mostly by Cummins and his heart.

Yeh well everyone thought Glen McGrath was just a mild mannered boy from the bush just trying to make his way in the big wide world. Turns out he was one of the worst offenders. He certainly didn’t have any problems sledging from fine leg, just have a read of what Graham Smith copped as a 21 year old on debut.

Sure, but it means we need to look at Steyn, Morkel et al differently then, because Faf is a two time ball tamperer. I see Faf as a cheat, always will and the gall he had commenting on the Aussies wipes his record from my estimation, every bit as Cronje, but the bowlers were never directly implicated and I'll allow the Aussie bowlers the same benefit as Bancroft's word isn't worth anything, especially now.

They may not have known on that day, that player, with that sandpaper, at that moment, in that way would tamper with the ball. But there can be little doubt that they generally knew what was going on... which is no different to every single test bowling attack from every country of that era.

Oh I think it is pretty obvious. Since WSC cricket we have all been exposed to the division and duplicity in the game we love. Every bust up since then, from underarm to DK and Miandad, to the World Cup 83 bustup, The Hughes captaincy cluster, the rebel tours, AB's grumpy departure, Warne and Junior and the bookmaker, Warne and Waugh in the Windies, the Ashes loss in 05, Monkeygate, Joe the Cameraman, Clarke/Katich and PAcker's boat, Homeworkgate, Maxwellgate, and sandpaper... they are all conspiracies of some sort or another. Think about the best movies or novels or TV shows, they all involve conspiracy. It's not like some Kieslowski movie where we try and determine motive (A Short Film About Death). In this, we don't know who's involved, and want to crack the case. And, in doing so, we employ the beautiful tool of confirmation bias to see what we want to see. We paint a picture (about people we don't know, of events we weren't present at) to try and lock in our version of history - not just about what happened in 30 minutes in Capetown, but about the years either side of it. And why we were right to like the people we do and don't. On here, you will see people targeting Lehmann because of a 2004 (?) racist incident. That's their right. I have Langer issues going way back to his farewell season. Confession time for me: I was mightily peeved with them all for shafting Maxwell not just in the 17-18 Ashes but also that Smith smug video. And then the ODI drama. followed by him not being able to tour NZ because he was burnt out - clearly not fit to lead IMHO. Then the board completely abandoned him in the Rabada matter, so he earns sympathy. Has never tried to avoid responsibility. I believed his tears were genuine, still do. Wish he would stop campaigning for the captaincy, it's unseemly. And he is better off without it - my opinion. In which I get to compare him to Greg Chappell, dealing with issues from 81-3 in the process. Yet I can hardly begrudge him a redemption narrative. Mine is England 2019 and the runs, but also the Archer. I am partial to Warner as an anti-establishment figure, and buy into the narrative of Rod Marsh that CA's need for $ made the dressing room toxic because they were frighted to lose, and they pushed Warner beyond the bounds of acceptable behevaiour. Whether he started it or not, the treatment of him by SA was shameful and our Board should have brought the team home in my opinion. I absolutely believe he cracked. Especially with a poor culture in the room, and the team losing. Has done his time. Bancroft... I feel for him as the newbie who was a margin call in 17-18 and did poorly. Who was backed in on potential but also "dressing room fit". Who should have said no but didn't. WYSIWYG I reckon. The bowlers - other than Lyon's brain explosion with ABdeV, I like to see them as hard, fair players. Especially the quicks. Compared to a Lillee or a McGrath or a Lee, they seem fairly humble and polite. So I want to believe them, and the facts as reported support that. I also thnk they would be savvy enough to know that an untrue public statement now would end their careers if contrary information came out - I mean, Cummins couldn't possibly captain if that was the case. And I don't think - I don't want to believe - that it is. People will still be talking about this in 20 years like we talk about Watergate and the Dismissal and Children Overboard and Monkeygate and a million other things. (I am in no way equating them in terms of significance by the way). Just that they are perfect unfinished canvasses for us to project our biases and beliefs onto, in the age of social media. None of us will be completely right, and some will be completely wrong, but it's not about us.... right?

No doubt him too, but there was certainly no mention of 'current players'.

Biting the ball after all your teamates have rubbed it vociferously in the gentleman's area with a fair dose of saliva and their Hair oil... Biting it after all that deserves applause for bravery not sanction.. :stoked:

The penalty for ball-tampering is five runs. Why on earth are we still beating ourselves up about it three years later? The other Test nations are loving it.

Those bowlers would know the moment that the sanding began that something was amiss. I know I would and I was only a club bowler.

get ready for a broken f'ing arm....

Look. I don’t really know for certain one way or the other. But how can any of us. My main issue is I dont have complete, or close to complete, trust in CA to have been honest in their “truth finding and reporting” process the first place - given CAs history of brand management and the related scrambling that was taking place at the time re final throes of trying to secure a billion dollar broadcast deal. There are too many conflicting statements being made from within and without the camp for me to be able to peg my flag unquestionably to one particular narrative/story.

Not sure what you mean by depending on the CA report being truthful. As you mentioned the public hasn't been privy to the report, so I am only surmising the logical sequence and outcomes. If the investigator asks if there was anyone else in the know other than Warner & Smith and Bancroft says no, then the investigation stops with them. It seems fair and reasonable for CA to then request a please explain when he says years later "“Yeah, obviously what I did benefits bowlers and the awareness around that, probably, is self-explanatory..." The awareness around that is implicating the bowlers who benefit, surely? It's also fair and reasonable for a subsequent enquiry as the bowlers are all currently contracted. I believe the punishments didn't fit the crime, but not sure where you're drawing the conclusion of a possible untruthful finding to base those punishments. Again, I believe Bancroft used a poor choice of words, or 'let slip' others involved that he wasn't asked about or straight out said weren't involved at the time. Are you suggesting they knew the bowlers were in the know and didn't act on it, or were afraid of suspending 7 current players?

Hey Christo, Good point about the after event behaviour having an impact on the punishment and good on CA for handing out a massive ban on top of the light ICC ban. The Aussie cricketers told lies at the press conference (it was just tape) and tried to cover the incident up. So I agree with you, they deserved a longer ban than the 1 match handed down by the ICC for being dishonest and stupid. However, I was trying to point out to CPM that I don’t think it was a “light” sentence at all. Especially when you use history as your guide and recall the excuses used in the past in press conferences to potentially cover up/justify ball tampering activities. The dirt was to dry my hands, the lollies just taste really good (especially once they were scientifically proven to help swing) my zipper got caught on the ball, we used bottle tops because they used bottle tops first. So my point was that Smith and Warner’s bans were anything but light when compared to other similar incidents in the past.

I get that, but it’s all dependent on the original CA findings/report being “truthful”. — Did Bancroft say that in his original statement to CA? I’ve never seen his original statement to CA. Was it released as a statement? Or is there a presumption as to what his statement to CA was, based on what CA released as their findings?

It seems obvious from the CA request for him to clarify this statement that he originally stated the bowlers had no knowledge or complicity. That would follow as they weren’t involved in any sanctions or punishments. He then states he has no new information, which means he used a poor choice of words in his Guardian interview allowing for ambiguous interpretation. Fully agree re CA transparency and trust.