Cricket

The world's premier reverse swing bowler seemingly less successful now his teammates aren't sandpapering the ball to encourage reverse swing?

Being the leading wicket taker in the recent ODI World Cup would readily dispel that myth.
And quoting an opinion piece from NZ's equivalent of the Daily Fail is hardly scientific research to back up that statement.

So it turns out that you can get a live stream of the Vitality Blast games from the Countys' home pages... Managed to catch the last 10 balls of Sussex tonking Glamorgan.

nb. It appears to be a fixed camera behind the bowler only... Apparently there are unlisted streams on Youtube as well...

It's hardly the only source discussing it (https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/the-damning-numbers-that-reveal-australia-s-bowling-struggles-20190101-p50p1n.html, its been covered in the guardian and various podcasts etc), no debate that starc's a great bowler but to ignore that he's been unplayable at times when reverse swinging in tests over the past few years and we know what his team mates have been doing seems perverse. Does anyone really believe this was an isolated incident and that they got caught the first time they tried it ? Yeah, other teams have done stupid things and I'm really conflicted re whether I consider this punishment fair or not, but I do believe it merits further discussion. When you consider Amir got 6 months in prison and a 5 year ban for bowling a few no balls to order (for personal financial gain) its really murky. If we think the ozzies may have done this across a period of time, impacting results and hence also personal gain in performance bonuses and endorsements etc I really don't know where to come down in the issue. I can equally see the argument that it's not really that far from gratuitously throwing the ball into the pitch, roughing it on zips, using sweet saliva etc. Albeit massively more brazen/stupid...

I put it to you that this is the reason everyone wanted them strung up, not the ball tampering...

Yeah, my point is that (for me) any cheat deserves strung up, and those other things, coupled with barely any punishment (pop off any play a bit of Grade cricket til the flak dies down, lads), led to the sharpened pitchforks in the public over here.

Also, Warner is one of the most easily detested guys in all sport, and it gave the rest of the world a beautiful opportunity to hate the cunt without any feeling that they were being unfair.

Sydney Morning Herald and Stuff are owned by the same company, and often regurgitate stories across both platforms.
I don't condone the actions of the Australian cricket team, but they were caught, punished and publicly humiliated. It may have been practised long term, but without actual evidence it is just supposition.
Comparing the well used tactic of ball tampering to match fixing is ridiculous. Arrogance and competitiveness don't equate fraud.
All sportspeople go through peaks and troughs in their careers, and can be blamed upon other external factors such as physical or mental stress, which is to be expected at the highest levels of sport.

Comparing the well used tactic of ball tampering to match fixing is ridiculous.

Nonsense. Comparing the well used tactic of ball tampering to the well used strategy of match fixing is perfectly sensible. It's cheating. Equating them may be of less use. Of more use might be adding the comparison of bowling a few materially inconsequential no-balls. There's a sliding scale of cheating cuntishness - the fact that Smith et al weren't betting on themselves seems to encourage some people to give them a free pass.

100% disagree

the fact that Smith et al weren't betting on themselves seems to encourage some people to give them a free pass

Please show references.

The Aus public wanted their heads!

No, they are completely different. Like comparing a "sticky bidon" to systematic doping. Both are forms of cheating but hardly comparable.
They cheated and got caught.
Should they be shot?
Should Faf?
Should Athers have been?
Should Martin Crowe?
Shahid?
Wasim Akram, and Waqar Younis?

Fuck dude, get over it.

Geoff Lemon has a really good bit in his book* that talks about how long it was going on.

‘17 Ashes:

“Bouncers did over a third of the damage. Of the 89 Eng wickets, 30 fell to short balls, 21 to Lyon, 18 to nicks or pads with a new ball and only 16 to fuller deliveries with an older ball. There was a hint of reverse when Hazlewood trapped vince at the MCG inside 25 overs...”

He suggests it started in the SA tour. And that given the early reverse swing, both teams might have been at it.

*Steve Smith’s Men. Best cricket book I’ve read.

Meant to be @owl

You see, I don't agree with your classification of this as 'arrogance and competitiveness' - I appreciate it is only supposition that this was going on outside of this one instance, but then it's only supposition to assume it was a one-off - if this was a prolonged period of ball-tampering in a manner more brazen (and presumably effective) than any other that has ever been brought to light, this is a much greater fraud - to my mind as a fan- than some no-balls bowled to order that don't substantively impact the outcome of the game.

But, I also take @BRM's point below that the impact of the tampering may be being overstated but in the context of a close game one key wicket because of greater-than-expected reverse swing could be enormous. And we have to assume that if they were doing it, they were expecting some sort of result/benefit.

As I said before, it's impossible to know what a fair punishment is here - or even what a reasonable position to take on the matter is - without knowing how wide-spread this is throughout the game (have Eng/SA/india been bringing foreign objects onto the pitch to impact the condition of the ball? I imagine we'll find out in ~10 years time if they have) and for how long Australia were doing it. To my mine the only reasonable comparable from the examples you love listing is the kiwis with the bottle top and that was 30 years ago, the game has changed a lot since then.

But, I don't think this is an invalid conversation to be having and the defensive position of 'everyone's been doing it, they've been adequately punished, it's just competitive arrogance' doesn't sit right.

Anyway, Steve Smith may well be the best batsman of this generation and its a joy to watch him work at the moment. I just hope Archer has some answers at Lords...

I'll just leave this here

talksport-monty-panesar-ball-tampering

I don't agree with your classification of this as 'arrogance and competitiveness'

Agree with this - let's call it what it is: cheating.

However, to suggest that: a) it's only bad because it is a foreign object, and/or b) that this is the only case, is pretty naive or only seeing the way you want to see it. mints? bottle tops? dirt? zippers? suncream? all foreign objects.

But, I also take @BRM's point below that the impact of the tampering may be being overstated but in the context of a close game one key wicket because of greater-than-expected reverse swing could be enormous. And we have to assume that if they were doing it, they were expecting some sort of result/benefit.

a 4-0 thrashing!!! there has not been a closer series in modern times than the 2005 ashes series and WE KNOW the english players cheated. they admitted it!

see the double standards?

*not meant to be personal, btw

Ha, no-one should be taking the internets as personal...

I may be alone in this, but I am drawing a distinction between things that should/could be on the field anyway (zippers, suncream, boot studs, mints, fingernails, teeth etc) and things that are intentionally smuggled onto the field with the expressed intention of cheating (bottle top, sandpaper, potentially athers' pocket full of dirt) - the former seems like bending the rules (i.e. the ball could come into contact with all such things accidentally, this is just being encouraged/exploited), the latter seems far more calculated, malignant and worthy of stronger sanction.

If anyone is seriously arguing that using minty saliva and bringing a fucking implement of DIY abrasion onto the pitch should be considered equivalent then we have very different perspectives and should probably agree to disagree...

I agree with you, i really do. i guess am arguing with you over points made by kl ^^^^up there.

anyone who has played any cricket has used sweat, zinc, snot, whatever to shine the ball. the problem is that now everyone is making up their own rules as to what's acceptable and what is not.

According to Law 42.3(a)(i) any fielder "may polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used ..."

Agree with how stupid to even try it in a televised match, with so many photographer and film crews, plus thousands of people watching live with camera phones.
Punishment (don't know the full details) seems so minor. Wasn't it only last year and now they're in this series having played the world cup too?

ICYMI Dale Steyn retired from test cricket the other day, this post from Kane Williamson amused me

And the video is probably even funnier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRTlVVkcTwg

I know this is ridiculous, and never going to happen, but I was thinking last night that it might not be the worst idea to drop Denley for Morgan and give him the captaincy. Root has never seemed a convincing captain, various contemporaries (Swann and Trott in particular i think) were vocal that he shouldn't be captain, it wouldn't fit with his personality and he should be allowed to focus on just being the best batsman he can be. I think you can see a bit of this in the world cup when he seemed energised by the challenge of just batting as well as he could. Morgan's probably not going to score any fewer runs than Denley and I'd love to see him captaining in the ashes.

But, it's clearly madness, can't imagine EM's played much first class stuff in the last few years and the psychological impact on Root of de-captaining him is unlikely to be positive!

Crazy idea, but not the worst I have read for sure, I agree that Root isn't the best captain, would like to see Buttler given the responsibility, he seems to be Morgans clear second in command in one dayers, and seems to have a good cricketing brain.
For me the questions for the second test are;

1. Best position for Roy, I think it is 4, so that means (another!) new opener, think Sibley is next cab off the rank

2. Ali's form, in the past he always seems to be in form with at least bat or ball, at the moment he has neither, so swap him for Leach, who can't bat any worse, probably won't bowl as many magic balls as Ali can, but at least has the ability to be consistent and hold an end up.

3. Denley: I'm not convinced he is test class, so would drop him, if they move Roy to 4 then Sibley replaces him, if not I would be tempted to bring in Curran, admittedly another all rounder, but I can't see him scoring less runs than Denley.

4. Could also question dropping Bairstow, either giving Buttler the gloves (doesn't really work as there is no other specialist batsman pushing for inclusion) or a straight swap for Foakes. I'm giving him another chance though.

So my teams would be one of;

Burns
Sibley
Root
Roy
Buttler
Stokes
Bairstow
Woakes
Archer
Leach
Broad

or;

Burns
Roy
Root
Stokes (higher as he will bowl less with Curran in, and has shown good form)
Buttler
Curran
Bairstow
Woakes
Archer
Leach
Broad

I would go with your first XI there, but in reality I think they're very unlikely to make more than two changes - so Archer and Leach for Jimmy and Mo. Every chance they'll only make the one enforced change and give Mo another chance. I wasn't able to watch much but from reports he bowled reasonably well in the first innings?

what about promoting Bairstow up the order to open with Burns land then dropping Roy down the order? Last throw of the dice for Jonny

I agree that they are likely to do less rather than more, but Smith has shown a bit more aggression in selection than recent history. Ali bowled OK in the first innings, the issue was the second innings when he should have been really challenging to play but just wasn’t. The other thing that may play in his favour is that leach hasn’t bowled much over the last few weeks.

I did ponder that, my worry is that currently he is going at the bowl with hard hands as he is out of nick, so could be out pretty quickly. Would also be harsh on burns just as he has got a ton.

Morgan's publicly stated he doesn't see himself playing test cricket again, his numbers kinda proved it.

Hope we see a squad of 12 rather than 14

I doubt Brierley saw himself having a future in test cricket in 1981...