Ashes 2019

[JohnS]

Verdict after Day One at Edgbaston, Birmingham?

1. Steve Smith can seriously bat
2. James Anderson was never ready for this test and that will cause a problem in the 3rd innings when Australia bat again if he can't bowl
3. The Umpires have had a shocker!
4. Some Australian batsmen need to make the most of their opportunities (I'm looking at you Bancroft, Khawaja and Wade!). Although Labushagne and Marsh don't inspire confidence as replacements!
5. 284 all out after Australia were 8/122 is an incredible score. If England can even get to 300 with the ball moving around like it did on Day 1, then they thoroughly deserve a lead as I know the Australians won't gift it to them.

[Ken Gargett]

john, my first issue is with langer. his selections have absolutely cost any respect i had for the bloke. met him once in hong kong of all places and got to have a long chat. this was post playing, pre coaching australia. thing that most stuck with me was his loyalty to his team and his mates in the team. what i did not realise was that loyalty to his mates, especially his west aussie mates, took precedence over anything, including fair selections. 

no starc? i struggle with that. and if it is rotating, how do you drop siddle after last night. 

and mitch marsh back in the squad. spare me. 

but it is the selection of bancroft that left me spitting chips. disgraceful. don't care if bancroft now goes on to average 200, it is appalling. the decision to shoehorn his scumbag west aussie mates into the team. And we have got what we deserve for picking him. another failure. 

Livid he has picked him ahead of harris or burns. I will never respect the bloke again. before this, Bancroft has 8 tests for an average of 30. Less now. yet another failure. No tons. Never performed at test level. Been playing second level county cricket. Spare me. He has never done anything at test level other than let us down. But he is Langer’s mate so in he goes. at the expense of those deserving. 

Harris was an incumbent for 6 tests and an avg of 33. At least looked decent in the tests.

Burns 16 tests, average of 40. With 4 tons. Can get big scores. The other incumbent and last test score was 180. But out for Langer’s mate. the CMC should investigate. 

There is not a traffic accident too severe for langer.

next, the umpire - was going to send you an email last night but lost your address. but was emailing with a pommy mate. at one stage - 

at least 5 incorrect decisions by the umps. That is really poor. Just not acceptable.

Warner - not out caught behind.

Warner - out lbw

Smith - out lbw

Ussie k - not out caught behind

Wade - not out lbw.

All wrong. And in less than three hours. Wow!

and it got worse. pattinson given out incorrectly. the mess with the bump ball. that is unacceptable. 

 

but the good stuff - smith. in those circumstances, that is one of the greatest innings you could ever hope to see. good article on it here - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/aug/01/steve-smith-enters-pantomime-villain-departs-hero

to do it while all around fell, the crowd booing, good bowling, a tough away ground and after a year out. extraordinary. like the stat that only three bats in history have played fifty tests and averaged over 60 - bradman, smith and headley. no tendulkar, no lara, no sobers or pollock, no kohli, no ponting or chappell. no richards. sums it up well. he is truly one of the greatest we have ever seen. 

and loved the piece about how england always thinking they can get the bloke lbw. which they have done just three times and twice he was well over 200. 

another positive. the commentary team. not having to listen to that monumental tosser slater. all about me. when i played. what we did. mindless drivel. could do without the world's most boring and pompous commentator - botham (can't work out how his on air personality so different to his on ground play). love gower - all class. nasser, atherton, warnie all good. 

smith has given us a crack - england have a fair bit of cover for anderson but him missing won't help. we need to keep them to 300 or as close as possible. suspect the wicket will play even better today. i think england are ahead but not by anywhere near as much as it looked like they might be. 

[Bill Hayes]

Thanks Ken, that seems to make some sense as to why they chose Bancroft ahead of Harris. I don't understand the Wade selection. Personally, I find the guy all full of misplaced enthusiasm/aggression which seems to be a waste of mental energy. I would of thought they'd go with Labushagne. Only saw the first session but Warner seemed very affected by the booing/criticism and Bancroft seemed to be squared up a lot and was only a matter of time until he nicked one. Even Khawaja looked nervous. I'm not over there but it was strange they picked Siddle and no Starc. I guess they figured Siddle would get movement off the pitch with his off-cutter.

[Ken Gargett]

one other point from day one. 

have to agree with warnie as to joe root's captaincy. really poor. blind dogs can captain when things are going well but when they are not is when you see whether or not you have a captain. 8-122 and then root has 9 men around the boundary for smith for over after over. as he said, how does the bowler feel, knowing no way to get him out other than him making a bad error. ever see a good captain put 9 men on the boundary at any time? 

add to that, another positive about smith's innings - he had to do it with 9 men on the boundary and also while protecting the tail. one of the truly great innings. 

[westg]

They bowl that line and perfect length to Bancroft ...and he is at the poms mercy.

WTF he is doing in that team along with Wade..

[westg]

34 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

one other point from day one. 

have to agree with warnie as to joe root's captaincy. really poor. blind dogs can captain when things are going well but when they are not is when you see whether or not you have a captain. 8-122 and then root has 9 men around the boundary for smith for over after over. as he said, how does the bowler feel, knowing no way to get him out other than him making a bad error. ever see a good captain put 9 men on the boundary at any time? 

add to that, another positive about smith's innings - he had to do it with 9 men on the boundary and also while protecting the tail. one of the truly great innings. 

Yep poor bugga...what an innings ...he was out of gas . He actually looked like he had been digging a trench for an entire day when he was knocked over . I am sure the whole team can draw something from that innings 

[Ken Gargett]

33 minutes ago, westg said:

Yep poor bugga...what an innings ...he was out of gas . He actually looked like he had been digging a trench for an entire day when he was knocked over . I am sure the whole team can draw something from that innings 

westie, it could be one of those rare innings which define the course of a series. up to his teammates to support that knock and not waste it. 

[westg]

Mathew Wade has bowled 133 overs in first class cricket for Eiight wickets...he is now bowling in an a Ashes test match

We are so faaaarked 

[Webbo]

2 days of proper test cricket - excellent.

[JohnS]

I think Australia bowled without luck. I genuinely believe on another day they would have had England all out. West...that Wade over, it was just one over!

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, JohnS said:

I think Australia bowled without luck. I genuinely believe on another day they would have had England all out. West...that Wade over, it was just one over!

john, first they need to understand and work on reviews. lord spare me. 

sure, not a lot of luck but if you don't stuff your reviews, you do not need as much. 

i'm with westie on wade. their allrounder is stokes. ours is wade - a failed keeper. beyond belief. find a blunt sward, langer, and throw yourself on it. 

[encephalization]

Haven't been able to watch much as my bathroom ceiling crashed down due to a leak but.. Very happy to see Rory Burns get his first century, looking forward to see some highlights.

Heard a comment as I checked in on the game: "England used to be 100-1 in the 1990s too but that was referring to the odds." ?

[JohnS]

3 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

john, first they need to understand and work on reviews. lord spare me. 

sure, not a lot of luck but if you don't stuff your reviews, you do not need as much. 

i'm with westie on wade. their allrounder is stokes. ours is wade - a failed keeper. beyond belief. find a blunt sward, langer, and throw yourself on it. 

Reviews? Yes, that was a bad one. Burns was out on 21. That could have changed the whole innings, probably would have done so.

I'm not too enamoured with the idea of an all-rounder in Test cricket unless they are exceptional at one of those skills, whether bowling or batting. Call me a traditionalist, but choosing your six best batsmen, 4 best bowlers and a wicket-keeper who can actually keep very well has worked in Test cricket for over 100 years now.

In relation to the whole series, England are on top in this game and they may go on to win this 1st Test, in fact, they probably will. However, Test cricket is about the bowlers getting you wickets more than the batsmen getting you runs, unlike One-day cricket and T20 cricket. Thus, for the rest of the series, for England to compete, they will need more than Broad and Woakes. Relying on Archer to make a test debut after injury is fraught with peril, in my opinion, for the 2nd test and James Anderson is likely to be out until the 4th test. Mark Wood's season is over due to surgery on his knee.

[Ken Gargett]

21 minutes ago, JohnS said:

Reviews? Yes, that was a bad one. Burns was out on 21. That could have changed the whole innings, probably would have done so.

I'm not too enamoured with the idea of an all-rounder in Test cricket unless they are exceptional at one of those skills, whether bowling or batting. Call me a traditionalist, but choosing your six best batsmen, 4 best bowlers and a wicket-keeper who can actually keep very well has worked in Test cricket for over 100 years now.

In relation to the whole series, England are on top in this game and they may go on to win this 1st Test, in fact, they probably will. However, Test cricket is about the bowlers getting you wickets more than the batsmen getting you runs, unlike One-day cricket and T20 cricket. Thus, for the rest of the series, for England to compete, they will need more than Broad and Woakes. Relying on Archer to make a test debut after injury is fraught with peril, in my opinion, for the 2nd test and James Anderson is likely to be out until the 4th test. Mark Wood's season is over due to surgery on his knee.

all true john, but i fear that aside from smith, their batting, especially in the middle order, is superior to ours.

but fear not, i heard the commentators talking about the strong possibility of bringing in mitch marsh. langer won't need to find a blunt sward if he does that. i'll bring him one. 

[JohnS]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

all true john, but i fear that aside from smith, their batting, especially in the middle order, is superior to ours.

but fear not, i heard the commentators talking about the strong possibility of bringing in mitch marsh. langer won't need to find a blunt sward if he does that. i'll bring him one. 

Not Mitch Marsh! Again! To quote Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, "the horror...the horror!"

 

[westg]

18 hours ago, JohnS said:

I think Australia bowled without luck. I genuinely believe on another day they would have had England all out. West...that Wade over, it was just one over!

One over is all it takes ...and what particular day are you talking about...a game against Bangladesh.That was one dumb move .

[westg]

Bancroft should take up sailing ...all at sea .

[westg]

Luck is nothing ...this is the Ashes ...proactive and hard at it ...For the love of Christ ....Shane Warne could never rightfully captain this team..but pleeeeeease let him coach us...Set in stone . WTF 

[99call]

England fans having pieces of sandpaper taken off them by stewards at Edgbaston,  it seems the nanny state has become all consuming.    The most pathetic thing about this, is that it wont be a complaint made by the Aussies,  this will be some sort of stupid blue on blue nonsense. 

 

[Ken Gargett]

7 hours ago, 99call said:

England fans having pieces of sandpaper taken off them by stewards at Edgbaston,  it seems the nanny state has become all consuming.    The most pathetic thing about this, is that it wont be a complaint made by the Aussies,  this will be some sort of stupid blue on blue nonsense. 

 

clicked on to a piece in the guardian (not this one, i think, but worth reading the piece in the guardian by ronay on smith - cracking article - and one by geoff lemon as well. not sure where it is). there were, at that stage, nearly 600 comments from readers. the piece was not on the cheating. it was on the day's play. yet 99% of the comments i read - i gave up - were on the ban and the booing and so on. plenty on both sides. some think they deserve the booing. some think we should all be beyond it. was the penalty fair? what about the times english players were caught tampering and far less happened? and so on. but these were all english readers. didn't see a comment from an australian.

i think aussies no longer give a toss. provided they don't do it again. great to see smith back. move on, there really is nothing to see. it is the english fans who are obsessed with it, which given they were not involved is bizarre. i can imagine when warner or bancroft walk off after failing, the booing grates, though nowhere near as much as failing. when smith walks off to booing after one of the great innings, it looks absurd and those idiots doing it look like dimwitted morons. 

now, yet again bancroft fails. had we had someone who could have stuck with smith for a long period in either innings (fingers crossed it is head - don't leave the big gap between bat and pad, son), like for example harris or burns, then we might be going 1-0 up after this test. and given we hold the ashes, we'd be extremely well placed. instead, fighting to stay in it. thank you justin langer, you miserable disgrace. 

[99call]

7 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i think aussies no longer give a toss. provided they don't do it again. great to see smith back. move on, there really is nothing to see. it is the english fans who are obsessed with it, which given they were not involved is bizarre. i can imagine when warner or bancroft walk off after failing, the booing grates, though nowhere near as much as failing. when smith walks off to booing after one of the great innings, it looks absurd and those idiots doing it look like dimwitted morons.

Much like life, sadly there are many more inclined to slow down at car crashes (to have a good look) than there are to take in some of natures best work. But that aside......I think it's pretty naive to imagine opposition fans or even home fans will ever let go what happened with the cheating, and for a few different reasons.

Rivalries, Much like the best friendships, you cant ask them to forget or not mention the things that are most embarrassing.   Let's say a first date, and someone has diarrhea, and ends up soiling themselves in the one of the busiest bars in town,  do you then ask your mates to not bring it up (years later) whilst out having beers? of course you don't.  It's all part of the fabric of the game, it's interesting with football chants for example, some of the content of these chants goes back 70 years or so. 

I think the doctoring of the ball should of been addressed years ago, whether it be sweets, sunscreen or whatever.  The reality however, is that it's only truly become possible greater technology and resource.  Today it's noticeable, when they play back super slow motion of players reactions to near misses etc.  It seems to suggest there are cameras on the majority of the players, most of the time.    

I think the difficult thing for Steve Smith, is you get the feeling he set his sights on being one of those unique GOAT players, like Federer, Dan Carter, etc etc. The kind of people who the public endlessly speculate about who was the greatest?.   Now some might say, you get the measure of a person in how they bounce back, and thats true to a certain degree, but for me, no amount of greatness in his "post-paper career" will ever put him back into the league of the greats.  

I wish Steve Smith, David Warner, and Cameron Bancroft the very best, but to me, a bit like drugs cheats, I will always view their careers as being something aside from their contemporaries,  not that they would care a jot, but I don't think any amount of 100's or 200 knocks will win them redemption from the History books. 

[Ken Gargett]

13 minutes ago, 99call said:

Much like life, sadly there are many more inclined to slow down at car crashes (to have a good look) than there are to take in some of natures best work. But that aside......I think it's pretty naive to imagine opposition fans or even home fans will ever let go what happened with the cheating, and for a few different reasons.

Rivalries, Much like the best friendships, you cant ask them to forget or not mention the things that are most embarrassing.   Let's say a first date, and someone has diarrhea, and ends up soiling themselves in the one of the busiest bars in town,  do you then ask your mates to not bring it up (years later) whilst out having beers? of course you don't.  It's all part of the fabric of the game, it's interesting with football chants for example, some of the content of these chants goes back 70 years or so. 

I think the doctoring of the ball should of been addressed years ago, whether it be sweets, sunscreen or whatever.  The reality however, is that it's only truly become possible greater technology and resource.  Today it's noticeable, when they play back super slow motion of players reactions to near misses etc.  It seems to suggest there are cameras on the majority of the players, most of the time.    

I think the difficult thing for Steve Smith, is you get the feeling he set his sights on being one of those unique GOAT players, like Federer, Dan Carter, etc etc. The kind of people who the public endlessly speculate about who was the greatest?.   Now some might say, you get the measure of a person in how they bounce back, and thats true to a certain degree, but for me, no amount of greatness in his "post-paper career" will ever put him back into the league of the greats.  

I wish Steve Smith, David Warner, and Cameron Bancroft the very best, but to me, a bit like drugs cheats, I will always view their careers as being something aside from their contemporaries,  not that they would care a jot, but I don't think any amount of 100's or 200 knocks will win them redemption from the History books. 

agree with some of that and not other bits.

agree re the rivalry etc. i have no doubt our crowds would be booing endlessly if it were reversed. and having just as much fun. we boo'd that grubby broad when he knicked to slip and refused to walk. although plenty of aussies would never think of walking. we are as hypocritical as the english crowds. 

i don't agree that they can't be seen as a great of the game or whatever level they reach. but it varies for each player.

bancroft was a grubby little idiot who did the deed but then he has never not failed in a test. 9 tests, two fifties and an average of 27. so he'll be seen as a great failure. wake up langer and drop him. for good. christ, bring a marsh back instead. 

warner has always been seen as dodgy, unlikeable, and an aggressive little peabrain. but a talented bat who has played some great knocks. he, assuming a similar trajectory for the rest of his career, will be seen as one of the very good bats but this will hang over him far more than the others, because the feeling is that this is not out of character for him.

smith - his great and unforgivable failure was to turn a blind eye. he did not want to know. not the same thing as planning and/or executing but for an australian captain, utterly unacceptable. but i think that distinction will make it easier for people to ignore the stupidity when looking at the legacy. seen as being out of character - which does not excuse him. in any event, once a player, in any sport, has served his sentence, surely it then comes back to the quality of his contribution. so you would never consider tom brady as one of the great QBs because of his suspension for cheating (deflategate)? and if you would, what is the difference? 

hence, are you going to rule out a lot of other cricketers as well? remember that it was australian cricket (finally stepping up), not the spineless international administrators who suspended the guys for a year. the overwhelming view is that was excessive (not my view, i should add, as if we want to get rid of tampering it is necessary). had it been left to the international jellyfish, they would probably have got a match or two and this would be long forgotten. 

there have been plenty of other incidents. atherton with dirt in his pocket. cheating. and then lied about it. trescothick has come out and said that his job in the 2005 ashes was to tamper with the ball (the mints), so the series all england treats as some sort of legendary holy event and for which all the players got royal honours, was won with england deliberately and systematically cheating. anyone handing back their gongs? the hypocrisy in all this is mindboggling. broad and anderson and their stomping on the ball with their studs - cheating (nasser hussein said as much). and then they lied about it. dravid, waqar younis, sachin tendulkar - all involved. we rubbing them out from history? one of the reasons so many ex-cricketers and current cricketers came out against the length and severity of the sentence is because they know how widespread it is/was and plenty were more than likely involved. 

which then comes back to where does smith rate. to be honest, no one in cricket is seriously going for GOAT. there was a bloke called bradman. but smith has every claim to next in line. his record has been extraordinary. that knock in the first innings was one of the great innings. he got more than 100 after they were 8 down. extraordinary. he has played plenty more. as was said in the press, in the history of the game, for players who have played 50 tests, only three average over 60. a small club. in order, bradman, smith, headley. no ponting, boycott, lara, g pollock, viv richards, tendulkar, dravid, kohli, chappell, hayden, sobers, kallis and so on. smith ahead of them all. 

in a game where first innings runs are so important and usually considered as the bellwether for a great player, in the last six years, smith has averaged over 100 in first innings knocks. that is truly jawdropping. when it was mentioned in the commentary last night, you could hear the awe in voices of guys like botham and gower. his stats would be even greater if he had not been shovelled in as a number 8 when he started. so many other stats and examples (he may not look pretty but i doubt that bothers him) which confirm that we are watching a transcendent talent (and won't that jinx him). 

if his career ended today, it demands that he be regarded as the second best player (batsman, obviously) to ever step onto a field. disliking the bloke or his foolishness, does not detract from that or diminish his achievements. 

[99call]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

smith - his great and unforgivable failure was to turn a blind eye. he did not want to know. not the same thing as planning and/or executing but for an australian captain, utterly unacceptable. but i think that distinction will make it easier for people to ignore the stupidity when looking at the legacy. seen as being out of character - which does not excuse him. in any event, once a player, in any sport, has served his sentence, surely it then comes back to the quality of his contribution. so you would never consider tom brady as one of the great QBs because of his suspension for cheating (deflategate)? and if you would, what is the difference? 

Equally I agree and disagree with bits and pieces of your thoughts here Ken.

On one key point, I think we critically disagree with culpability.    It seems your centre of blame is Bancroft, as he was the acting party.   whereas I always attach most blame to whom has most responsibility.   When you hear new Captains say, "I'm humbled by being given this awesome responsibility" etc etc.  It supposed to mean something. It means that when your team wins, the Captain is also exalted to a higher level,  similarly when a team is disgraced, the Captain is in the hot burning focus of that disgrace. It happened on Smiths watch, it was a standard of practice that Smith agreed with.   I think we both agree that Warner is a bit of a simpleton, bully and maybe the instigator.   In reverse to yourself, out of all three of them, my only sliver of sympathy  (and it is a sliver) is with Bancroft,  as they youngest of the three, I think he was (out fo the three of them) the most impressionable, and most likely to do whatever he could to stay in the team.   Ultimately I think Bancroft was guitly of cheating and incredible stupidity,  but I think Steve Smith is culpable for much more serious scrutiny, for either being in cahoots as a captain, or even turning a blind eye as a captain. 

Strangely your degree of forgiveness seems to be attached to degree of talent....I just don't get that. 

Oddly 'GOAT obsession'  seems to of seeped into all sorts of extra qualifiers,  how much work they do for charity, how much sponsorship they gross, yadda yadda.   I really don't enjoy it.  I couple of years ago, Dan Carter was caught drink driving, and you could sense in him and his reaction, that he'd negatively effected his brand and legacy.    Thats where I think it's become ridiculous, but the point of ridiculousness is Dan himself, and his agent trying to play this role of the perfect sportsman and the perfect human being.

Much like what Lance Armstrongs insistence that everyone was cheating in the Tour De France. my reaction would be...with this doesn't mean you are any less culpable!........it just means the sport has become a disgrace, and they need to start again.    I fully believe everything you've said about England cricketers, and a host of other cricketers, and sports do have watershed moments where an admirable pushing of the boundaries, just becomes outright cheating. Personally I find neither admirable, but it is without question where most of sport finds itself at the very pinnacle of competition.

To conclude I do think Steve Smith is a once in a generation talent,  but I also think he has a black mark on his card, which will never go away.  He'll never be a Federer....but then again, I cant think of anybody else who can claim to be perfect. I think the moral of the story, is that people should stop trying, it's against human nature.   As long as people aim to be above the moral compass of John Terry, I'll be happy

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, 99call said:

Equally I agree and disagree with bits and pieces of your thoughts here Ken.

On one key point, I think we critically disagree with culpability.    It seems your centre of blame is Bancroft, as he was the acting party.   whereas I always attach most blame to whom has most responsibility.   When you hear new Captains say, "I'm humbled by being given this awesome responsibility" etc etc.  It supposed to mean something. It means that when your team wins, the Captain is also exalted to a higher level,  similarly when a team is disgraced, the Captain is in the hot burning focus of that disgrace. It happened on Smiths watch, it was a standard of practice that Smith agreed with.   I think we both agree that Warner is a bit of a simpleton, bully and maybe the instigator.   In reverse to yourself, out of all three of them, my only sliver of sympathy  (and it is a sliver) is with Bancroft,  as they youngest of the three, I think he was (out fo the three of them) the most impressionable, and most likely to do whatever he could to stay in the team.   Ultimately I think Bancroft was guitly of cheating and incredible stupidity,  but I think Steve Smith is culpable for much more serious scrutiny, for either being in cahoots as a captain, or even turning a blind eye as a captain. 

Strangely your degree of forgiveness seems to be attached to degree of talent....I just don't get that. 

Oddly 'GOAT obsession'  seems to of seeped into all sorts of extra qualifiers,  how much work they do for charity, how much sponsorship they gross, yadda yadda.   I really don't enjoy it.  I couple of years ago, Dan Carter was caught drink driving, and you could sense in him and his reaction, that he'd negatively effected his brand and legacy.    Thats where I think it's become ridiculous, but the point of ridiculousness is Dan himself, and his agent trying to play this role of the perfect sportsman and the perfect human being.

Much like what Lance Armstrongs insistence that everyone was cheating in the Tour De France. my reaction would be...with this doesn't mean you are any less culpable!........it just means the sport has become a disgrace, and they need to start again.    I fully believe everything you've said about England cricketers, and a host of other cricketers, and sports do have watershed moments where an admirable pushing of the boundaries, just becomes outright cheating. Personally I find neither admirable, but it is without question where most of sport finds itself at the very pinnacle of competition.

To conclude I do think Steve Smith is a once in a generation talent,  but I also think he has a black mark on his card, which will never go away.  He'll never be a Federer....but then again, I cant think of anybody else who can claim to be perfect. I think the moral of the story, is that people should stop trying, it's against human nature.   As long as people aim to be above the moral compass of John Terry, I'll be happy

no, no, no. this is not what i said. 

all i said about bancroft was that he was an idiot who did the deed. they were not in any specific order. i actually said warner will be the one who cops it more from history. for me, if you had to attribute blame, he'd cop the lion's share. or at least be seen as most culpable. you seem to think that i am absolving smith. not so and never. what i said was it was utterly unacceptable. and i agreed not the actions of a captain. not sure what more i could have said. 

as to the actual incident, what seems to have come out is that warner was behind it, convinced bancroft to do it (and he does not get a pass for being new to the team. he was no kid and he knew it was wrong). smith knew something was happening that should not have been and did nothing. did not want to know. not the actions of a captain. as i said, utterly unacceptable. i am in a small minority in saying the penalties were justified. had a big argument yesterday with an indian fan who thought a match or two would have been sufficient. i disagreed. not sure what else i can say. 

with respect, your "Strangely your degree of forgiveness seems to be attached to degree of talent....I just don't get that." has absolutely no basis in anything i have ever said. it is utter crap (with said respect, if i may). i was a bit stunned to read that because i can't see how anyone could have come up with anything like that. 

also, i don't buy into the off field stuff if we are talking GOAT. don't care if bradman boiled kittens off the field (well, i'd be unimpressed but that would not affect my thoughts on his batting). and that goes for any sport. different if we are talking about the package and person, but as for simply being the best, it comes down to the performances. 

also, there is nothing in what i am saying suggesting that it was okay because others were doing it. the exact opposite. my thoughts are that plenty of others ought to have copped much, much stiffer penalties. 

this all started re a discussion about the booing. they are going to cop it, as we would give it if positions are reversed. but warner is having fun with the crowd showing the contents of his pockets. when it veers to humour, the black mark fades a bit. and when you come back and perform like smith has, it becomes little more than a footnote (whether it should be more or less is a different matter). 

remember also warnie got a year's ban for drugs. surely in theory, at least as serious. who remembers, cares or judges it these days (for what it is worth, a mate who was working with him at the time said all the mess with blaming his mum etc, was because the idiot was taking weight loss pills of some weird sort which is what caused the problems and he didn't want people to know). i don't believe people will be anymore fussed about smith's crime than they are about warnie, in time. 

[99call]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

also, i don't buy into the off field stuff if we are talking GOAT. don't care if bradman boiled kittens off the field (well, i'd be unimpressed but that would not affect my thoughts on his batting). and that goes for any sport. different if we are talking about the package and person, but as for simply being the best, it comes down to the performances. 

also, there is nothing in what i am saying suggesting that it was okay because others were doing it. the exact opposite. my thoughts are that plenty of others ought to have copped much, much stiffer penalties. 

this all started re a discussion about the booing. they are going to cop it, as we would give it if positions are reversed. but warner is having fun with the crowd showing the contents of his pockets. when it veers to humour, the black mark fades a bit. and when you come back and perform like smith has, it becomes little more than a footnote (whether it should be more or less is a different matter). 

remember also warnie got a year's ban for drugs. surely in theory, at least as serious. who remembers, cares or judges it these days (for what it is worth, a mate who was working with him at the time said all the mess with blaming his mum etc, was because the idiot was taking weight loss pills of some weird sort which is what caused the problems and he didn't want people to know). i don't believe people will be anymore fussed about smith's crime than they are about warnie, in time. 

Definitely agreeing here, And this is sort of the thrust of what I was getting at, and why modern sportsmen and women, seem built to fail

I'm massive fan of Federer as a player, but the whole don't put a step wrong in public or private life, family man, charity man, kind of creeps me out a little bit.   It appears the admiration of younger generations includes,  not only how impressive any given player is, but how much cash they pull in a year, and how many sponsorship deals they've raked in. whether they've cheated on their wife or not,    To me it's focusing on all the wrong things.   A bit like Anthony Joshua, constantly spouting "stay humble" or England rugby teams cleaning changing rooms, then putting it up on social media.  Non of them seem to understand the concept of humility, and how contrived they appear.    

I'm not sure I would in any way equate Warnie's fat loss drugs, The comic shame of it, is almost self policing. but your right, everything fades with time.   One of the reasons I think this will take much longer to fade, and will seek to be kept raw my opposition fans,  is that Australian Cricket always seemed to promote itself as "hard but fair", then this came along, and sort of turned everything on its head. 

Not that he will care a jot of my opinion, but I think if Steve Smith goes about his business, enjoys his sporting life, continues to be awesome at what he does.  I think he will keep a great deal of his fans, and win a great deal more.     Yet, if he tries to plug into this modern BS phenomenon of the perfect sportsman, phoenix from the flames, road to redemption books etc etc I think he will endless butt against an uncomfortable truth,  which is that he's cheated. 

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

it is utter crap (with said respect, if i may)

Haha, Always.  I didn't want to suggest it was anything that you had said, rather a flavour i'd got, from of what you'd said.  I sensed you coming down hard on Bancroft, and not Smith, but In retrospect I think your comments were more of a report of their contribution to the 1st test, and less about blame attributed.