Ashes 2019

[ayepatz]

I can think of a few examples of sporting greats who overcame poor decisions in the past:-

Muhammad Ali - dodged the draft, arrested and stripped of his titles. Recovered to be revered as “The Greatest”.

Diego Maradona - committed one of the worst acts of cheating in football history. Redeemed himself moments later with the greatest individual World Cup goal of all time.

Tiger Woods - the ultimate fall from grace. That Masters win.

Michael Schumacher - drove Damon Hill off the track. Went on to be the most successful champion in F1 history.

 

[99call]

2 hours ago, ayepatz said:

I can think of a few examples of sporting greats who overcame poor decisions in the past:-

Muhammad Ali - dodged the draft, arrested and stripped of his titles. Recovered to be revered as “The Greatest”.

Diego Maradona - committed one of the worst acts of cheating in football history. Redeemed himself moments later with the greatest World Cup goal of all time.

Tiger Woods - the ultimate fall from grace. That Masters win.

 

Sportsmen coming back from poor decisions I don't feel is in question. it happens, it's has happened, and will happen.   For those you mentioned

Muhammad Ali dodging the draft,   A, he was right, and B, popular opinion caught up with him. (no doubt he experienced a world of pain in the time between)

Diego Maradona - He's still a cheat, it's in his make up. He's arguably one of the greatest footballers who has, or will ever live, but he still has been a cheat. 

Tiger Woods -  Personally I find this most impressive. To me golf is perverse, the harder you try, the worse you get, for him to stick at it, is nuts. 

We as the public love to see tragedy and triumph, play out,  from ancient Rome to modern day.   All I was trying to say is that some things you don't move on from, like the triumphs they are marked on your card, as are the failures. All I was suggesting is that I didn't want anybody to say "yeah that was yesterday, but this is today". Observing a sportsman/woman's life can be fabulously entertaining,  but they should be absorbed as a whole, not as some sort censored "lets move on" package. 

To me Steve Smith will be remembered very much like Maradona, maybe the greatest that ever lived.........but still a cheat.

 

 

 

[Ken Gargett]

7 hours ago, 99call said:

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. 

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. 

one point about smith. i think he probably does care a bit about what people think (warner less so) but that comes second to him doing what he loves beyond anything. batting. stories of him spending hour after hour until no one left to bowl to him. bowling machines. day after day. he just loves to bat. he has never been an extrovert in any sense. he would be quite happy if he was left alone to bat and just ignored. i can see cricket australia (or perhaps the wife) wanting some form of media blitz to make him look good. i think he'd hate the idea. and that is part of the problem. he was made captain because no one else was a candidate at the time but all he really wanted to be was a batsman. the captaining stuff was secondary, and so he did not act like a captain should have in that matter. and paid the price. that is not to excuse him at all. if you accept the captaincy, you be the captain. 

[Ken Gargett]

on a side issue, i missed it but i am told one Aussie newspaper had a front page headline on the day the team was picked and warner and bancroft were selected to open (interesting in itself as bancroft did throw warner under the bus)

"Bringing the Banned back together". 

love it. 

[99call]

Congrats to Australia, what a turn around  ? ?

[Webbo]

Well that was embarrassing.

My thoughts:

Australia.  Smith - truly incredible knocks (particularly the first innings), impossible not to be in awe of what he has done.. Siddle- his first innings effort to stay with Smith probably just as important. Warner - tool end of. Lyons- good effort on a helpful track, surprised to find he is 4th on all time Aussie list of wicket takers. Lot of your great bowlers didn’t manage 350 victims it seems .

England. Piss poor,  at 122-8 game should be over. Anderson- how could he possibly declare himself fit without a game (ECB no county games for half of summer, disgraceful). Playing with only 3 seamers is close to impossible. Root- pains me as someone who knows him well but he should not be captain, however given current predicament there are few if any guaranteed members of the test team. It’s effecting his batting no doubt. Roy - would never open again for me, play that shot at no 11 in local league cricket and you will get a bollocking, do it on last day of an ashes test fighting for a draw and as an opener it’s goodbye.

So in conclusion well played Australia and not good enough England.  

Angry of Yorkshire 

[David88]

I think Smith’s batting display has been one the of the greatest I can remember from a test match for quite some time. I didn’t think England would fall apart like that after the first innings but well done Australia. Looking forward to the second test now! 

[99call]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

Root- pains me as someone who knows him well but he should not be captain

Was noticable on the radio, how many ex-players both Aussie and England, thought the fields he set were bizarre. 

[JohnS]

251 runs indicates a heavy defeat by numbers but the reality is that now is not the time to panic. I think the momentum that Smith wrestled on the 1st day and consolidated on the 4th day was the difference in the match. In between, England were ahead of this game up until some time on the 4th day, well into the afternoon.

So all the talk is to bring in Joffra Archer in the next match and possibly Jack Leach. Leach I can understand but Archer for a test debut in these circumstances may be asking a lot, but he's certainly no worse than trying Sam Curran again, who seems to be more reliable as a batter than a bowler, no? I don't think you can start dropping batsmen at this stage without giving them another chance.

As for Australia, would you change their side for Lords? How can you? You think Bancroft and Pattinson perhaps but I doubt Langer will do that. Bancroft will continue to be supported by the likes of Steve Waugh for his short leg work and Pattinson has been the form first-class bowler. How England would love Hazlewood or Starc on the sidelines!

[Bill Hayes]

Looked like I might have been wrong about the Wade selection. He'll keep his spot. Now the Aussies have the conundrum whether to bring in Starc and replace Bancroft. Will be interesting. I guess Starc really needs the ball to swing then reverse swing later.

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, JohnS said:

251 runs indicates a heavy defeat by numbers but the reality is that now is not the time to panic. I think the momentum that Smith wrestled on the 1st day and consolidated on the 4th day was the difference in the match. In between, England were ahead of this game up until some time on the 4th day, well into the afternoon.

So all the talk is to bring in Joffra Archer in the next match and possibly Jack Leach. Leach I can understand but Archer for a test debut in these circumstances may be asking a lot, but he's certainly no worse than trying Sam Curran again, who seems to be more reliable as a batter than a bowler, no? I don't think you can start dropping batsmen at this stage without giving them another chance.

As for Australia, would you change their side for Lords? How can you? You think Bancroft and Pattinson perhaps but I doubt Langer will do that. Bancroft will continue to be supported by the likes of Steve Waugh for his short leg work and Pattinson has been the form first-class bowler. How England would love Hazlewood or Starc on the sidelines!

john, i'll be staggered if starc doesn't play at lords. means they'll need to move out someone. pattinson or siddle, not sure. suspect siddle. they have talked about rotation for ages. 

bancroft should not have been there and he failed both innings. he must go, though doubt langer will do it (spineless toad can't see past west aussies, no offence to our west brothers). had we lost, the calls would be much louder. and without smith, we lose this game. he was extraordinary. they would have been so far ahead after the first. he also allowed the others to play well in the 2nd. bancroft must go. you don't get picked in an australian team as a fieldsman. 

we should remember that this is just one test and could very easily have gone badly. long way to go. we won the first in 05. lost the series. all but won the first in 09. lost the series. 

as for root, have said for years that he is a superb bat (although he seems to have some weird phobia about turning 50s into 100s) but is a useless captain. good when things go well. no clue when they don't. 

no doubt archer will play at lords. they need some pace and if anderson not fit, the obvious choice. i think all the bats will get another crack but ali might go. 

can't wait for the next one. 

[JohnS]

I too can't wait for the next one. I'll credit the Australian selectors for Siddle, thus far, as he definitely keeps things tight and thus helps the team with creating pressure for Australia to pick up wickets.

I believe the thinking was that Pattinson and Starc can't play together because they are attacking bowlers and therefore more prone to leaking runs. This I can understand. If Starc comes in at Lords then Pattinson will be out.

Ken, I concur about the result. It's just one game and there's no reason why England can't comeback in this series.

[Ken Gargett]

15 minutes ago, JohnS said:

I too can't wait for the next one. I'll credit the Australian selectors for Siddle, thus far, as he definitely keeps things tight and thus helps the team with creating pressure for Australia to pick up wickets.

I believe the thinking was that Pattinson and Starc can't play together because they are attacking bowlers and therefore more prone to leaking runs. This I can understand. If Starc comes in at Lords then Pattinson will be out.

Ken, I concur about the result. It's just one game and there's no reason why England can't comeback in this series.

john, i think you probably right. was looking at the figures. pattinson bowled 30-40 overs. not over the top in test terms but for a bloke with his history of injuries and just one test back, he'll get the rest i suspect.

thinking leach for ali for england? i see talk of bairstow going. for me, they have fallen into the trap of a batsman who can keep. and he has not scored much in serious cricket for ages. also saw buttler has one first class century in five years. theoretically, his only chance of playing in a test would be to convince langer he was from west aust. 

[JohnS]

11 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

john, i think you probably right. was looking at the figures. pattinson bowled 30-40 overs. not over the top in test terms but for a bloke with his history of injuries and just one test back, he'll get the rest i suspect.

thinking leach for ali for england? i see talk of bairstow going. for me, they have fallen into the trap of a batsman who can keep. and he has not scored much in serious cricket for ages. also saw buttler has one first class century in five years. theoretically, his only chance of playing in a test would be to convince langer he was from west aust. 

Yes, I think Ali will make way for Leach. And that's a fair point in regards to Bairstow and Buttler...they probably should not both be in the team. Why did they drop Foakes as a wicket-keeper?

[JohnS]

Someone just updated Moeen Ali's page on Wikipedia...

Moeen Ali - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moeen_Ali

Moeen Munir Ali (born 18 June 1987) is an English international cricketer and Nathan Lyon's bunny. Gets him out every. Single. Time. A batting all-rounder, he is a left-handed batsman and right-arm off-spinner, who played county cricket for Warwickshire before moving to Worcestershire after the 2006 season.

 

Ok, it's since been corrected!

[JohnS]

And so onto the Second Test at Lord's (Cricket Ground, London)...

Some points to consider...

• The result of this test is not based on getting Steve Smith out or not. There has been a spate of poor journalism in regards to the lead-up to this game, specifically that Joffra Archer will concern Smith with his extra pace or Jack Leach with his left-arm spin. In fact, I would reckon Chris Woakes' excellent record at Lord's will favour him to trouble Smith the most.
• Justin Langer is correct to question the impact of Archer. After all, he has played one, yes one, red-ball (or 4-day) game in the past 11 months! He is also on debut. It's more accurate to say that England are relying on Broad and Woakes in the 2nd Test, Archer and Leach will probably play support roles.
• Josh Hazlewood will most likely come into the team to replace James Pattinson, who will be rested.
• Malcolm Knox, the journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald, is about the only writer who has written a lead-up piece of writing that is, in my opinion, not sensationalised, exaggerated, sycophantic of other articles going around etc... Knox simply stated that Australia has had past tests were they've won the 1st test of an overseas series only to lose the 2nd test, and sometimes emphatically so. In fact, Australia have not won two overseas tests in a row against quality opposition since 2006, the last time Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne were in the team.
• The 1st test is the only instance in Test Match history (since 1877) where a team has won with both openers not producing double-figure scores.
• Cameron Bancroft must produce a notable score in this game to retain his place for the 3rd test.
• Steve Smith has a well-thought out method to his batting technique. There's a reason why he doesn't tend to get caught in the air on the off-side or lbw more often. Simply put, his rotary batting process (i.e he doesn't take the bat back towards slips and bring it forward in a straight line like most batsmen), like Don Bradman, means that he comes down on the ball with a slightly closed bat-face. If he makes mistakes with timing the ball the ball is likely to go into the ground. He also makes sure to get completely behind the ball, which is the essence of batting and not play away from his body, Finally, he plays continually inside the line of the ball, not outside. When was the last time you remember Steve Smith cutting the ball?

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, JohnS said:

And so onto the Second Test at Lord's (Cricket Ground, London)...

Some points to consider...

• The result of this test is not based on getting Steve Smith out or not. There has been a spate of poor journalism in regards to the lead-up to this game, specifically that Joffra Archer will concern Smith with his extra pace or Jack Leach with his left-arm spin. In fact, I would reckon Chris Woakes' excellent record at Lord's will favour him to trouble Smith the most.
• Justin Langer is correct to question the impact of Archer. After all, he has played one, yes one, red-ball (or 4-day) game in the past 11 months! He is also on debut. It's more accurate to say that England are relying on Broad and Woakes in the 2nd Test, Archer and Leach will probably play support roles.
• Josh Hazlewood will most likely come into the team to replace James Pattinson, who will be rested.
• Malcolm Knox, the journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald, is about the only writer who has written a lead-up piece of writing that is, in my opinion, not sensationalised, exaggerated, sycophantic of other articles going around etc... Knox simply stated that Australia has had past tests were they've won the 1st test of an overseas series only to lose the 2nd test, and sometimes emphatically so. In fact, Australia have not won two overseas tests in a row against quality opposition since 2006, the last time Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne were in the team.
• The 1st test is the only instance in Test Match history (since 1877) where a team has won with both openers not producing double-figure scores.
• Cameron Bancroft must produce a notable score in this game to retain his place for the 3rd test.
• Steve Smith has a well-thought out method to his batting technique. There's a reason why he doesn't tend to get caught in the air on the off-side or lbw more often. Simply put, his rotary batting process (i.e he doesn't take the bat back towards slips and bring it forward in a straight line like most batsmen), like Don Bradman, means that he comes down on the ball with a slightly closed bat-face. If he makes mistakes with timing the ball the ball is likely to go into the ground. He also makes sure to get completely behind the ball, which is the essence of batting and not play away from his body, Finally, he plays continually inside the line of the ball, not outside. When was the last time you remember Steve Smith cutting the ball?

john, i still have not a shred of respect for langer. don't care what he gets right, to keep shoving his mate from WA into the side is beyond disgraceful. a guy who has never succeeded in tests, averages something like 27, two fifties in 9 tests, while guys like harris and burn got dumped for him. and i do not care if scumbag bancroft gets 300 this game. he should not be there. 

[JohnS]

I think the likelihood is that he won't get a score because he lacks the technique for this level of cricket. Ken, I expect Harris to come into the line-up for the 3rd test.

[Ken Gargett]

On 8/5/2019 at 3:32 AM, 99call said:

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. 

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. 

this is meant as a serious question.

we have different perspectives on smith, his legacy, contribution, actions etc. fair enough. i think he copped a serious but fair penalty for stupidity and actions unbecoming etc, even though plenty have more, including a considerable number of englishmen, have got away with such indiscretions in the past. you think it tarnishes him for life. i think it will tarnish the overall view but not the way his batting will be seen. 

so what now of your view of joe root? given his obvious cheating, for which i might add he will receive no punishment, has he now been locked into the same category as smith? 

personally, i think claiming a catch you know you didn't take is one of the most disgusting acts in cricket (that said, i have never been able to understand why it is then okay to appeal for an lbw or caught behind that you don't genuinely believe is out, something which is done by almost everybody, but that is another argument). 

for me, joe root now will be forever tarnished as a cheat - that won't affect what i think of his batting (extremely good, not absolutely top class and a real problem in converting 50s to 100s) but i won't ever respect the bloke again. he proved himself a cheat. 

[Bill Hayes]

I didn't see much of the cricket. Had a few beers at the football so fell asleep on the couch. I was wondering whether they had changed the rules? How come Labuschagne could bat in the second innings? Was it because Smith got hurt?

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, Bill Hayes said:

I didn't see much of the cricket. Had a few beers at the football so fell asleep on the couch. I was wondering whether they had changed the rules? How come Labuschagne could bat in the second innings? Was it because Smith got hurt?

bill, they have brought in a concussion rule. if a player concussed - all sorts of things to go through and forms to fill out within 36 hours of the incident - and if approved, as this was, the player can be replaced by 'like for like'. sadly we have no one nearly like smith but that is why labuschange was allowed to play. and allowed to play as a full participant. bat, bowl etc. 

such a shame that such a great, and brave, knock came to an end in such a tawdry and ignominious manner, to have the england captain cheat like that. 

[Webbo]

5 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

this is meant as a serious question.

we have different perspectives on smith, his legacy, contribution, actions etc. fair enough. i think he copped a serious but fair penalty for stupidity and actions unbecoming etc, even though plenty have more, including a considerable number of englishmen, have got away with such indiscretions in the past. you think it tarnishes him for life. i think it will tarnish the overall view but not the way his batting will be seen. 

so what now of your view of joe root? given his obvious cheating, for which i might add he will receive no punishment, has he now been locked into the same category as smith? 

personally, i think claiming a catch you know you didn't take is one of the most disgusting acts in cricket (that said, i have never been able to understand why it is then okay to appeal for an lbw or caught behind that you don't genuinely believe is out, something which is done by almost everybody, but that is another argument). 

for me, joe root now will be forever tarnished as a cheat - that won't affect what i think of his batting (extremely good, not absolutely top class and a real problem in converting 50s to 100s) but i won't ever respect the bloke again. he proved himself a cheat. 

How did he prove himself a cheat Ken? One camera angle shows it carried and one that it did not, all that proves is that the camera can give different results.

I do not believe for a second that he would ever claim a catch he did not think he had cleanly taken, irrespective of the circumstances or state of the game and I base that on my own personal experiences of playing with him at a number of levels. I know the man he is and cheat he ain’t. If he didn’t think it carried he would never (and I mean never) claim it had.

There have been many more examples, including Australians, claiming catches that from all TV angles categorically did not carry and are not labelled cheats. As you have played also you will know that sometimes it’s extremely difficult to tell and players can get it genuinely wrong without being a cheat. I would suggest that part of the frustration is seeing such an innings conclude in this fashion, however to accuse Root of cheating is not fair at all.

Were the onfield umpires cheating when they gave the soft signal out? Was the third umpire cheating when they gave the it as out?  If they both called it out does that not at the minimum signify that there was clearly a view it could be out? 

[JohnS]

In the Australian first innings in this test Root was at first slip and called a 'bump catch' immediately to quell an appeal from his team-mates. I genuinely believe that he thought he took the catch. Any fault with the whole thing must lie with Joel Wilson's umpiring (as the third umpire in this game), which I think we'd all agree wasn't that great in the 1st test.

[Ken Gargett]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How did he prove himself a cheat Ken? One camera angle shows it carried and one that it did not, all that proves is that the camera can give different results.

I do not believe for a second that he would ever claim a catch he did not think he had cleanly taken, irrespective of the circumstances or state of the game and I base that on my own personal experiences of playing with him at a number of levels. I know the man he is and cheat he ain’t. If he didn’t think it carried he would never (and I mean never) claim it had.

There have been many more examples, including Australians, claiming catches that from all TV angles categorically did not carry and are not labelled cheats. As you have played also you will know that sometimes it’s extremely difficult to tell and players can get it genuinely wrong without being a cheat. I would suggest that part of the frustration is seeing such an innings conclude in this fashion, however to accuse Root of cheating is not fair at all.

Were the onfield umpires cheating when they gave the soft signal out? Was the third umpire cheating when they gave the it as out?  If they both called it out does that not at the minimum signify that there was clearly a view it could be out? 

i can understand you might want to defend the english captain but you ask how did he prove himself a cheat? he claimed a catch that he knew full well didn't carry. it is, by any standards, cheating. and yes, of course he knew full well. 

i do believe he would do it because that is exactly what he did. i've seen about 6 different angles, none shows it carried. nothing like. not on any objective viewing. 

it is simply inconceivable that anyone could imagine he genuinely thinks he caught it (john, you are just too nice). i'm yet to hear anyone down here (other than the too-nice john) even give him a possible doubt. he has shown himself for what he is. under pressure to win a test, maybe he made a mistake in the heat of the moment (if so, on seeing it on screen, he could and should have immediately said, whoops, i made an error), but with respect, i do not care if you know him. don't care if the bloke is your brother. i have absolutely no doubt he cheated. and i assure you that everyone i have spoken with, from here and over there, are not arguing the contrary. and no matter what they might tactfully say publicly, you did not need to be much of a lipreader or student of body language to know that is also exactly what the australians think of him. 

"There have been many more examples, including Australians, claiming catches that from all TV angles categorically did not carry and are not labelled cheats." there have certainly been examples - i'm not sure i'd say many and not sure many english or aussies involved - happy to look at any you can name (i do remember an english wicket keeper late 70s or early 80s around knott's era - taylor or richards - who blatantly claimed one but not many others). there have been a couple of aussies i would not put it past but that said, i can't name anyone - can you? - but that one of root's was obvious and blatant.

but you say that they are not labelled cheats? why not? of course they are cheating (as an english friend's email to me said this morning - he was horrified, for what it is worth). who says that they are not cheats? 

you suggest that my response is to do with frustration at seeing the innings end. does that apply to everyone? with respect, that is clutching at the very faintest of straws. for a start, i wasn't watching it live. that would have been about 3.30. i had gone to bed. so we can rule out that (same applies for almost everyone else i suspect). my opinion is based on viewing it many times (had it on tape) from all the angles they showed. if an australian had done that, i would have been mortified and i believe i would think of them as just as bad a cheat as i think of root. even my mother, who will defend the english till the cows come home, is convinced we should remain a monarchy forever and still thinks of us as little more than an english colony was horrified. 

you say errors can be made by the player. i played as a wicketkeeper. so i saw a great many catches come my way (sadly far from all were caught) but even with gloves, there was only one catch the entire time i played where i was not 100% certain whether it carried. which i immediately indicated to the umps and the bat was given not out. and that is with gloves on. i've heard test players insist (before this incident) that it is simply impossible not to know.

but say that there might be a tiny percentage - that is not one of them (one of my cricketing mates said he thought it landed three feet in front of him - slight exaggeration - and another said that the rules of backyard cricket have now changed - that would not even have been out under the one bounce, one hand rule). that ball was clearly bouncing up into his hands when he caught it. i do not believe an experienced cricketer would have made an error. he did not even express possible doubt - he just claimed it. and threw away his reputation for honesty. 

and before you start throwing stones at australians, worth remembering that ricky ponting tried to put in place an agreement between the teams last time he captained the ashes series that sides would take the word of the opposition on such matters. it was the english who refused it. wonder why? 

"Were the onfield umpires cheating when they gave the soft signal out? Was the third umpire cheating when they gave the it as out?  If they both called it out does that not at the minimum signify that there was clearly a view it could be out?" with respect, that is a silly and defensive comment and makes utterly no sense. the three umps we've had in this series have been dismal. but no one i have heard is suggesting that they are cheating. so yet another error does not become an accusation of cheating. live, it is entirely possible to rule that way, plus the england captain, who given the spirit of the game you would like to believe, indicated it was out. it became very clear it was not,  very quickly. i certainly do not blame the onfield umps. they referred it as they should have done. so of course it could have been out. no argument. but also no argument it was not.  the soft call meant the the third ump had to find evidence to overturn. no idea why he was so inept - why he has been so inept all series. it was he who made the majority of the errors in the first test. and it continues. but it should never have got to him. root should immediately have done the right thing. 

i'm sure that plenty of the english will defend him regardless - interesting that a member of the MCC was thrown out for abusing smith as a cheat, which seems just a tad hypocritical - and i might enjoy watching his talents as a bat, but i will never ever be convinced, that he is anything but a cheat. he showed that to the world. 

[99call]

8 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

this is meant as a serious question.

we have different perspectives on smith, his legacy, contribution, actions etc. fair enough. i think he copped a serious but fair penalty for stupidity and actions unbecoming etc, even though plenty have more, including a considerable number of englishmen, have got away with such indiscretions in the past. you think it tarnishes him for life. i think it will tarnish the overall view but not the way his batting will be seen. 

so what now of your view of joe root? given his obvious cheating, for which i might add he will receive no punishment, has he now been locked into the same category as smith? 

personally, i think claiming a catch you know you didn't take is one of the most disgusting acts in cricket (that said, i have never been able to understand why it is then okay to appeal for an lbw or caught behind that you don't genuinely believe is out, something which is done by almost everybody, but that is another argument). 

for me, joe root now will be forever tarnished as a cheat - that won't affect what i think of his batting (extremely good, not absolutely top class and a real problem in converting 50s to 100s) but i won't ever respect the bloke again. he proved himself a cheat. 

I've only been listening to the radio, and watching highlights on the beeb.   I did see the BS catch, and I 100% agree to this extent,  Whats the point in trying to achieve anything in life if you cant look back and be proud.  He should be ashamed, and he should consider himself a cheat. 

There is a difference however to me, levels of disgrace, and it's got to premeditation. For example I would consider anyone who uses anything either 'of the field' (dirt etc) or semi legitimately 'on the field' sunscreen, sweets etc it's all cheating, but bottle tops and sand paper is a whole other level of premeditation, where the offender has zero chance of explaining their actions as outright cheating.  The difference was obvious when Bancroft initially tried to suggest it was sticky tape and dirt. 

Ken.....I'm not an England fan, I enjoy the Ashes, I enjoy it being a war of attrition. Similarly to the All Blacks, there has historically been some sort of impenetrable air of swagger and confidence about Australian Cricket, and it also being traded on the "hard but fair" brand was always an extra knife in the heart for us in the UK.   i.e. "How did they get this good?  and we cant even call them cheats!".          The reason I find this subject so interesting is that, when nations interweave themselves ideologically with sports teams    Wales - Rugby,   New Zealand - Rugby,   Australia - Cricket,  England - Football  etc etc   It has a giant impact on whole countries and how they perceive themselves.   i.e.  when our team wins, we feel like we've won together, and when they lose or do something negative we got to take it on the chin. 

What I've tried to express, and largely failed at, is you've suggested Australian Cricket has healed itself and moved on, that largely Australians are not interested in this anymore.  Yet I don't think it's because it's not of interest, it's because what Bancroft, Smith, and Warner did was sort of place the 'Australian way'  in the mud. 

In short I think the reason why this will resonate for much longer than any Australian would like, is that you were on a much higher moral pedestal.  

Smith's performances have been hugely impressive, and to come back on the field was heroic, but my point remains.  None of these actions will ever put the genie back in the bottle, and this is the drama, and the tragedy, it's feels to me like Australian cricket is trying to orientate it's way back to the top of the pedestal, and I just think thats lost on gone.  you're now just fighting to see who is the king of the muddy puddle, like the rest of the international sides.