Aussies don't dope

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
Reverse swing has been around since well before the 1990s. The Pakistani duo didn't invent it. They were just brilliant at exploiting it.
It's true they didn't invent it. Pakistanis before them did. But they were the first bowlers good enough to make it matter at Test level.

My point is that Akram and Younis were called cheats for doing something that the establishment and fans didn't understand
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Eyeballs Out said:
Parker said:
Interestingly cricket does have a lesson to teach the Clinic. And that's the story of reverse swing.

Back in 1992 two Pakistani bowlers - Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis - demolished England with a bowling innovation called 'reverse swing'. At the time a lot of people accused them of cheating saying that it wasn't physically possible. Here's the article in that year's Wisden (cricket bible): http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152058.html

Fast forward to now reverse swing is an established fact and one of the best exponents is England's most prolific wicket taker, Jimmy Anderson

The moral of the story is just because you can't explain something, it's doesn't follow that it's cheating.
The Pakistan team of the 90s were doing exactly what the Australians are doing now. 1992 at Lords for example. Waqar himself got caught some years later

The moral of the story being if it quacks....
Nonsense. People said that reverse swing was impossible and was a result of cheating. This was proved wrong. Reverse swing is a cricket standard now.
Well at least you're not denying they were tampering with the ball. Now that would be nonsense
 
Re: Re:

Eyeballs Out said:
Parker said:
Eyeballs Out said:
Parker said:
Interestingly cricket does have a lesson to teach the Clinic. And that's the story of reverse swing.

Back in 1992 two Pakistani bowlers - Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis - demolished England with a bowling innovation called 'reverse swing'. At the time a lot of people accused them of cheating saying that it wasn't physically possible. Here's the article in that year's Wisden (cricket bible): http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152058.html

Fast forward to now reverse swing is an established fact and one of the best exponents is England's most prolific wicket taker, Jimmy Anderson

The moral of the story is just because you can't explain something, it's doesn't follow that it's cheating.
The Pakistan team of the 90s were doing exactly what the Australians are doing now. 1992 at Lords for example. Waqar himself got caught some years later

The moral of the story being if it quacks....
Nonsense. People said that reverse swing was impossible and was a result of cheating. This was proved wrong. Reverse swing is a cricket standard now.
Well at least you're not denying they were tampering with the ball. Now that would be nonsense
I don't know if they were or weren't. But what is certain is that reverse swing that they introduced is a genuine thing and not a result of cheating which was claimed by many at the time.

My point is this:

1992: People who don't understand reverse swing call it cheating.
2018 (2000 even): Reverse swing is seen as a standard part of the sport.
 
Re:

Parker said:
Interestingly cricket does have a lesson to teach the Clinic. And that's the story of reverse swing.

Back in 1992 two Pakistani bowlers - Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis - demolished England with a bowling innovation called 'reverse swing'. At the time a lot of people accused them of cheating saying that it wasn't physically possible. Here's the article in that year's Wisden (cricket bible): http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152058.html

Fast forward to now reverse swing is an established fact and one of the best exponents is England's most prolific wicket taker, Jimmy Anderson

The moral of the story is just because you can't explain something, it's doesn't follow that it's cheating.
Physically possible? You mean by the nature of physics many thought it wasn’t possible nothing to do with the physical aspect of the bowler. It was indeed possible it to make it occur but it required to hold the ball and angle the seam differently to regular swing. Precipitation in the air and moisture in the pitch esstential to make the magic happen.

The Australians took a short cut for reserve swing by roughing one side of the ball with grooves to allow air pull the ball inwaed as it passed through the air. Cheating.
 
Jul 3, 2009
17,039
1
0
haha yeh "reverse" swing is perfectly possible without any tampering it just takes more overs and general wear and tear on both sides of the ball. The longer it takes to get in that condition the less effective. If you can get the contrast between the two sides (throat drops and scuffing the killer combo!) of the ball while it's still in reasonable nick you have a much better weapon but it was never "not possible".

Anyway, the Pakistan cricket team is well known for ball tampering and doping... still a fan though, great bowlers.

This is all becoming surreal, I reckon the only thing that may have rivaled this outrage would have been revelations of a systematic doping program while we were still full of smug in 2000 (I think it was a few years later when Gennadi Touretski's safe got busted with drugs and that disappeared pretty quickly).
 
Jul 3, 2009
17,039
1
0
Smith and Warner get a 12 month suspension from CA, Bancroft 9 months. No punishments for anyone else including Boof.

Looks like they are being sanctioned under a "code of behaviour" breach. While the penalties are extreme I'm not sure there are reasonable avenues of appeal although I wouldn't be surprised if Warner went all in given its unlikely he would ever play for Australia again regardless.
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re:

Ferminal said:
Smith and Warner get a 12 month suspension from CA, Bancroft 9 months. No punishments for anyone else including Boof.

Looks like they are being sanctioned under a "code of behaviour" breach. While the penalties are extreme I'm not sure there are reasonable avenues of appeal although I wouldn't be surprised if Warner went all in given its unlikely he would ever play for Australia again regardless.
Even though those sanctions are tough, and Smith/Warner have had their IPL contracts terminated which is a big financial hit, Cricket Australia's CEO has, in the way of sports administrators everywhere, blundered by trying to limit the damage

Given that ball tampering benefits the bowlers it is simply inconceivable that 3 batsmen cooked up the plan without some or all of the bowlers knowing. And Smith's "leadership group" comment made clear that more than him and Warner were involved

As for Lehman, it happened under his watch, he's led from the front in developing the hyper aggressive culture of the team, so even if he didn't know (and it's likely he did) he's complicit in what happened. Can't see Boof surviving for long

It's so obvious that there's more to come on this story the media will keep digging for sure. Chickens coming to roost for Warner in particular, he's unlikely to play for Aus again, I could easily see him going rogue

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of blokes ;) Popcorn!
 
Jul 3, 2009
17,039
1
0
Oh yeh, Sutherland is way out of his depth and frankly always has been, he will be gone soon enough.
 
Thanks for raising the Ball tampering issue Ferminal. I agree with you the public condemnation and penalties that Smith, Warner and Hanscomb have received are over the top. Many have asked for lifetime bans!! The pitchfork brigade largely got what they wanted, their pound of flesh. Also agree Sutherland is out of his depth although hopeless sports administration isn't limited to Australian cricket it is a world wide phenomenon also shared by cycling.
 
I'm a cricket tragic, and I wasn't particularly impressed to wake up to the ball tampering news......but.......the moral crusade over a few players illicitly trying to get a bit of reverse swing is itself a bigger moral problem than the intentions and actions to ball tamper.

It tells us something about modern ethics - or society I suppose - which is deeply concerning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's definitely something a bit Nietzschean and psychoanalytic. Desire for vengeance, ressentiment, unhinged super ego...... I don't really see reasonable ethical deliberation in all of this. I see some rather horrible instincts.
 
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I'm a cricket tragic, and I wasn't particularly impressed to wake up to the ball tampering news......but.......the moral crusade over a few players illicitly trying to get a bit of reverse swing is itself a bigger moral problem than the intentions and actions to ball tamper.

It tells us something about modern ethics - or society I suppose - which is deeply concerning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's definitely something a bit Nietzschean and psychoanalytic. Desire for vengeance, ressentiment, unhinged super ego...... I don't really see reasonable ethical deliberation in all of this. I see some rather horrible instincts.
Please elaborate.
I know absolutely nothing about the scandal to which you refer, and I could be totally wrong (I often am), but it seems to me the desires you state have been pretty much a part of the human condition for quite some time.
 
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
The Hegelian said:
I'm a cricket tragic, and I wasn't particularly impressed to wake up to the ball tampering news......but.......the moral crusade over a few players illicitly trying to get a bit of reverse swing is itself a bigger moral problem than the intentions and actions to ball tamper.

It tells us something about modern ethics - or society I suppose - which is deeply concerning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's definitely something a bit Nietzschean and psychoanalytic. Desire for vengeance, ressentiment, unhinged super ego...... I don't really see reasonable ethical deliberation in all of this. I see some rather horrible instincts.
Please elaborate.
I know absolutely nothing about the scandal to which you refer, and I could be totally wrong (I often am), but it seems to me the desires you state have been pretty much a part of the human condition for quite some time.

Well, Nietzsche thinks it's been part of the human condition at least from the time of Plato....and the psychoanalytic point is that morality is not really ever expressive of something as lofty as reason.

But I suppose I'm saying: there is something really perverse on that level about these times, isn't there? People tend to cache it out in terms of 'political correctness' or 'the new puritanism' - but that quickly becomes glib right-wing culture war ammunition which is just as toxic as as anything else.

As I mentioned, I really can't quite put my finger on it. Obviously social media/instant media spectacle is playing a big role. But the need to lynch mob anyone in the public eye who goes even a little bit astray....why is there such a mass desire for this? Not sure. But it's getting really tiring.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
the delgados said:
The Hegelian said:
I'm a cricket tragic, and I wasn't particularly impressed to wake up to the ball tampering news......but.......the moral crusade over a few players illicitly trying to get a bit of reverse swing is itself a bigger moral problem than the intentions and actions to ball tamper.

It tells us something about modern ethics - or society I suppose - which is deeply concerning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's definitely something a bit Nietzschean and psychoanalytic. Desire for vengeance, ressentiment, unhinged super ego...... I don't really see reasonable ethical deliberation in all of this. I see some rather horrible instincts.
Please elaborate.
I know absolutely nothing about the scandal to which you refer, and I could be totally wrong (I often am), but it seems to me the desires you state have been pretty much a part of the human condition for quite some time.

Well, Nietzsche thinks it's been part of the human condition at least from the time of Plato....and the psychoanalytic point is that morality is not really ever expressive of something as lofty as reason.

But I suppose I'm saying: there is something really perverse on that level about these times, isn't there? People tend to cache it out in terms of 'political correctness' or 'the new puritanism' - but that quickly becomes glib right-wing culture war ammunition which is just as toxic as as anything else.

As I mentioned, I really can't quite put my finger on it. Obviously social media/instant media spectacle is playing a big role. But the need to lynch mob anyone in the public eye who goes even a little bit astray....why is there such a mass desire for this? Not sure. But it's getting really tiring.
Thanks, The Hegelian.
I appreciate your response. I don't disagree with your take on things.
Not that you asked, but I need a bit of time to get back to you on this.
 
My understanding is that reverse swing is generally not possible without tampering unless the ball is thrown at > 85 mph. In fact, there’s a dead zone from about 80-85 mph where there is no swing, not even conventional swing.

A couple of questions, though, from a cricket novice:

1) why is the ball asymmetric in the first place? (Or is it? But it any case it soon becomes so; why is this not only permitted, but part of the game, and yet at the same time, it’s considered cheating to enhance what is part of the game?)
2) Since the ball can be made to swing (or as we would say in baseball terminology, to curve or break), in either direction, depending on the orientation of the seam, what advantage is there to reverse swing?

Here’s a detailed article on the physics of bowling:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/258645.html
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
My understanding is that reverse swing is generally not possible without tampering unless the ball is thrown at > 85 mph. In fact, there’s a dead zone from about 80-85 mph where there is no swing, not even conventional swing.

A couple of questions, though, from a cricket novice:

1) why is the ball asymmetric in the first place? (Or is it? But it any case it soon becomes so; why is this not only permitted, but part of the game, and yet at the same time, it’s considered cheating to enhance what is part of the game?)
2) Since the ball can be made to swing (or as we would say in baseball terminology, to curve or break), in either direction, depending on the orientation of the seam, what advantage is there to reverse swing?

Here’s a detailed article on the physics of bowling:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/258645.html
1) It's not asymmetric to start with but becomes so as it is used and the fielding team try to preserve the "shine" on one side of the ball in an attempt to influence its' properties. I believe that natural moisture from the field, spit and sweat are all acceptable to maintain a side of the ball but the deterioration has to be natural. They used to be allowed to rub the ball on a ground a long time ago but that was banned.

2) This is slightly above my pay grade but I believe the benefit of reverse swing is it happens late and in the opposite direction to that you would think by looking at the ball. As batsmen generally have to pre-empt a fast delivery and move their feet before the ball has left the hand, they will look at how the bowler is holding himself and the ball to determine what kind of delivery they will receive. Reverse swing makes this much more difficult.


That might all be wrong! It's a very long time since I paid more than a passing interest in cricket.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Merckx index said:
My understanding is that reverse swing is generally not possible without tampering unless the ball is thrown at > 85 mph. In fact, there’s a dead zone from about 80-85 mph where there is no swing, not even conventional swing.

A couple of questions, though, from a cricket novice:

1) why is the ball asymmetric in the first place? (Or is it? But it any case it soon becomes so; why is this not only permitted, but part of the game, and yet at the same time, it’s considered cheating to enhance what is part of the game?)
2) Since the ball can be made to swing (or as we would say in baseball terminology, to curve or break), in either direction, depending on the orientation of the seam, what advantage is there to reverse swing?

Here’s a detailed article on the physics of bowling:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/258645.html
1) It's not asymmetric to start with but becomes so as it is used and the fielding team try to preserve the "shine" on one side of the ball in an attempt to influence its' properties. I believe that natural moisture from the field, spit and sweat are all acceptable to maintain a side of the ball but the deterioration has to be natural. They used to be allowed to rub the ball on a ground a long time ago but that was banned.

2) This is slightly above my pay grade but I believe the benefit of reverse swing is it happens late and in the opposite direction to that you would think by looking at the ball. As batsmen generally have to pre-empt a fast delivery and move their feet before the ball has left the hand, they will look at how the bowler is holding himself and the ball to determine what kind of delivery they will receive. Reverse swing makes this much more difficult.


That might all be wrong! It's a very long time since I paid more than a passing interest in cricket.
I think you are pretty much spot on - well explained! I was writing a reply then saw your comment. No wonder you are a mod :D
 
Reverse is simply bringing back some swing from a ball that long since stopped moving laterally. You might get 10 overs of swing from a new rock, then it goes dead until you can induce it to reverse.

A ball that moves laterally is always harder to play than one that stays true through the air. And one that does so later in its trajectory is *much* harder to play than one that swings from the hand.
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I'm a cricket tragic, and I wasn't particularly impressed to wake up to the ball tampering news......but.......the moral crusade over a few players illicitly trying to get a bit of reverse swing is itself a bigger moral problem than the intentions and actions to ball tamper.

It tells us something about modern ethics - or society I suppose - which is deeply concerning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's definitely something a bit Nietzschean and psychoanalytic. Desire for vengeance, ressentiment, unhinged super ego...... I don't really see reasonable ethical deliberation in all of this. I see some rather horrible instincts.
Ball tampering has always happened. High profile players have been caught before. But it's never blown up like this. Why so?

IMO the difference here is that Smith admitted the tampering was a premeditated plan by the leadership team. Whereas previous high profile instances were passed off as spur of the moment one offs (they weren't of course, but everyone could pretend they were). So why did Smith fess up?

Well, they had the team junior Bancroft doing the dirty work. And when Bancroft was caught they could have hung him out to dry. Happens all the time in pro sports, stitch up the kid. He'd have been banned for one game and the whole thing would have blown over. So I think we can give Smith some credit for refusing to take the "easy" option and for putting himself in the frame

Another factor is that this Aussie team have had an aggressive and increasingly arrogant attitude for a while now - they are not well liked on the international circuit and that's an understatement. Pride comes before a fall and all that. They claim to play hard and fair and to not cross the "line" but they insist on being the arbiters of where that line falls. So when Warner apparently mentioned the suicide of Bairstow's father during the Ashes that was deemed by the Aussies to be just a bit of sledging and the right side of the line. But I think even Nietzsche might have had doubts about that

And for anyone thinking this is pro sports, these are hard men, ethical considerations are a non-sequitur, Brendon McCullum's New Zealand team showed there is another way. McCullum led from the front in overhauling the culture of NZ cricket. They played hard but fair and with a smile on their face. No sledging. It was a huge success on and off the field

Those involved in pro sports always have choices notwithstanding the obvious pressures
 
Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
Reverse is simply bringing back some swing from a ball that long since stopped moving laterally. You might get 10 overs of swing from a new rock, then it goes dead until you can induce it to reverse.

A ball that moves laterally is always harder to play than one that stays true through the air. And one that does so later in its trajectory is *much* harder to play than one that swings from the hand.
It becomes harder to play as the Batman have a limited physical range of movement from regular swing. That’s what causes the misplayed and mistimed shots. The seam also comes into play but the key is to create a nice set of groves on one side of the ball so when it passes through the air the shiny side moves the ball.
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re:

King Boonen said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/43584435

Bye bye.
Delay compared to player bans no doubt due to lawyers negotiating Boof's payoff and NDA

Sutherland refusing to resign will CA's board pull the trigger on his tenure? Aussies really need to clean house and start afresh
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
1) It's not asymmetric to start with but becomes so as it is used and the fielding team try to preserve the "shine" on one side of the ball in an attempt to influence its' properties. I believe that natural moisture from the field, spit and sweat are all acceptable to maintain a side of the ball but the deterioration has to be natural. They used to be allowed to rub the ball on a ground a long time ago but that was banned.
So let me see if I understand. A new ball shines equally on both sides. As the ball is used, it becomes rough on both sides, but the fielding team rubs one side consistently to keep the shine, so the difference in roughness between the two sides increases as the game goes on.

I find it strange, though, that this uncontrolled variability is allowed. In baseball, if there is the slightest scuff or imperfection on the ball, the umpire will replace it. Typically, several dozen balls are used for a game because of this. Pitchers do attempt to doctor the ball, and get away with it sometimes, but certainly not to the extent that the roughness seems to be allowed in cricket.

2) This is slightly above my pay grade but I believe the benefit of reverse swing is it happens late and in the opposite direction to that you would think by looking at the ball. As batsmen generally have to pre-empt a fast delivery and move their feet before the ball has left the hand, they will look at how the bowler is holding himself and the ball to determine what kind of delivery they will receive. Reverse swing makes this much more difficult.
Yeah, that makes sense. In baseball, it's been established that hitters pick up cues from the pitcher before the ball leaves his hand, which allow them to guess the speed, location and movement (direction and degree of curve) of the ball. One of the secrets of pitching success is to develop a delivery that hides the ball until just before it's released. In fact, Jenny Finch, a former prominent woman softball pitcher, was able to make several elite major league hitters (we're talking future Hall of Famers) look like fools while striking them out. This was attributed to the very different release point and mechanics involved in throwing a softball (it's larger than a standard baseball or "hardball", and generally thrown underhand, not overhand), which didn't allow the hitters to guess anything about the pitch. Studies have also shown that major league hitters don't necessarily have particularly fast reaction times. What is essential is really sharp vision, again, to pick up those cues.

One of the biggest areas of study in baseball currently is spin, which determines how and where a ball will curve or break. Not only is every pitch in every major league game (totaling more than half a million in a single season) recorded with respect to speed, type (fastball, curve, cutter, slider, etc.), location and what the batter does or doesn't do with it, but spin rates and direction are also now being characterized. Today is opening day, the first day of the new Major League season, and in just this one day an enormous amount of data will be recorded, stored and analyzed. I don't think many people appreciate to what extent statisticians now determine the decisions made by baseball owners and management. I don't know if cricket is in the same situation?
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
I find it strange, though, that this uncontrolled variability is allowed. In baseball, if there is the slightest scuff or imperfection on the ball, the umpire will replace it. Typically, several dozen balls are used for a game because of this. Pitchers do attempt to doctor the ball, and get away with it sometimes, but certainly not to the extent that the roughness seems to be allowed in cricket.

I think it's because you would likely have to change the ball every few deliveries. The ball will hit the ground, bat or stumps on every legal delivery, all of which will affect it in some way. You then have them rolling over the out-field, hitting boardings and the stands etc. Over a 5 day game you would get through a huge number of balls.

They are also very different games. Batsmen in cricket can have low strike-rates and still score highly as they can face a large number of deliveries, whereas in baseball you've got 3 strikes and that's it. In essence it's much harder to get a batsman out in cricket and the emphasis is on the bowler to remove them more so than in baseball. Maiden overs, overs where no runs are scored, are quite common, particularly in test cricket. If you were to replace the ball all the time you limit what the bowling side can do with it in terms of swing, spin etc. The natural degradation of the means batsmen have to adjust their style and shot choice as the ball changes and the fielding team can use the change in the ball to affect its flight, turn and so on. I would guess that if you changed the ball every time it showed some scuffing you would end up with very high scoring matches, and many ending in draws.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY