Aussies don't dope

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

The whole culture from admin down has been nauseating for quite a few years. That Ashes win celebration at the SCG was as tacky as it gets and that wouldn't have been player organised - that was all on the ACB.

Agree on the nature of leadership and how one person at the top can really influence what happens all the way down the line.

So Warner refused to confirm who else was involved in his presser. This story still has legs. Couple of tweets from Michael Clarke sum it up nicely:

https://twitter.com/MClarke23

"To many reputations on the line for the full story not to come out. Cape Town change room is a very small place!"

"The truth, The full story, Accountability and Leadership- until the public get this Australian cricket is in deep ***!"

And this from an Australian journo on how this implosion has been a long time coming and that Sutherland's attempts at crisis management are part of the problem not part of the solution:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/a-fence-is-already-being-erected-around-the-cape-town-three-20180330-p4z73r.html

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game

Or as they say in cycling:

You have dope and you have dopes, when the dopes are caught the dope isn’t, and when the dope is caught, the dopes aren’t. There is dope on how to dope, but the dopes don’t know it. Those who know the dope on doping don’t dope, but they give it to those who aren’t dopes so that they can dope with the dope and not be dopes. But in the end, it always comes down to dopes who dope, not dopers who aren’t dopes, or those who know the dope and don’t dope and aren’t dopes.

As for sandpapergate, I feel we're only scratching the surface.

LOL, I hope that is all the players are doing!

The situation with the cricket ball is somewhat similar to the dead ball era in major league baseball, from about 1900-1920. During that time, baseballs were allowed to deteriorate during a game, to the point where the stitches started to unravel and the ball became softer. This made it harder to hit the ball for distance, and was one reason (though not the only one) why there were relatively few home runs and runs scored during this period. The so-called modern era of baseball began with the emergence of Babe Ruth, and changes in the ball were one of several occurring at the time that greatly increased offense.

The cricket rules about the ball still seem strange to me, though. Basically, the deterioration of the ball is not only allowed, but expected, yet when players attempt to enhance the process, that’s considered cheating. This is like the situation with Sky, Wiggins and Froome, where cycling allows the use of certain drugs with performance enhancing effects, and then is surprised when riders take advantage of this, and even go beyond the allowed amounts. But at least in cycling, the drugs can be rationalized in theory as medically necessary, whereas I assume a cricket ball could be made in such a way that it would not deteriorate during the course of a game, at least not so quickly that replacing it would be prohibitively expensive.

A question about baseball - to what extent is the manufacture of the ball standardised? I'm guessing the parameters are strict to try to ensure conformity?

Reason I ask is that cricket balls can be very different particularly when produced by different manufacturers (although even balls by the same manufacturer from the same box can behave differently and it's quite common for bowlers to dream up spurious reasons why the umpires to swap out a ball that isn't swinging)

So English cricket uses the Dukes ball which is considered to be bowler friendly when compared with the Kookaburra ball used in Australia. And this difference between balls is part of the reason why even the best teams struggle to win away Test matches. And to counter that the Aussies have decided to use the English Dukes ball in domestic cricket next season ahead of a subsequent tour of England. A nice innovation, no legal/ethical concerns either, although half their team may be in exiled disgrace by then!

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

Starc has had various foot injury issues for years so that's not a stretch by any measure, especially for a fast bowler.

You're probably right. Surely CA wouldn't lie about Starc's injury given the hole they're already in?!

But even so, the fact that Warner initially implicated Starc before the lawyers muzzled him, and that Warner is now refusing to confirm or deny whether other were involved, plus the coincidental timing of Starc's apparent injury, leaves a whiff of silent ban in the air. Sports administrators everywhere just love silent bans...!

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

A question about baseball - to what extent is the manufacture of the ball standardised? I'm guessing the parameters are strict to try to ensure conformity?

Yes, baseballs are manufactured under extremely strict specifications, but there has been a controversy about the ball recently. After the so-called steroid era in the 90s, when juiced batters hit home runs at a record pace, baseball went through a period when offense went way down. Beginning about three years ago, though, home runs spiked back up, and now are at record levels.

Why? There are several possible factors, but some believe that Major League Baseball intentionally juiced the balls. MLB has denied this, and hired a baseball physics expert to look at data collected from their balls (MLB ran the tests, the expert only looked at the results), but the expert’s conclusions are ambiguous. There do seem to be some changes in the ball, such as the height of the seams, which would affect exit velocity (the speed of the ball immediately after being hit) but there is disagreement over whether the change would be large enough to account for the increase in home runs.

There are other ways to affect the amount of home runs, such as reducing the strike zone, the area in which a pitch must be swung at or called a strike. The smaller the strike zone, the more favorable to batters. There is evidence that when offense declined during the early part of this century, the strike zone expanded, and that now it’s shrinking again. However, most analysts seem to believe the shrinking can’t account for the increase in home runs.

On a day to day basis, humidity can affect home runs, because the more moisture that gets into the ball, the heavier it becomes. In fact, Coors Field in Colorado, where the elevation and thin air leads to a far higher rate of home runs than any other major league park, began storing its baseballs in a humidor to reduce this effect. Just this past season, Arizona's team has followed suit, though in this case it was because their pitchers claimed it was hard to get a proper grip on the ball in the very hot, dry desert climate of Phoenix.

Another relevant factor is a very popular current trend among hitters to swing in such a way as to elevate the ball. This results in more fly balls, and thus more home runs. In fact, modern studies have shown the two key factors in maximizing hitting power are exit velocity and launch angle. The higher the exit velocity, the better, whereas a launch angle in the range of 25-30 degrees above horizontal has the optimum effect.

One thing that deserves emphasis is that the rules of baseball can and often are manipulated to provide a desired outcome. In the late 1960s, offense was at record lows, and baseball responded by lowering the pitcher’s mound. This tilts the game in favor of the batters, and offense immediately went up. The size of the strike zone has also fluctuated over the years, with predictable results.

 

[Ferminal]

Re: Re:

Starc has had various foot injury issues for years so that's not a stretch by any measure, especially for a fast bowler.

You're probably right. Surely CA wouldn't lie about Starc's injury given the hole they're already in?!

But even so, the fact that Warner initially implicated Starc before the lawyers muzzled him, and that Warner is now refusing to confirm or deny whether other were involved, plus the coincidental timing of Starc's apparent injury, leaves a whiff of silent ban in the air. Sports administrators everywhere just love silent bans...!

Starc has been lucky to get as much cricket in as he has the last 6 months and could have been rested a bit more or broken down at any point. If the Fourth Test was still live I'm guessing he would have played but with no chance of winning the series he probably would have been rested anyway to start his recovery sooner (not saying additional circumstances didn't make the decision easier though).

 

[sittingbison]

Re:

...And for those who feel sorry for the Ball tampering cheats. They should know what they're in for if caught. It's just that their arrogance blinded them.

there have been plenty of players caught tampering with the ball, many of them captains. In fact the current South African captain (the opponents) has been caught TWICE and their best swing bowler once. This is seen in the laws of the game as a minor offence (grade 2) and the official penalty is lose 5 runs, change the ball, lose 75-100% of match fee, and 3 demerit point.

The only player to ever lose a SINGLE test match was Indian legend Tendulkar. Pakistani Afridi lost two T20 games after BITING the ball in a T20 game. In this instance, the authorities fined Bancroft 75% of his match fee and 3 points. Smith 100% and the next test ONLY after admitting his role at the presser. The umpires chose not to replace the ball.

It is the Australian authorities that have chosen the drastic bans after the fact for bringing the Australian brand (the Baggy Green Cap) into disrepute, nothing to do with the laws of the game. It will be interesting to see what the next guy to do it will receive from his own federation.

Don't be mislead by Parker...the only substance allowed on the ball is sweat and saliva to keep it SHINY. Several players have been caught (most recently Faf de Plessis) using sweets to shine the ball, Trescothick admitted in his book the prodigious swing in 2005 was generated by the English using this method. The other option is to purposely rough one side for "reverse" swing by throwing in into the ground, rubbing with dirt in the pocket (English captain Atherton), biting, using your zipper (Faf again), picking the seam with fingernails, scratching with bottle caps, and now sandpaper.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

...And for those who feel sorry for the Ball tampering cheats. They should know what they're in for if caught. It's just that their arrogance blinded them.

there have been plenty of players caught tampering with the ball, many of them captains. In fact the current South African captain (the opponents) has been caught TWICE and their best swing bowler once. This is seen in the laws of the game as a minor offence (grade 2) and the official penalty is lose 5 runs, change the ball, lose 75-100% of match fee, and 3 demerit point.

The only player to ever lose a SINGLE test match was Indian legend Tendulkar. Pakistani Afridi lost two T20 games after BITING the ball in a T20 game. In this instance, the authorities fined Bancroft 75% of his match fee and 3 points. Smith 100% and the next test ONLY after admitting his role at the presser. The umpires chose not to replace the ball.

It is the Australian authorities that have chosen the drastic bans after the fact for bringing the Australian brand (the Baggy Green Cap) into disrepute, nothing to do with the laws of the game. It will be interesting to see what the next guy to do it will receive from his own federation.

Don't be mislead by Parker...the only substance allowed on the ball is sweat and saliva to keep it SHINY. Several players have been caught (most recently Faf de Plessis) using sweets to shine the ball, Trescothick admitted in his book the prodigious swing in 2005 was generated by the English using this method. The other option is to purposely rough one side for "reverse" swing by throwing in into the ground, rubbing with dirt in the pocket (English captain Atherton), biting, using your zipper (Faf again), picking the seam with fingernails, scratching with bottle caps, and now sandpaper.

The issue is more than just this one incident. CA well knows that Warner didn’t just decide this one day during the lunch break to commission in Bancroft to tamper with the ball and Smith didn’t decide on a whim to go along with it. Warner had been the “ball handler” between overs before this game for some period of time and he knew many were on to him. That’s why De Villiers asked for cameraman to keep an eye on the ball between overs. The other big issue was the cover up, first to hide the sandpaper and Smith and Bancroft to lie to the on field umpires, then again in the smug press conference saying it was “tape”. Smith couldn’t be anymore guilty not just the incident itself but thinking it would all just blow over. Stupid. They all got ample punishment, it’s harsh but they not only tried to cheat but to circumvent the review and judgment process.

 

[Robert5091]

Back in the 70's the Indians had no fast bowlers, so the ball was rubbed on the ground for the spinners. John Lever's weird eyebrow gauze was another thing not looked on favorably!

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

...And for those who feel sorry for the Ball tampering cheats. They should know what they're in for if caught. It's just that their arrogance blinded them.

there have been plenty of players caught tampering with the ball, many of them captains. In fact the current South African captain (the opponents) has been caught TWICE and their best swing bowler once. This is seen in the laws of the game as a minor offence (grade 2) and the official penalty is lose 5 runs, change the ball, lose 75-100% of match fee, and 3 demerit point.

The only player to ever lose a SINGLE test match was Indian legend Tendulkar. Pakistani Afridi lost two T20 games after BITING the ball in a T20 game. In this instance, the authorities fined Bancroft 75% of his match fee and 3 points. Smith 100% and the next test ONLY after admitting his role at the presser. The umpires chose not to replace the ball.

It is the Australian authorities that have chosen the drastic bans after the fact for bringing the Australian brand (the Baggy Green Cap) into disrepute, nothing to do with the laws of the game. It will be interesting to see what the next guy to do it will receive from his own federation.

Don't be mislead by Parker...the only substance allowed on the ball is sweat and saliva to keep it SHINY. Several players have been caught (most recently Faf de Plessis) using sweets to shine the ball, Trescothick admitted in his book the prodigious swing in 2005 was generated by the English using this method. The other option is to purposely rough one side for "reverse" swing by throwing in into the ground, rubbing with dirt in the pocket (English captain Atherton), biting, using your zipper (Faf again), picking the seam with fingernails, scratching with bottle caps, and now sandpaper.

Spot on.

It's all about brand value, precisely at the time when CA is negotiating television rights.

All the moralising has been totally devoid of the context which you provide so succinctly.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Starc has had various foot injury issues for years so that's not a stretch by any measure, especially for a fast bowler.

You're probably right. Surely CA wouldn't lie about Starc's injury given the hole they're already in?!

But even so, the fact that Warner initially implicated Starc before the lawyers muzzled him, and that Warner is now refusing to confirm or deny whether other were involved, plus the coincidental timing of Starc's apparent injury, leaves a whiff of silent ban in the air. Sports administrators everywhere just love silent bans...!

Starc has been lucky to get as much cricket in as he has the last 6 months and could have been rested a bit more or broken down at any point. If the Fourth Test was still live I'm guessing he would have played but with no chance of winning the series he probably would have been rested anyway to start his recovery sooner (not saying additional circumstances didn't make the decision easier though).

Either way, going after Starc without solid evidence is not a smart move when you consider his wife’s family connections. From all reports Starc is quite close to his uncle-in-law...

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Starc has had various foot injury issues for years so that's not a stretch by any measure, especially for a fast bowler.

You're probably right. Surely CA wouldn't lie about Starc's injury given the hole they're already in?!

But even so, the fact that Warner initially implicated Starc before the lawyers muzzled him, and that Warner is now refusing to confirm or deny whether other were involved, plus the coincidental timing of Starc's apparent injury, leaves a whiff of silent ban in the air. Sports administrators everywhere just love silent bans...!

Starc has been lucky to get as much cricket in as he has the last 6 months and could have been rested a bit more or broken down at any point. If the Fourth Test was still live I'm guessing he would have played but with no chance of winning the series he probably would have been rested anyway to start his recovery sooner (not saying additional circumstances didn't make the decision easier though).

Either way, going after Starc without solid evidence is not a smart move when you consider his wife’s family connections. From all reports Starc is quite close to his uncle-in-law...

Had to look that one up. Found this from the uncle-in-law. Taking the high moral ground on verbals. Lolz

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/06/former-australia-cricketer-ian-healy-losing-respect-for-virat-kohli

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Starc has had various foot injury issues for years so that's not a stretch by any measure, especially for a fast bowler.

You're probably right. Surely CA wouldn't lie about Starc's injury given the hole they're already in?!

But even so, the fact that Warner initially implicated Starc before the lawyers muzzled him, and that Warner is now refusing to confirm or deny whether other were involved, plus the coincidental timing of Starc's apparent injury, leaves a whiff of silent ban in the air. Sports administrators everywhere just love silent bans...!

Starc has been lucky to get as much cricket in as he has the last 6 months and could have been rested a bit more or broken down at any point. If the Fourth Test was still live I'm guessing he would have played but with no chance of winning the series he probably would have been rested anyway to start his recovery sooner (not saying additional circumstances didn't make the decision easier though).

Either way, going after Starc without solid evidence is not a smart move when you consider his wife’s family connections. From all reports Starc is quite close to his uncle-in-law...

Had to look that one up. Found this from the uncle-in-law. Taking the high moral ground on verbals. Lolz

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/06/former-australia-cricketer-ian-healy-losing-respect-for-virat-kohli

Funny, Heals was the biggest pantsman on Tour back in the day.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Starc has had various foot injury issues for years so that's not a stretch by any measure, especially for a fast bowler.

You're probably right. Surely CA wouldn't lie about Starc's injury given the hole they're already in?!

But even so, the fact that Warner initially implicated Starc before the lawyers muzzled him, and that Warner is now refusing to confirm or deny whether other were involved, plus the coincidental timing of Starc's apparent injury, leaves a whiff of silent ban in the air. Sports administrators everywhere just love silent bans...!

Starc has been lucky to get as much cricket in as he has the last 6 months and could have been rested a bit more or broken down at any point. If the Fourth Test was still live I'm guessing he would have played but with no chance of winning the series he probably would have been rested anyway to start his recovery sooner (not saying additional circumstances didn't make the decision easier though).

Either way, going after Starc without solid evidence is not a smart move when you consider his wife’s family connections. From all reports Starc is quite close to his uncle-in-law...

Had to look that one up. Found this from the uncle-in-law. Taking the high moral ground on verbals. Lolz

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/06/former-australia-cricketer-ian-healy-losing-respect-for-virat-kohli

That is RICH coming from Ian Healy! He may have been one of the greatest sledgers in cricket history (not sports history though, Larry Bird takes all three steps of the podium).

 

[42x16ss]

Australia sets a new Commonwealth record in the Women’s TP and a big new WR in the men’s Team Pursuit, without World Champion IP’er Jordan Kerby last night

 

[Wiggo's Package]

"Cricket Australia chairman David Peever has assured chief executive James Sutherland’s position is not under threat despite a forthcoming root-and-branch review into the organisation’s culture"

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/06/cricket-australia-confirms-independent-cultural-review

So the chairman has pre-judged the review by assuming his CEO will not end up in the firing line. Sports administrators. Gotta love em

 

[sittingbison]

Re:

"Cricket Australia chairman David Peever has assured chief executive James Sutherland’s position is not under threat despite a forthcoming root-and-branch review into the organisation’s culture"

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/06/cricket-australia-confirms-independent-cultural-review

So the chairman has pre-judged the review by assuming his CEO will not end up in the firing line. Sports administrators. Gotta love em

He also said HIS position is not under threat lol

no the buck stops here, captain responsible for the sinking ship etc.

Sutherland will now have survived TWO "independent" performance and culture reviews (remember the Argus report?)