SA Footy

Jim05 wrote:Hope there is truth to the CA board spill and player bans being overturned

Eh, the 3 musketeers might be allowed to play again because our selectors are crap?

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Hope there is truth to the CA board spill and player bans being overturned

Eh, the 3 musketeers might be allowed to play again because our selectors are crap?

The bans were far too excessive and I’d be more than happy if it was overturned

Jim05 wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Hope there is truth to the CA board spill and player bans being overturned

Eh, the 3 musketeers might be allowed to play again because our selectors are crap?

The bans were far too excessive and I’d be more than happy if it was overturned

Public backlash was the only reason CA handed down the bans they did, without the masses going nuts they wouldn't have got anywhere near 12 months.

I agree, the ban can be lifted now and let them earn their stripes in the shield before they can play for Australia like everyone else.

Bans were definitely excessive, but I think if they're over turned now off the back of two losing series heading into an Aussie summer, it would look absolutely ordinary. Would just reek of desperation IMO - and it would suck for those who are battling away at Shield level potentially looking for a call up to then be pushed back down the pecking order.

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/cricket ... 2018-10-29

You can download the report here.

Some afternoon reading....

Their bans were light on if you ask me.
Any form of cheating is not acceptable.
They are lucky to only get what they did.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

RB wrote:I'm still not sure why Lyon doesn't get more of a run in the ODIs. Zampa has done OK but you can't take 300 test wickets and not also be a decent ODI bowler.

Lyon is a must if we are to take this format seriously.

What is the attraction of Ashton Agar?

How does someone that has played 3 ODI's be an ODI vice captain for a national team?

Why would you even bother taking Shaun Marsh? Take a bloody kid FFS, I think we have a good spread of batsmen and we bat deep anyway.

I thought I'd pull up the stats of the specialist spinners who've played ODIs for Australia who are still active:

Nathan Lyon 15 ODIs, 18 wkts @ 37, S/R 46, Econ. 4.83
Adam Zampa 31 ODIs, 42 wkts @ 35, S/R 37, Econ. 5.68
Ashton Agar 9 ODIs, 8 wkts @ 52, S/R 54, Econ. 5.75
Fawad Ahmed 3 ODIs, 3 wkts @ 48, S/R 48, Econ. 6.04

Zambia's probably slightly more of a wicket-taker than Lyon but Lyon has a very handy economy rate for limited overs cricket. Surely he has to be in World Cup contention.

RB wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

RB wrote:I'm still not sure why Lyon doesn't get more of a run in the ODIs. Zampa has done OK but you can't take 300 test wickets and not also be a decent ODI bowler.

Lyon is a must if we are to take this format seriously.

What is the attraction of Ashton Agar?

How does someone that has played 3 ODI's be an ODI vice captain for a national team?

Why would you even bother taking Shaun Marsh? Take a bloody kid FFS, I think we have a good spread of batsmen and we bat deep anyway.

I thought I'd pull up the stats of the specialist spinners who've played ODIs for Australia who are still active:

Nathan Lyon 15 ODIs, 18 wkts @ 37, S/R 46, Econ. 4.83
Adam Zampa 31 ODIs, 42 wkts @ 35, S/R 37, Econ. 5.68
Ashton Agar 9 ODIs, 8 wkts @ 52, S/R 54, Econ. 5.75
Fawad Ahmed 3 ODIs, 3 wkts @ 48, S/R 48, Econ. 6.04

Zambia's probably slightly more of a wicket-taker than Lyon but Lyon has a very handy economy rate for limited overs cricket. Surely he has to be in World Cup contention.

That 0.85 equates to 42 runs over 50 overs, as you stated, you'd rather an economical spin bowler to work in tandem during the middle overs with a wicket-taking medium-pacer while still having the ability to force the bad shot.

I would suggest that Zampa has played a number of his games at small overseas grounds unlike Lyon

Brodlach wrote:I would suggest that Zampa has played a number of his games at small overseas grounds unlike Lyon

Ones that turn?

Makes no difference really because some of those grounds are so stiff the ball gets blocked it runs to the boundary

Brodlach wrote:Makes no difference really because some of those grounds are so stiff the ball gets blocked it runs to the boundary

Yes, I realize, you were making sense.

The executive of the Australian Cricketers' Association says Cricket Australia has a "moral obligation" to lift the bans of former Test captain Steve Smith, vice-captain David Warner and batsman Cameron Bancroft over the ball-tampering affair.

Their response comes a day after the release of damning reviews of Australia's cricket culture.

"Given the new and damning findings of CA's own independently commissioned Longstaff Review that found CA was also causally responsible for the events in Cape Town, the ACA calls on the CA Board to lift the imposed suspensions on the three players, effective immediately," the association said in a statement.

"The sanctions should be recalibrated to allow this. The ACA does not call for a quashing of the sanctions. Let them play."

Smith and Warner received year-long bans — which run out in March next year — for their part in the events in the third Test against South Africa in Cape Town.

Bancroft, who was the one to apply sandpaper to the ball, was given a nine-month suspension. His ban will end in late December.

ACA president Greg Dyer said the association had spoken to the players involved, but emphasised that the call for the lifting on their suspensions was not the players' idea.

"They just want to play cricket again," he said.

The association's chief executive, Alastair Nicholson, said the ACA was not arguing the players had not done something wrong, but rather that the length of their suspensions needed to be reviewed in the light of new evidence.

"It's natural justice that now needs to happen," he said.

The review, released yesterday, described Australia's players as living in a "gilded bubble — disconnected, for much of each year, from families, friends and the grounding influence of community".

The report also found that CA is perceived to be "arrogant and controlling", the consensus being that the organisation does not live up to its values, further accusing CA of not handling situations which go against them well by reverting to "bullying tactics or worse, ostracising".

It states that poor on-field and off-field behaviour was tolerated by CA, including abusive sledging of opponents and disrespect of umpires.

So the ACA basically read through safooty?

Greg Dyer, A Cheating Arsehole.

Let them play cricket, District cricket as they are doing,

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Brodlach wrote:Makes no difference really because some of those grounds are so stiff the ball gets blocked it runs to the boundary

Yes, I realize, you were making sense.

It’s not that common around here

amber_fluid wrote:
It’s not that common around here

We model ourselves on the bikers, 1%.

Booney wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Hope there is truth to the CA board spill and player bans being overturned

Eh, the 3 musketeers might be allowed to play again because our selectors are crap?

The bans were far too excessive and I’d be more than happy if it was overturned

Public backlash was the only reason CA handed down the bans they did, without the masses going nuts they wouldn't have got anywhere near 12 months.

I agree, the ban can be lifted now and let them earn their stripes in the shield before they can play for Australia like everyone else.

That will have nothing on the public backlash if they are allowed back playing cricket early

The Players Union has a reasonable argument. Everything CA has done for some time has been wrong, off the mark, poorly executed however you put it, it's fair to say the bans were handled in just as poorly a manner.