SA Footy

Bum Crack wrote:I think Warner took advantage of Bancroft and although stupid on his part, he should never have put him in that position. He then intimidated his captain into it as well. He's a dead set **** if you ask me, as the mastermind, he should have been given the arse permanently. He's ruined Bancroft's career by the looks and tarnished one the of the world's best batsman for the remainder of his career. If it wasn't for Warner, none of this would have happened.

Fair assessment and understandable, I think Bancroft should be held more accountable for it though too, as a budding young cricketer given the opportunity to represent his country you'd think he'd place more value on the baggy green, and how he did it was plain obvious and stupid.

RB wrote:Not sure if Bancroft was going to have much of a test career anyway.

Gonna struggle to have a domestic career if he can't stop getting dismissed the same way.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:I think Warner took advantage of Bancroft and although stupid on his part, he should never have put him in that position. He then intimidated his captain into it as well. He's a dead set **** if you ask me, as the mastermind, he should have been given the arse permanently. He's ruined Bancroft's career by the looks and tarnished one the of the world's best batsman for the remainder of his career. If it wasn't for Warner, none of this would have happened.

Fair assessment and understandable, I think Bancroft should be held more accountable for it though too, as a budding young cricketer given the opportunity to represent his country you'd think he'd place more value on the baggy green, and how he did it was plain obvious and stupid.

He should never have been made to do it in the first place. He's copped his whack for it more so than the mastermind. As I said though, yes he is a dickhead for doing it.

whufc wrote:Have no issue with Dave Warner winning the medal, he served his time as he should have and has come back....thats fine.

I think the award is slightly broken when you can be the worst performing cricketer in our years biggest series but still take out the major award but is no biggie.

I see where your coming from but you are judged over a whole year not just one tournament/series. He obviously polled very well across the board

Jim05 wrote:

whufc wrote:Have no issue with Dave Warner winning the medal, he served his time as he should have and has come back....thats fine.

I think the award is slightly broken when you can be the worst performing cricketer in our years biggest series but still take out the major award but is no biggie.

I see where your coming from but you are judged over a whole year not just one tournament/series. He obviously polled very well across the board

He would've played in more games than anyone else.

It's like the Brownlow, you don't lose points for shit games.

Jim05 wrote:

whufc wrote:Have no issue with Dave Warner winning the medal, he served his time as he should have and has come back....thats fine.

I think the award is slightly broken when you can be the worst performing cricketer in our years biggest series but still take out the major award but is no biggie.

I see where your coming from but you are judged over a whole year not just one tournament/series. He obviously polled very well across the board

Personally I would rather see the test series against England and India weighted heavier than a test series against Pak, SL, Win for example.

whufc wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

whufc wrote:Have no issue with Dave Warner winning the medal, he served his time as he should have and has come back....thats fine.

I think the award is slightly broken when you can be the worst performing cricketer in our years biggest series but still take out the major award but is no biggie.

I see where your coming from but you are judged over a whole year not just one tournament/series. He obviously polled very well across the board

Personally I would rather see the test series against England and India weighted heavier than a test series against Pak, SL, Win for example.

What if they weigh the next test series v India at say double or 1.5 points and we get spanked 4 nil with no batter averaging over 30 or bowler under 30 for the series?

Bum Crack wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:I remember him for being a cheating dog. The quicker he **** off the better.

Out of interest BC, what's your thoughts on Smith and Bancroft?

I think Warner took advantage of Bancroft and although stupid on his part, he should never have put him in that position. He then intimidated his captain into it as well. He's a dead set **** if you ask me, as the mastermind, he should have been given the arse permanently. He's ruined Bancroft's career by the looks and tarnished one the of the world's best batsman for the remainder of his career. If it wasn't for Warner, none of this would have happened.

What a load of crap, Bancroft was never going to make it, only played as much as he has because Langer loves him.
What they did was bugger all, Bancroft should've got 2 games, Warner and Smith debateable if they should've got any, had it been left to the ICC they may not have got that. The one that should've had the book thrown at him was Mick Lewis in the Shield final at Glenelg

Im glad Warner won the AB medal, what a year of redemption for him. Well done to the selectors for sticking by him after the Ashes

daysofourlives wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:I remember him for being a cheating dog. The quicker he **** off the better.

Out of interest BC, what's your thoughts on Smith and Bancroft?

I think Warner took advantage of Bancroft and although stupid on his part, he should never have put him in that position. He then intimidated his captain into it as well. He's a dead set **** if you ask me, as the mastermind, he should have been given the arse permanently. He's ruined Bancroft's career by the looks and tarnished one the of the world's best batsman for the remainder of his career. If it wasn't for Warner, none of this would have happened.

What a load of crap, Bancroft was never going to make it, only played as much as he has because Langer loves him.
What they did was bugger all, Bancroft should've got 2 games, Warner and Smith debateable if they should've got any, had it been left to the ICC they may not have got that. The one that should've had the book thrown at him was Mick Lewis in the Shield final at Glenelg

Im glad Warner won the AB medal, what a year of redemption for him. Well done to the selectors for sticking by him after the Ashes

He's a dog.

Warner was the "master mind" (lol) behind one of (with the under arm incident) the darkest moments in Australian cricket history.

Not only did he deliberately set out and intend to cheat, he used a younger, less experienced player as his scapegoat. His name will forever be tarnished and rightly so.

How his year, which included the debacle of an Ashes series for him, can be rated better than the year Cummins or Labuschange had is ridiculous.

Booney wrote:Warner was the "master mind" (lol) behind one of (with the under arm incident) the darkest moments in Australian cricket history.

Not only did he deliberately set out and intend to cheat, he used a younger, less experienced player as his scapegoat. His name will forever be tarnished and rightly so.

How his year, which included the debacle of an Ashes series for him, can be rated better than the year Cummins or Labuschange had is ridiculous.

That's the flaw of the system, at the end of the day he deserved it given the criteria and maximum opportunities to poll.

These type of awards aren't popularity competitions.

I admire his talent but not his persona.

daysofourlives wrote:

What a load of crap, Bancroft was never going to make it, only played as much as he has because Langer loves him.
What they did was bugger all, Bancroft should've got 2 games, Warner and Smith debateable if they should've got any, had it been left to the ICC they may not have got that. The one that should've had the book thrown at him was Mick Lewis in the Shield final at Glenelg

Im glad Warner won the AB medal, what a year of redemption for him. Well done to the selectors for sticking by him after the Ashes

Thanks for that, I forgot about Mick Lewis, he was also the first bowler to score a ton in an ODI, he has a fair CV.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:Warner was the "master mind" (lol) behind one of (with the under arm incident) the darkest moments in Australian cricket history.

Not only did he deliberately set out and intend to cheat, he used a younger, less experienced player as his scapegoat. His name will forever be tarnished and rightly so.

How his year, which included the debacle of an Ashes series for him, can be rated better than the year Cummins or Labuschange had is ridiculous.

That's the flaw of the system, at the end of the day he deserved it given the criteria and maximum opportunities to poll.

These type of awards aren't popularity competitions.

I admire his talent but not his persona.

He didn't deserve it because he shouldn't even be playing for Australia. He should have been banned for life the cheating dog.

Allan Border apparently questioning the voting system in light of pig boys win. Nuff said.

Corona Man wrote:Allan Border apparently questioning the voting system in light of pig boys win. Nuff said.

I'm looking forward to the Brownlow medal count being adjusted to factor votes gained against the bottom 4 sides...

MW wrote:

Corona Man wrote:Allan Border apparently questioning the voting system in light of pig boys win. Nuff said.

I'm looking forward to the Brownlow medal count being adjusted to factor votes gained against the bottom 4 sides...

Is Charlie Brownlow commenting on the voting process?

Not sure what that means but my point is how do you adjust points given for votes in games due to the opposition and venue you are playing at...

MW wrote:Not sure what that means but my point is how do you adjust points given for votes in games due to the opposition and venue you are playing at...

Allan Border is entitled to comment on an award named in his honour. I believe his point is more weighting should be applied to test match cricket than T20. Nothing to do with quality of opponents or venue..... and while we are at it why not eliminate the journos votes!

The fact all three formats carry the same weighting system shows how flawed it is.

How many players are there that participate in all three formats, and rarely miss a game? Just by opportunity alone Warner is already well ahead of the rest.

I'd like to see how he came to get 194 points?

I can't seem to find their process.