Cricket
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
and the balls Aus used barely moved off the straight on the same pitch?
South Africa were clearly the better team in that match, don't get me wrong. But it was strange how when matters got urgent the ball suddenly started reversing sideways.
I personally don't think enough was made of the DuPlessis incident with the zip pockets. That showed an intent to deliberately cheat. Deliberate cheating of that type should attract pretty severe penalties.
I might be harsh, Warner hit one six and the ball could have been damaged then, but that was 12 overs or so before the first significant reverse swing was seen.
South Africa were clearly the better team in that match, don't get me wrong. But it was strange how when matters got urgent the ball suddenly started reversing sideways.
I personally don't think enough was made of the DuPlessis incident with the zip pockets. That showed an intent to deliberately cheat. Deliberate cheating of that type should attract pretty severe penalties.
I might be harsh, Warner hit one six and the ball could have been damaged then, but that was 12 overs or so before the first significant reverse swing was seen.
Show More
Extra half hour of swing thanks to umpires discretion.........seems fair.......to who...
What a surprise ! Aussies get beat fair and square and the whinging kicks off
You don't think it is a valid question to put Wurzel?
A team with a recent history of very deliberately cheating by doctoring their balls to enable reverse swing bowls their way to a stunning victory on the back of some very sharp reverse swing.....in a crucial match against a team previously in impeccable form....and the opposition could not get a ball to reverse significantly including an old ball they used on the very same day....
I would defy any team to successfully keep out some of those deliveries, especially those that dismissed Haddin, Marsh, Smith, all from Steyn, but Johnson, Harris, Clarke also fell to balls that swung significantly and late. In short I doubt South Africa were likely to have won without the sharp swing that suddenly appeared.
Perhaps it was caused by a change in the wind? Perhaps by legitimate damage to the ball? But a team who has averaged 50 per wicket with the bat in their last 6 second innings lost 10/90, when both they and their opposition had been previously untroubled batting on the same pitch that day. The 8 Australians who did not get to face the ball before it reversed did not make double figures. Yet you could barely say any of them appeared to make poor errors.
If it was legitimate, hats off the the South Africans, it was exhilarating stuff. However, when you have a recent history of very deliberately doctoring cricket balls to create reverse swing, people are going to question you every time you get it to reverse sharply and your opponent bowling on the same pitch does not.
So we are left to ponder, are they world beaters, or world cheaters?
A team with a recent history of very deliberately cheating by doctoring their balls to enable reverse swing bowls their way to a stunning victory on the back of some very sharp reverse swing.....in a crucial match against a team previously in impeccable form....and the opposition could not get a ball to reverse significantly including an old ball they used on the very same day....
I would defy any team to successfully keep out some of those deliveries, especially those that dismissed Haddin, Marsh, Smith, all from Steyn, but Johnson, Harris, Clarke also fell to balls that swung significantly and late. In short I doubt South Africa were likely to have won without the sharp swing that suddenly appeared.
Perhaps it was caused by a change in the wind? Perhaps by legitimate damage to the ball? But a team who has averaged 50 per wicket with the bat in their last 6 second innings lost 10/90, when both they and their opposition had been previously untroubled batting on the same pitch that day. The 8 Australians who did not get to face the ball before it reversed did not make double figures. Yet you could barely say any of them appeared to make poor errors.
If it was legitimate, hats off the the South Africans, it was exhilarating stuff. However, when you have a recent history of very deliberately doctoring cricket balls to create reverse swing, people are going to question you every time you get it to reverse sharply and your opponent bowling on the same pitch does not.
So we are left to ponder, are they world beaters, or world cheaters?
last 5 cant bail you out time after time after time
Which recent second innings did the last five bail Australia out Donny?
Peckerdunne the renowned Aussie.........
Actually talking to junior - would never accuse you of that
Actually talking to junior - would never accuse you of that
world's best bowler gets the ball to reverse as it gets old in home conditions? Not that much of a shocker is it.
No OTB - you dont understand - Australia lost, therefore must have been skullduggery afoot.
You must admit there are a few risk factors present.
as aussies won lots of matches their bottom 5 didnt have to save them in 2nd innings
my point wasnt about second innings but hey ho
twas always going to happen at least once
blame the ball, blame the saffers, or anything else , its your right to do so
my point wasnt about second innings but hey ho
twas always going to happen at least once
blame the ball, blame the saffers, or anything else , its your right to do so
Just looking at Darren Gough ripping them apart with swinging yorkers to get a hat trick....
I defy anyone to play those deliveries..................
I defy anyone to play those deliveries..................
It seems the Aussies have revealed the answer to my question through official team spokesman on all matters controversial, Mr D Warner.
So the world will be quite rightly watching de Villiers very carefully at Capetown.
Maybe it is time the ICC stepped in and introduced something that standardises the way all teams work on the ball to whatever extent that is possible and practical. Then they could penalise any action that may effect the ball in any way that is outside that standard guideline.
Or maybe that leads to too much similar cricket? But it would be nice to be able to recognise winning teams simply for playing better cricket rather than also finding better ways of gaining sneaky advantages over the opposition. The rubbing the ball on the zipper incident told us very clearly this team needed to be watched like hawks regarding ball tampering. Now it seems they have come up with a new way.
You have to hand it to Warner though, he is right in the firing line in every way, but happily just comes out and says things straight out, and doesn't mind speaking of some normally taboo subjects as well.
I see Neil Manthrop has now said the South Africans had knowledge of there being a newly relayed pitch on the square at PE and they might have used this more abrasive surface to scuff the ball in a way that might be seen as fair - certainly a way the Australians would have used by their own admission had they known.
So who knows. The South Africans acquitted themselves better in the conditions in PE even without the advantage of the reverse swing, and therefore they deserved their victory. But it always looks a bit suspect to me when one team gets the ball to reverse sharply and the other team cannot get it to move off the straight in the same conditions.
Hopefully a good, fair and still dramatic match in Capetown. If Australia win they are entitled to say they belong at the top table in world cricket. If South Africa win clearly it will show Australia still have a bit to do to get to the very top.
So the world will be quite rightly watching de Villiers very carefully at Capetown.
Maybe it is time the ICC stepped in and introduced something that standardises the way all teams work on the ball to whatever extent that is possible and practical. Then they could penalise any action that may effect the ball in any way that is outside that standard guideline.
Or maybe that leads to too much similar cricket? But it would be nice to be able to recognise winning teams simply for playing better cricket rather than also finding better ways of gaining sneaky advantages over the opposition. The rubbing the ball on the zipper incident told us very clearly this team needed to be watched like hawks regarding ball tampering. Now it seems they have come up with a new way.
You have to hand it to Warner though, he is right in the firing line in every way, but happily just comes out and says things straight out, and doesn't mind speaking of some normally taboo subjects as well.
I see Neil Manthrop has now said the South Africans had knowledge of there being a newly relayed pitch on the square at PE and they might have used this more abrasive surface to scuff the ball in a way that might be seen as fair - certainly a way the Australians would have used by their own admission had they known.
So who knows. The South Africans acquitted themselves better in the conditions in PE even without the advantage of the reverse swing, and therefore they deserved their victory. But it always looks a bit suspect to me when one team gets the ball to reverse sharply and the other team cannot get it to move off the straight in the same conditions.
Hopefully a good, fair and still dramatic match in Capetown. If Australia win they are entitled to say they belong at the top table in world cricket. If South Africa win clearly it will show Australia still have a bit to do to get to the very top.
As an Australian I can't help but think that aus is just whinging cause the saffers found an advantage they missed.
Or they are going to ask the questions and get SA thinking that somebody is finally watching them? Nothing wrong with asking the question.
What exactly does it achieve by not saying anything?
What exactly does it achieve by not saying anything?
All the talk about ball tampering etc, is a smokescreen thrown up by the Aussies to try and cover the fact
that away from home their form is lamentable. Last 11 tests away won 1 drawn 2 lost 8. Aussies cant play
in conditions other than their own - their bowlers need pace and bounce to be effective and the batsmen
dont have the technique to cope with a slow deck.
that away from home their form is lamentable. Last 11 tests away won 1 drawn 2 lost 8. Aussies cant play
in conditions other than their own - their bowlers need pace and bounce to be effective and the batsmen
dont have the technique to cope with a slow deck.
Thrown up by the Aussies? Wasn't it against Pakistan that people first cottoned onto it? It was Australia that reported them?
Ball tampering has been going on since long before Pakistan became a country.
So why would it be a big issue when somebody talks about it?
Bleating about ball tampering when you've just been thrashed has a strong whiff of sour grapes about it.
Cap.......ball tampering is of no relevance, right....
Sachin Tendulkar was once the most photographed person in the world, even more than Diana. How hard is it to get evidence?
It is easy to rough up a ball. If you are too stupid to realise one strip is more abrasive than the others then you deserve to have your trousers taken down. Ball tampering has come a long way since Coca Cola introduced the metal bottle top and subsequently close up high definition camera came into use.
I think Aus are developing a very good test team but they need to learn that batting at 4 an over is not the be all and end all. they have some very good batsmen who need to develop their game otherwise they can expect low slow turning wickets whenever they get on a plane.
Whinging after losing is not really becoming either!
It is easy to rough up a ball. If you are too stupid to realise one strip is more abrasive than the others then you deserve to have your trousers taken down. Ball tampering has come a long way since Coca Cola introduced the metal bottle top and subsequently close up high definition camera came into use.
I think Aus are developing a very good test team but they need to learn that batting at 4 an over is not the be all and end all. they have some very good batsmen who need to develop their game otherwise they can expect low slow turning wickets whenever they get on a plane.
Whinging after losing is not really becoming either!
sour grapes from aus who were completely outplayed and deserved to lose. Should accept the defeat and move onto the next test rather than making up bs excuses. They got blown away by Steyn - it happens.
Excellent posts by Whisperingdeath and Only-the-Brave. Completely agree.
Everyone needs to move on to the next test when they win or lose, that is telling us nothing O-T-B.
Australia do not have good record on sh1t slow cricket pitches, great, kill the sport as a spectacle and you can probably beat Australia if you have a decent team who can handle those conditions. Australia did not adapt well to the conditions at PE at any point in the match really. I don't think any of us have any trouble accepting that, there is no need for any smoke screens, the record shows what it shows, Australia have it all to prove on these type of surfaces. Mind you, the rest of the world has a bit to prove on proper cricket pitches with life in them when they play Australia...but that is another matter entirely.
It is still very legitimate to review a completed match before you move on, and remark on anything noteworthy. That is what this thread is about. One team got their ball to go around corners on the same day that the other could not get it off the straight. The team that got it to go around corners recently had their ball shiner sanctioned for some of the most blatant ball tampering since Afridi passed most of a cricket ball through his large intestine after eating it like an apple. Has anyone else ever seen a pair of cricket whites with a zip pocket? It was only there for one reason and it shows an intent to cheat, I cannot see any other way to view that. So the intent was there and they carried through with it, we all saw that, it was just blatant and deliberate cheating.
So this team turns up a few months later in a huge match they need to win desperately or lose quite lot of status. They get their ball to swing around corners and convert their dominance in the match that looked likely to go otherwise unrewarded into a win.
I raise the question immediately after the match. The losing team comes out and raises the same question in their press conference. And the best we get as a response here is that Australians are whingers who should learn to lose more gracefully etc. It is fine to serve up lifeless pitches so long as it suits your team, think nothing of the fact about seven people turn up to watch half of these "contests." It is fine to blatantly cheat and if you get caught well its fine we all move on. And then if the very thing you were trying to achieve by cheating in the first place is mysteriously achieved in some later match, well that is fine too.
But whatever you do, do not raise a question about your opponent when you have lost, lest you be suspected of trying to make excuses to cover up your own deficiencies. Even if you openly admit to these same deficiencies!
The world is going bonkers. Some probably perfectly intelligent people are masquerading as complete idiots here and doing a fair job of it too.
Junior 007 may have to remove himself from this forum if this continues, and I know many thousands of people here will be heartbroken if that happens.
Australia do not have good record on sh1t slow cricket pitches, great, kill the sport as a spectacle and you can probably beat Australia if you have a decent team who can handle those conditions. Australia did not adapt well to the conditions at PE at any point in the match really. I don't think any of us have any trouble accepting that, there is no need for any smoke screens, the record shows what it shows, Australia have it all to prove on these type of surfaces. Mind you, the rest of the world has a bit to prove on proper cricket pitches with life in them when they play Australia...but that is another matter entirely.
It is still very legitimate to review a completed match before you move on, and remark on anything noteworthy. That is what this thread is about. One team got their ball to go around corners on the same day that the other could not get it off the straight. The team that got it to go around corners recently had their ball shiner sanctioned for some of the most blatant ball tampering since Afridi passed most of a cricket ball through his large intestine after eating it like an apple. Has anyone else ever seen a pair of cricket whites with a zip pocket? It was only there for one reason and it shows an intent to cheat, I cannot see any other way to view that. So the intent was there and they carried through with it, we all saw that, it was just blatant and deliberate cheating.
So this team turns up a few months later in a huge match they need to win desperately or lose quite lot of status. They get their ball to swing around corners and convert their dominance in the match that looked likely to go otherwise unrewarded into a win.
I raise the question immediately after the match. The losing team comes out and raises the same question in their press conference. And the best we get as a response here is that Australians are whingers who should learn to lose more gracefully etc. It is fine to serve up lifeless pitches so long as it suits your team, think nothing of the fact about seven people turn up to watch half of these "contests." It is fine to blatantly cheat and if you get caught well its fine we all move on. And then if the very thing you were trying to achieve by cheating in the first place is mysteriously achieved in some later match, well that is fine too.
But whatever you do, do not raise a question about your opponent when you have lost, lest you be suspected of trying to make excuses to cover up your own deficiencies. Even if you openly admit to these same deficiencies!
The world is going bonkers. Some probably perfectly intelligent people are masquerading as complete idiots here and doing a fair job of it too.
Junior 007 may have to remove himself from this forum if this continues, and I know many thousands of people here will be heartbroken if that happens.
So every time SA get the ball to reverse swing you are going to question it? Despite the main exponent being the world's best bowler?
Have a read of the following:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2013-14/content/story/723527.html
Have a read of the following:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2013-14/content/story/723527.html
Centurion was a lively Green top, Port Elizabeth dour but tricky, the winning team on both occasions leveraged their strengths to win convincingly. Fortunately for us the consensus on 'Newlands' is that it's a sporting wicket, come next Tuesday we should have a reasonable idea if either team has any right to assert dominance.
Feb 27, 2014 -- 9:15AM, Only-the-Brave wrote:
So every time SA get the ball to reverse swing you are going to question it? Despite the main exponent being the world's best bowler? Have a read of the following:http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2013-14/content/story/723527.html
Well maybe that is why he is the worlds best bowler?
De Villiers certainly has no issue of going to the media to complain about others ball tampering, so if somebody sees him having a go, there shouldn't be an issue.
Warner was out there for 30 overs, where he was predominantly at the non strikers end looking down towards the wicket keeper. I very much doubt he would simply say something like that without having serious questions about it.
Australia opener David Warner is fined 15% of his match fee from the second Test in Port Elizabeth for suggesting South African AB de Villiers used his wicketkeeper's gloves to rough up one side of the ball.
Warner breached an article of the code of conduct for players and player support personnel relating to "public criticism of, or inappropriate comment in relation to, an incident occurring in an international match..." the International Cricket Council (ICC) said.
Match referee Roshan Mahanama said: "It was disrespectful for David to publicly denigrate an opponent when commenting on a match-related incident, and imply that a South African player was engaging in sharp practice. I'm sure David will be careful when making public comments in future."
Warner breached an article of the code of conduct for players and player support personnel relating to "public criticism of, or inappropriate comment in relation to, an incident occurring in an international match..." the International Cricket Council (ICC) said.
Match referee Roshan Mahanama said: "It was disrespectful for David to publicly denigrate an opponent when commenting on a match-related incident, and imply that a South African player was engaging in sharp practice. I'm sure David will be careful when making public comments in future."
What a bunch of bleaters!
So Dale Steyn takes 355 wickets in 70 test matches just like the great Dennis Lillee but only because someone roughs up the ball for him illegally?
What a bunch of pathetic cry babies you lot are! It is a real shame they didn't have a sport called whinging at the Olympics because Australia would surely have won that one!
No credit where due. Is that the Australian way? At least the Australian captain showed good grace to Congratulate South Africa for a fabulous victory and affirm they were completely outplayed by them!
So Dale Steyn takes 355 wickets in 70 test matches just like the great Dennis Lillee but only because someone roughs up the ball for him illegally?
What a bunch of pathetic cry babies you lot are! It is a real shame they didn't have a sport called whinging at the Olympics because Australia would surely have won that one!
No credit where due. Is that the Australian way? At least the Australian captain showed good grace to Congratulate South Africa for a fabulous victory and affirm they were completely outplayed by them!
Australia do not have good record on sh1t slow cricket pitches, great, kill the sport as a spectacle
Yeah it's only a spectacle if the conditions favour Australia - thanks for that, got it.
Yeah it's only a spectacle if the conditions favour Australia - thanks for that, got it.
Feb 27, 2014 -- 4:17PM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
What a bunch of bleaters!So Dale Steyn takes 355 wickets in 70 test matches just like the great Dennis Lillee but only because someone roughs up the ball for him illegally?What a bunch of pathetic cry babies you lot are! It is a real shame they didn't have a sport called whinging at the Olympics because Australia would surely have won that one!No credit where due. Is that the Australian way? At least the Australian captain showed good grace to Congratulate South Africa for a fabulous victory and affirm they were completely outplayed by them!
WTF are you whinging about now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h98N11bSRa4
AB de Villiers, taking it to the media about Broad and Anderson ball tampering.
AB de Villiers, taking it to the media about Broad and Anderson ball tampering.
Wurzel, you don't think that cricket is a better spectacle when played on pitches that offer some pace and bounce?
I always think the game is at its best when batsmen have their courage as well as their skill tested. This is not to say I don't like seeing cricket played on a variety of pitches, where different skills are required, just that I think cricket as a spectacle is at its best when the pitch offers some encouragement for fast bowlers in the way of pace and bounce.
This has nothing to do with whether Australia cope better in one set of conditions or another. South Africa were generally better throughout the whole match in PE, but I don't think too many teams that I have ever seen would have been coping with that South African bowling with the old ball on day 4. Every quick bowler had the ball reversing both ways sharply. I might be wrong but I doubt for instance the South African batsmen would have fared much better. Without that sharp reverse swing they would not have won the match. Given their recent ball tampering history, people are entitled to question them when they get the old ball to go around corners on the same day their opponent could not get it off the straight.
Not many on this thread seem willing to acknowledge that inconvenient point.
I always think the game is at its best when batsmen have their courage as well as their skill tested. This is not to say I don't like seeing cricket played on a variety of pitches, where different skills are required, just that I think cricket as a spectacle is at its best when the pitch offers some encouragement for fast bowlers in the way of pace and bounce.
This has nothing to do with whether Australia cope better in one set of conditions or another. South Africa were generally better throughout the whole match in PE, but I don't think too many teams that I have ever seen would have been coping with that South African bowling with the old ball on day 4. Every quick bowler had the ball reversing both ways sharply. I might be wrong but I doubt for instance the South African batsmen would have fared much better. Without that sharp reverse swing they would not have won the match. Given their recent ball tampering history, people are entitled to question them when they get the old ball to go around corners on the same day their opponent could not get it off the straight.
Not many on this thread seem willing to acknowledge that inconvenient point.
I don't believe for one moment either that Warner said what he did by accident. You can see the Australians wanted to draw the world's attention to the South African's dubious ball management activities, if we can put it like that.
If the Australians were in any way concerned about the way Warner handles himself in the media they would immediately ban him from talking to the media. The fact they have not done this tells you his words are spoken on behalf of the Australian camp. It seems to be very clever use of a quite unique character who can cope very well in the role of the villain.
If the Australians were in any way concerned about the way Warner handles himself in the media they would immediately ban him from talking to the media. The fact they have not done this tells you his words are spoken on behalf of the Australian camp. It seems to be very clever use of a quite unique character who can cope very well in the role of the villain.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539