Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket
-
Well, he's got all the hallmarks of a narcissistic sociopath so nobody should be surprised.
Its fine when you're getting tons and winning games.
Not so good when you're part of a pretty stupid act and/or punching out little Pommy blokes.
Warner's best course has always been to shut up and cricket.
-
Re the previous cases of ball tampering thing - and I'm assuming here that your view is the punishments do not seem fair? I don't think the ICC punishments were too different given the circumstance.
The difference here is punishments handed out by CA which is a different thing. This I feel is to do with the perception that this was a pre-meditated plan amongst at least two senior players and the pressurising of a junior player to do the dirty work. They are being punished for the damage they are perceived to have done to Australian cricket rather than the simple act of ball tampering. It has become so much bigger than sandpaper on a ball.
-
@catogrande I don't think the ICC penalties were unfair.
I think CA have gone way over the top compared to the other governing bodies, because of the media furore.
-
@nta I'm undecided about the severity of the CA sanctions. They do seem harsh but then again... I'm not sure whether this is due to the manner of the plot, the fact that they've thrown Bancroft under the bus or just because I really don't like Warner.
Probably the latter.
-
@nta said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
I think CA have gone way over the top compared to the other governing bodies, because of the media furore.
I am struggling to think of a comparable ball tampering incident where a foreign object was used outside of the Pringle incident which wasn't caught at the time.
Their punishment has been exacerbated because they lied to the umpires on the field, then the match referee, then the media.
What is the saying? The cover up is usually worse than the incident?
-
@mn5 said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
I see ( almost like it's irrelevant given what's going on ) that Steve Smith has an average of 61. That's fucken head and shoulders above everyone except he who may not have even existed ( I never saw Bradman bat, perhaps he's just made up ). It's better than Kohli, Root and old mate KW.
So yeah I hear all the talk of recent years and how many brilliant batsmen they had but I think Virg is correct in that a few mid 30s journeyman get a shot for Australia. Losing Smith would be an absolute MASSIVE loss.
In other musings.....what the actual fuck was he thinking? Cheating is supposed to be what people who are no good do.....not the best players!
It's all very surreal. What were the odds a week ago of Steve Smith ever having a 'Kim Hughes' press conference...
Halving (or ideally quartering) the bans would have Smith happily back in the Baggy Green by the next Aussie summer. I think two of the three will be quickly forgiven.
-
Lehman goes.
Real talk, I've had a bit of fun with this over the last couple of days, it's been a good bit of chat about a sporting controversy.
But Jesus Christ this is fucking ridiculous. I fucking feel for all of them now, even warner. It's fucking ball tampering, not match fixing. Get a grip.
I don't get the sanctimony in the aussie press at all. Suddenly the "hard edge" is a stick to beat them with, but was celebrated not a couple of months ago. Get fucked.
-
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Lehman goes.
Real talk, I've had a bit of fun with this over the last couple of days, it's been a good bit of chat about a sporting controversy.
But Jesus Christ this is fucking ridiculous. I fucking feel for all of them now, even warner. It's fucking ball tampering, not match fixing. Get a grip.
I don't get the sanctimony in the aussie press at all. Suddenly the "hard edge" is a stick to beat them with, but was celebrated not a couple of months ago. Get fucked.
Thats the only bit I disagree with. Warner was a cancer in that side and the others all made the mistake of not stopping him soon enough. They are now paying for it in a much worse way than they probably deserve.
Im in two minds about Lehmann. He encouraged the trash talk and allowed what was always a culture on the edge to go over it.Id be happy seeing Warner with what he's got, Smith with no captaincy and probation, Bancroft with the ICC sanction and probation.
Even in Lehmann's presser there he made it clear he has no time for Warner, mentioning only the other two.
-
@jegga Amazing how some spastic who has clearly never played any sport can crap on for eight fucking minutes about something he doesn't give a shit about.
@crucial said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@bovidae said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@hooroo said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Because he isn’t playing for a year and is in this position because of the other two.
Smith's lack of leadership put himself in this position.
Lack of leadership in itself isn't a crime, but he was meant to be the adult in the room and has to take responsibility for not stopping it.
Good leaders make mistakes and learn from them. Good organisations provide enough rope for leaders to hang themselves and then use it as a learning exercise. Contrast CA's handling of this with NZR and McCaw ultimately keeping his job.
@crucial said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
That and Smith's presser is hard watching for what is ultimately Warner's small man syndrome.
-
If Warner is this massive cancer he is being made out to be, then why has he been allowed to be very vocal, and very public, with his attitudes up to now? And often with the public backing of his team?
I think he's a bit of a fluffybunny. But then I've always thought that, and I've been vocal about it.
I'm just a little perplexed how quickly he's been painted as the real villain, and someone who categorically needs removing from the team. Something doesn't seem right to me.
-
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
If Warner is this massive cancer he is being made out to be, then why has he been allowed to be very vocal, and very public, with his attitudes up to now? And often with the public backing of his team?
I think he's a bit of a fluffybunny. But then I've always thought that, and I've been vocal about it.
I'm just a little perplexed how quickly he's been painted as the real villain, and someone who categorically needs removing from the team. Something doesn't seem right to me.
My guess. He let others take the fall for him despite being the cause of the situation in the first place.
That, and what appears to be his behaviour around the team during the crisis, has shown his true colours. -
Just as an aside, does anyone think Candace will be back on the market anytime soon.
Asking for a friend.
-
-
@majorrage said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Absolutely magnificent PR by team Smith.
Perfection.
The tears, the dad, the message - hell even being paraded through the airport the way he was have all turned the tide nicely for him.
In the long term though the Kim Hughes aspect of the press conference probably do more to preclude him from captaining Australia ever again that anything else.
-
-
@majorrage I think a lot of that newfound response to Smith was the authenticity of his remorse in the press conference.
Well that's what I felt. I wish him well and want him to come back better.
Good lad, fucked up and now wants to set that right. Kudos
-
@nta I'm convinced the CA sentence was harsh to placate the sponsors. They're by far the significant party to us watching and "consuming" sport. More pivotal than the players in this modern age.
It's all connected to the media exaggerations because the mouth breathers that support the media shrill are exactly the demographic who the sponsors call consumers.
CA now have a genuine negotiation chip with the punitive measures they've taken and the cricket argument in their sentences falls way behind "being seen to do the right thing".
As for the over the top media coverage, it ain't over the top if you don't subject yourself to it. That tactic has been working splendidly for me for several years - you do find yourself at parties saying " what's that story?" a lot though 🙂
