Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket
-
-
@hydro11 said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
If this is true, some people on here look quite judgemental. Smith was criticised for handing the first question of the press conference to Bancroft. Maybe he did that because he did not have prior knowledge of the plan. Of course, it is also possible that it isn't true.
It's difficult to reconcile these two sentences:
"It's understood investigators were told Smith did not know how the plan would be carried out until after Bancroft had been exposed on the big screen. It's believed they found Smith had expressed his dislike of the plan but did not attempt to stop it."
He disliked a plan he knew almost nothing of? As captain he didn't overhear a plan to cheat and be unequivocal about not accepting such a course of action?
@rancid-schnitzel said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
What has he "gone through" exactly?
People have said nasty things. Hurty words he's probably not heard before.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
What has he "gone through" exactly? He's still richer than shit, still one of the best batsmen in the world, still has at least 5 years of cricket earnings ahead of him, still has his family intact. Same goes for the other two.
If that's the worst torment these guys will face in their otherwise incredible lives then I'd take it tenfold right now. If there should be some perspective about their "crime" then there should also be some perspective about the apparently terrible ordeal they're now going through.
Word to this post brother. I get a bit sick of the whole 'ooooohhhh they've really been punished' brigade who are defending them, by the same token the ones still sticking the boot in are getting tiresome too though....
-
-
@virgil said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
All the hate and vitrol thrown their way the past week must have caught them by surprise. Especially from their own backyard
It would come as a surprise to Smith and Bancroft. Smith because he's used to adulation. Not just for his batting prowess, but how he's single-handed swung the fortune for Australia on the field. Bancroft because up until this point he's really been a grey man.
Not hard to look online and see all the abuse hurled at them, the glee in how they have been taken down a few hundred pegs.
Australia loves cutting down tall poppies.
-
I don't care if he's a good man or not. Australia kept selecting him, and not only that, promoted him to vice captain. His behaviour was supported, and it looks to me like it was encouraged.
And now he's being properly thrown under the bus - the latest article above saying how Smith didn't even know, just further twisting the knife on what I've mentioned above.
Given the red carpet that Smiths been given, the media slant of moving away from blaming Smith and heaping it on Warner, I'd be considering my legal options too if I was him. Let's remember 12 months for both warner and smith. Same punishment for same crime
-
-
-
@nta said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Back at the cricket: Proteas carving up as the game heads toward an inevitable pasting. Didn't enforce the follow-on despite only bowling 70 overs and holding a 267-run lead.
Really that was the time to drive the knife in.
With all of the scandal around the team, I think their minds are probably already thinking about going home
-
@siam said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
1000 cuts at the moment.
SA no declaration yet with 450+ lead.
Can't say I endorse this type of target or tactics, but whateverI look at it this way: I've got a chance to run up a metric fuckton of runs against Australia. I'm going to do that, and up to the third knuckle.
They'll come out after lunch in a flurry, and try to get Faf to a ton, then declare and have 4.5 sessions to knock over a deeply unsettled lineup.
Of course, as an Aussie fan, I hope it starts to fucking piss rain for three weeks straight.
-
-
@nta said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@sidbarret had forgotten Morkel's side strain.
But fuck they're 546 in front - without one front-line bowler they could be leaving themselves short of overs with the bad light issues that have plagued this series.
There is still 140 odd overs left in the game.
We don't want to bowl that many overs between the three remaining bowlers.
-
The team now stands at an interesting crossroads. This article from today sums it up, in part.
The 'no sledging' approach is all well and good, but fundamentally it's prohibition and doomed to fail. As Elgar points out, at some point a tired fast bowler is just going to crack.
As has been discussed earlier on this thread, a bit of chat on the field is part of the game and to take a vow of silence is a bit ridiculous.
So do they define what they can and can't say? Obviously personal abuse is out of the question, but what about pointing out flaws in the batsman's technique? Or pointing out a certain bowler has dismissed him the past six times they have played?
While some may see that as 'sledging', I'd wager it's the type of chat every side employs - even those legendary nice guy Kiwis.
But the rubber will hit the road when they start losing. A home series loss to India is on the cards, and I'm not sure how well it will be taken if we go down 4-0 while our players heartily applaud Virat Kohli as he raises his bat yet again.
