Should Smith and Warner bans be reduced? Guardian cricket writers have their say

31 October 2018 | The Guardian  

Opinion is split on the Australian Cricketers’ Association’s bid to lift the ball-tampering sanctions

Former Test captain Steve Smith has been playing grade cricket for Sutherland while he serves his ban: Getty Images

A national debate is raging over calls from the Australian Cricketers’ Association for the lifting of sanctions imposed on Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft for their roles in the ball-tampering affair.

Monday’s release of the Longstaff review found Cricket Australia to have allowed a sour culture to develop within the organisation that manifested in the lamentable events of Cape Town in March.

The findings prompted the players’ union to pursue what it sees as “natural justice” and have the disgraced players’ bans immediately lifted, allowing them to return in time to feature in the upcoming summer of cricket. Four of our cricket writers have their say.

‘An executive whitewash’

Should the three suspended players be reinstated? Yes, of course, their bans were absurd to begin with and the egregiousness of the suspensions has been highlighted this week.

The punishments never fitted the crime. A quick glance at the ICC’s laissez-faire treatment of ball tamperers shows the enormous tariff Cricket Australia added to the in-house punishment. It was unnecessary at the time and, in light of the reports published this week, positively masochistic.

This is because the suspensions were primarily performative. They addressed localised hysteria and told the rest of the cricketing world that Australia occupied the higher ground when it came to upholding the spirit of the game (an irony not lost on many bemused overseas onlookers).

This week we’re told the behaviour of the suspended trio wasn’t an aberration that could never have been legislated for, but a near inevitable eruption from a slumbering volcano of cultural toxicity.

Consequently, if CA were genuinely troubled by what happened in Cape Town, or there was sincerity behind their lip service to the spirit of cricket, the performative punishments would extend to those handsomely remunerated for the failures laid bare by Simon Longstaff. As there aren’t, it’s hard not to consider the three suspended players scapegoats and the whole affair an executive whitewash.

– Jonathan Howcroft

‘Laughable to remove bans’

At the time, the bans imposed on Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft seemed severe, part and parcel of a demonic response in Australia to the notion that their cricketers, as opposed to all the others around the world, could tamper with a cricket ball and be economical with the truth in subsequent press conferences. Everywhere else around the globe it was understood that Australia’s cricketers are no different to anyone else’s.

Now the call to remove the bans raises more eyebrows. The idea that the banned Australians are no more than innocent victims of a rotten regime that compelled them to behave unacceptably is as hard to fathom as the original bans. Smith, Warner and Bancroft all have a brain and are capable of coming to decisions on their own. However draconian the initial bans, it would be laughable to have them removed on the basis that they were somehow not responsible for their actions in Cape Town.

With Australia losing regularly in most forms of the game, Smith and Warner will surely be ushered back as soon as possible once their bans end in March, but to overturn the sanctions would expose Australian cricket to even greater ridicule.

– Vic Marks

‘A return – but with concrete conditions’

Smith, Warner and Bancroft should be allowed to return sooner than originally stated, but only conditional upon concrete consequences for Cricket Australia’s administrative leadership. This is about justly reapportioning responsibility, in light of relevant and demonstrable new information.

If you accept that CA leadership bore at least some responsibility for Cape Town, it naturally follows they be apportioned some consequences. To my mind, the removal of the chairman, David Peever, coupled with the departures of James Sutherland and Pat Howard, would permit CA a sufficient mandate to reassess the entire handling of this episode.

However, in the interests of acknowledging how messed up it really was, Smith, Warner and Bancroft cannot be allowed to come back early should CA escape unscathed. To do so would be cynically viewed by the public, and would at once destroy any perception that Australia is interested in anything other than winning.

Without doubt, the episode in Cape Town shone a harsh but necessary light on the illnesses of Australian cricket culture. The original bans sought to recognise that through their unprecedented severity, and, it may be argued, these bans were well intentioned.

However, both the findings of the ethics centre review and Peever’s public acceptance of responsibility for Cape Town appropriately cast relevant new light and sufficiently discredit Cricket Australia’s original handling of the matter. To that end, the ACA’s call for the bans to be lifted is entirely understandable, given their mandate to act in the best interests of the players.

I suspect the call to “lift” the bans is an opening negotiating position, aimed at meeting somewhere in the middle. To my mind, if Cricket Australia is interested in demonstrating principled leadership, it will accept the opportunity it has to tangibly reapportion responsibility, and tilt it back its way.

 – Sam Perry

‘Damage the game and lose the contract’

You can argue that Cricket Australia’s broader failings make it wrong to single out the players. True, but it doesn’t make the penalties unreasonable. The team’s two official leaders pressured or induced their least-experienced player to cheat. Then they all lied repeatedly to umpires, coaches, the press and the public. That deserves a hefty whack.

Comments about the money they’re losing make little sense. Those players only made millions by being contracted to CA. Damage the game and lose the contract. It’s no one else’s fault, and they’ve had the option to earn elsewhere around the world. Dwelling on duration is also misleading: so far they’ve missed three Test matches. A year’s ban effectively means missing one home summer. Players do it with injury all the time.

The bans are fine. What’s not fine is the disparity whereby Smith, Warner and Bancroft are the only people to suffer any material penalty for problems identified by the Longstaff report.

The former CEO James Sutherland was finishing up anyway. Performance manager Pat Howard will see out his contract for another year. Chairman David Peever was given three more years at the top. Second-in-charge Kevin Roberts got promoted to CEO. Coach Darren Lehmann got moved into an academy job, then a commentary roster. Everyone but the players has landed a sweet deal. That’s what needs addressing, not the one part of the response that CA got right.

– Geoff Lemon