Humiliated captain deserves long ban – and a second chance

Smith’s behaviour was unacceptable but he can be a force for good after time out from the game

Cricket Australia should suspend Steve Smith from the captaincy for a long time – relatively, in the context of a cricketer’s international career. He should not be allowed to tour England for the series of five one-day internationals in June for a start, and that would be a significant penalty because Australia will be using it as a dress rehearsal for the World Cup.

Personally, however, I would not want to see Smith sacked as Australia’s captain. He should not be allowed to return until he has stepped away from the game and seen wider contexts, watched young cricketers in action and fully realised the damage he has done to Australian cricket, the country’s summer sport – the first thing, in fact, to unite the country after European settlement.

But from what I have seen of him since his Test debut in England in 2010, for the Pakistanaustralia Test series and judging by his talks with the English media, a chastened and contrite Smith would then act as a force for good.

Sacking Smith as captain for ever would be too severe. It would risk going too far in the opposite direction and sanitising Test cricket. We want Test cricketers to do everything they can to win, which white-ball players do not have the time to do. We want Test cricketers to explore every possible way whereby they can gain an advantage – up to the point where they exercise their judgment and decide if it is illegal or unethical to go further.

The International Cricket Council has done Cricket Australia (CA) a favour by suspending Smith for one Test – although that in itself is a lenient punishment – because the national body’s initial response was inadequate. If CA wanted to salvage the reputation of its sport in its country, it was not the time for a cautious forward-defensive stroke but for a far more assertive shot.

CA wants strong and ethical leadership on the field. So it must set the example off it. Chief executive James Sutherland should have announced that Smith would be suspended sine die from the end of the Cape Town Test, rather than waiting for the player to make the decision for him. Such a call would have plainly told Australian cricket followers and the rest of the world that CA has standards which it will uphold in all circumstances.

Instead, Australians will now have the impression that blatant cheating by their Test cricket captain is not a black-and-white matter, but a grey area which their officialdom does not take very seriously. That is not the sort of example that should have been set to all the women, boys and girls who have been attracted to cricket by the Big Bash League and all the clever strategies which CA has devised for the game’s growth. Why would any parent want a child to get involved in a sport that does not have clear ethical values?

“Due process” had to be observed, Sutherland said. Yes, except where the fundamental principle was concerned, namely that Smith had admitted he was guilty of cheating. It is an openand-shut case. There was no need to wait to talk with Smith: he should have been suspended as captain and player with immediate effect. Everything else in this case should, indeed, be subject to due

Cricket Australia gave the impression that cheating by its Test captain is a grey area

process – once the official attitude to cheating had been made clear.

Two CA officials would fly to South Africa, according to Sutherland, and uncover the salient facts: who were the members of “the leadership group” who came up with the plan to tamper with the ball illegally; which members of the coaching staff knew (and, without prejudging, it is almost inconceivable that the team would undertake an illegal and unethical ploy without the knowledge of some of their coaching staff ); and how much “previous” does Cameron Bancroft have? Footage of Bancroft seemingly filling his pocket with sugar during the Sydney Test against England should be taken into account.

Test cricket needs Australian aggression – their ethic of bowling fast, of spinning the ball as hard as possible, of fielding like hunters, of testing every opponent’s mental fibre. Through the ages, Australians have set the standards of world cricket – West Indies have come and gone, India took a long time in coming, England seldom make the most of their resources. Long may this aggression continue, if we want Test cricket to survive. But it must be controlled aggression, within both the law and spirit of the game.