David Warner divides opinions as Sandpapergate returns to haunt Australian cricket

The Test opener blasted the process used to review the ban and accused officials of attempting to reopen old wounds by holding a public hearing into the events that transpired in Cape Town.

The leadership ban had been simmering away for months as Warner attempted to have it lifted and came to a head with the batsman's Instagram post on Wednesday night, just hours after Steve Smith was named captain for the Adelaide Test.

The latest developments have divided cricket fans across the country and led to vigorous debates over the handling of the process and the ban itself. The Canberra Times sports journalists Caden Helmers and Cameron Mee are among those to disagree on the situation.

MORE CANBERRA SPORT:

Cameron Mee: There are so many layers to this situation that it becomes difficult to unpack. Cricket Australia has clearly mishandled the entire process, from the initial and rushed review in the days after the incident all the way through to Warner's push to overturn his leadership ban. Had they held firm back in February and stood behind the initial punishment, this whole saga could have been put to bed months ago. Why was there any reason to reopen the case in the first place?

Caden Helmers: The punishments were ludicrous to begin with. The Cricket Australia board took a matter of days to hand Warner and Smith 12-month bans and Cameron Bancroft a nine-month ban in 2018. Smith was not to hold a leadership role for two years, and Warner, never again.

There was never a need for a leadership ban. All the CA board needed to do - if they were so insistent on new leaders - was select other candidates. Having been so hasty in handing out bans, they should have been able to withdraw them just as quickly. Yet few do leadership failures quite like CA. To suggest the three men who copped bans were the only ones aware of the ball-tampering saga would be naive, so why is Warner - faultless since returning to the national set-up - still cast as the villain? Here is a system out of touch with reality.

CM: Warner's role in the scandal and his public perception in the years since has been unique. Smith was initially criticised but soon garnered sympathy and eventually used his charm and batting talent to win the public over. Bancroft has almost entirely disappeared from the public's minds. Few beyond the most hardcore cricket fans know what he's up to these days. He has played in just two Test matches since his ban ended and while he plays for Western Australia, an international comeback is unlikely. Forget leadership bans, Bancroft has served the heaviest punishment from the affair. A young player with a lengthy career in front of him, evaporated in an instant.

This is where Warner's role becomes so vital. The fact Bancroft had the sandpaper in his hands at all was a failure of Warner, and Smith's, leadership. That is one of the key reasons Warner, rightly or wrongly, remains the villain in the whole saga. Adding to the negative public perception is the opener's pugnacious personality and willingness to take the fight to CA. In his mind, Warner is defending his honour and his family's name. To many in the public, Warner is refusing to accept responsibility for his role in the ball-tampering scheme and his comments are starting to wear thin. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, Warner's personality makes him an easy target but he is certainly not without blame.

CH: The reality is Bancroft showed promise at Test level without ever doing enough. He averages 26.23 after 10 Tests and is not good enough to unseat openers Warner and Usman Khawaja, who has scored 1000 Test runs in a calendar year.

Sure, the fact sandpaper was stashed in Bancroft's trousers suggests a failure of on-field leadership, but where was this outrage when repeat offender Faf du Plessis was using a mint to shine the ball during the same game? Or when Marcus Trescothick admitted England used that same tactic during the 2005 Ashes? Where was the outrage train then? Yes, Warner has had a reputation to remedy. Once "The Bull", he reined in the aggressive mentality and soon centuries were followed by poses of a preacher dubbed "The Reverend". In 2017, Pat Cummins said players told him to "be the bull" again, so Warner resumed his post as the Australian team's attack dog in what was then a boorish national XI and was then crucified when the house of cards fell in Cape Town.

This entire mess was created by CA's mismanagement in 2018. They rushed into a decision when the general public saw red, and sat on the fence for too long when it came to uplifting a leadership ban. Had they avoided such an overreaction almost five years ago, Sandpapergate would be a passing comment rather than a debate. Remember when they used sandpaper on the ball that time? Yeah, but it's no different to the time Faf used a lolly.

CM: You are correct in saying the seeds for the current mess were planted in CA's initial response. Ball tampering is not an uncommon act and CA acted in haste to satiate an Australian public baying for blood.

The governing body has shown no improvement in their ability to manage difficult situations in the years since. That does not, however, mean Warner is without blame. Hopefully this week's move finally puts this saga to bed.

We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: