CA considering lifting of bans for Bancroft, Warner and Steve Smith

Australia’s trio of banned cricketers could learn their fate as early as tomorrow.

Cameron Bancroft bats for Willetton in a WACA first-grade match last month. Picture: Getty Images

Australia’s trio of banned cricketers could learn their fate as early as tomorrow with Cricket Australia directors this evening considering a range of proposals to reduce their penalties.

The move may see Cameron Bancroft playing in the Sheffield Shield match against NSW in a week, while David Warner and Steve Smith would have to wait until the new year.

The Australian Cricketers’ Association called for the bans to be lifted in the wake of the damning cultural review, but has softened its position in recent times, saying it has offered a range of positions, including a return to Sheffield Shield.

The then Cricket Australia chairman, David Peever, rejected the initial calls from ACA heads Greg Dyer and Alistair Nicholson, but he resigned days later, along with director Mark Taylor, as the fallout from the Longstaff review gained momentum.

Taylor cited the ACA’s public call for the bans to be reduced as one of the final acts that led to his departure.

While there is more chance the depleted CA board would favour a return to Shield cricket for the trio, there are jealousies among the states over that option.

Western Australia believe it is unfair to Bancroft, who has served eight months of his nine-month ban. Other states think that the return of Smith and Warner would give NSW, who beat Queensland in yesterday’s Shield clash, an unfair competitive advantage.

The board has much to deal with, including appointing a full-time replacement for Peever, a process that appears to have stalled.

Earl Eddings was named interim chairman when the former mining boss was asked to step down by NSW Cricket on November 1.

A week later Cricket Australia was confident that Eddings would quickly gain the support of all the states to take on the job permanently. This has not happened.

A spokesperson said yesterday there was no rush, but sources at state level say that some associations are unhappy with the process, arguing that Eddings should remain an interim chair while the two vacancies at board level are filled.

The directors do not need to seek approval from the states to appoint a chair, but are attempting to be more consultative following criticism of practices in the recent past.

If the states are flexing their muscles it demonstrates a boldness rarely witnessed in past dealings with head office. NSW’s move to oust Peever appears to have emboldened other territories who have been happy to receive revenue from head office without rocking the boat.

It was reported in The Australian that Peever had invested in one of Eddings’ companies.

The board has scheduled a face-to-face meeting with the ACA next week in accordance with a recommendation of the Longstaff review, which recommended the two parties meet within 30 days.

The toxic relationship between the ACA and CA dates back to the brutal discussions over player payments.

Both sides blame each other for the way the negotiations were handled, but there is widespread acknowledgment that the game cannot afford for things to go that far again.

There is some argument that offering a reduction in the bans to the three players would be an olive branch. Most former players regard the bans as excessive and believe they should be reduced.

There are, however, strong voices in the cricket community calling for the suspensions to stand.

Simon Katich, who represented the players’ association during the MOU discussions, does not believe the players should be allowed back to the national team, but is comfortable with a return to Sheffield Shield action.

Former Test quick Mitchell Johnson took to Twitter to highlight the disparity in the punishment if they were allowed back.

“I thought three players were banned,” Johnson said. “So does that mean Cameron Bancroft’s ban will be reduced to the same amount as Smith and Warner if it goes ahead.

“They all accepted their bans and didn’t contest it so I think the bans should stay.”