As we gear up for the much-anticipated test series between Pakistan and Australia starting on December 14, the atmosphere is charged with both excitement and controversy. The headline news revolves around the impending retirement of Australian opener David Warner after the third test in Sydney. However, just before the series kick-off, the former Aussie fast bowler, Mitchell Johnson, dropped a bombshell statement that has stirred everyone.
In a candid statement, Johnson expressed his frustration, stating, “It’s been five years, and David Warner has still never really owned the ball-tampering scandal.” He went on to criticize Warner’s exit, citing it as underpinned by “arrogance and disrespect” to the country. Johnson questioned the rationale behind allowing a struggling Test opener to choose his retirement date, especially considering Warner’s central role in the infamous Sandpapergate scandal during the 2018 Australia tour of South Africa.
He said: “It’s been five years and David Warner has still never really owned the ball-tampering scandal. Now the way he is going out is underpinned by more of the same arrogance and disrespect to our country. As we prepare for David Warner’s farewell series, can somebody please tell me why? Why a struggling Test opener gets to nominate his own retirement date. And why a player at the centre of one of the biggest scandals in Australian cricket history warrants a hero’s send-off?”.
This controversial statement has sharply divided social media and cricket fans, sparking a heated debate on whether Warner deserves a hero’s farewell despite his involvement in one of Australian cricket’s biggest scandals. In the aftermath of Johnson’s remarks, a significant portion of fans took to social media to criticize the former fast bowler for publicly denouncing an Australian cricket legend. They argue that Warner has already faced the consequences of his role in the Sandpapergate incident and that it shouldn’t overshadow the legacy he has built throughout his career.
Adding fuel to the fire, former Australia head coach and cricketer, Justin Langer, entered the fray. In his column in The West Australian, Langer expressed his disapproval of airing grievances publicly. He advocated for a simple ethos of “praise in public, criticize in private.”
Langer emphasised the unwritten rule among players, where mutual respect for representing Australia discouraged public criticism. He urged individuals to maintain the sanctity of the Australian cricket culture, suggesting that even if players may not be the best of friends, their shared respect for the game should deter public criticism.
Justin Langer Absolutely Slams Mitchell Johnson For His Statements On David Warner
To decode Langer’s quotes in simpler terms and indirect speech, he essentially disapproves of public airing of grievances. His ethos revolves around maintaining positivity in public statements, using opportunities to praise individuals, and reserving criticisms for private conversations. Langer highlights the unspoken understanding among players to refrain from public criticism, fostering unity and upholding the values of Australian cricket.
He wrote: “In simple terms, I hate it when men from the rare club of playing cricket for Australia air any of their grievances publicly. I believe in a simple ethos of ‘praise in public, criticise in private’. In other words, if you want to say something publicly, be positive and use the opportunity to praise the person you are talking about. In contrast, if you want to criticise someone, look them in the eye and tell them how you are feeling. There was always an unwritten rule that, although all of us may not be best of friends, the mutual respect of playing for Australia was enough to stop us from criticising each other publicly. Let others criticise us, but we would tend to stick tight as a part of the Australian cricket culture.”
