Warner, Smith and the Big Bash question

This would be the biggest about-turn, even though highly unlikely. But, in theory, and despite Cricket Australia CEO Kevin Roberts saying there is no mechanism for the trio's bans to be reassessed, the board could just to say enough is enough. The ACA certainly believe it is within CA's control. From playing Grade cricket one weekend to Sheffield Shield the next with enough time to prepare for the first Test against India in Adelaide in December? It has been a year of twists and turns for Australian cricket, but surely not.

It's not true to say that the punishments handed down to the three were purely for the ball tampering - it was the premeditated nature of what happened. However, for a moment, if we focus on the straw that broke the camel's back, earlier this year in the wake of the scandal at Newlands, the ICC elevated ball-tampering from a Level Two offence in the Code of Conduct to Level Three.

This brings with it a ban of up to six Tests and 12 ODIs, unlike the one match handed to Smith and purely a fine for Bancroft (Warner wasn't punished by ICC). If we assume the trio had continued to be selected, they have now missed - including Johannesburg - three Tests. If you add in the four India Test, it comes up to seven Tests, one more than in the updated ICC code. Could a softer return against Sri Lanka, with less attention than an India series, be a compromise that allows all sides to move on? And, purely making them available for selection, doesn't mean the selectors have to pick them.

While the ACA are pushing hard for the bans to be lifted, they have tried to emphasise they aren't glossing over what happened at Newlands. It wasn't good, whichever way you look at it and however many excuses are made. But it happened in international cricket, so how about keeping that as the punishment. Bancroft will be eligible to play shortly after the Big Bash starts, so CA could let Warner and Smith join him. The BBL has plenty of eyes on it, this would add a few more. And even during their bans, Smith and Warner have been popping up around the world. If they can play in Toronto or Trinidad, why not in Sydney?

If parading them around the family-friendly Big Bash is an uncomfortable fit - and the potential to be a distraction rather than a benefit - they could be allowed to work their way back into the domestic game through the latter half of the Shield season, which will resume in late February, a month before the bans currently finish. It could be viewed as an acceptance the punishments were too harsh, while allowing Smith and Warner a better chance of reacquainting themselves with the first-class games a few months before an Ashes series. Again, as with other options, there would be nothing forcing the selectors to pick them.

What's all this nonsense of bringing them back early? Bancroft only has two months left to serve, while Smith and Warner were senior figures in a plan hatched to brazenly cheat at international level. Some would say the punishments aren't harsh enough. What image would it send if CA changing their tune? Yes, the reviews have shown problems ran deep at CA, but it was a collection of players who took sandpaper into the middle at Newlands. If Smith and Warner aren't able to do enough to prove they are ready for the World Cup - and the Ashes - after the bans take their natural course that's their own fault.