All news articles
CategorySport
RegionsAU
TopicsOther sports
Archive photograph, for illustration. Pat Cummins of Australia walks on the field during a cricket match.

Australian papers depict growing row after Cummins rejects Khawaja’s claims

Archive photograph, for illustration. Pat Cummins of Australia walks on the field during a cricket match. · 2019 · Ben Sutherland · CC BY 2.0
Loading statistics…

Australian papers have cast Pat Cummins’ sharp rebuttal of Usman Khawaja’s account of the 2018 ball-tampering scandal as a growing feud, after the Australia captain called the claims “nonsense”.

Review information is loading.

Australian newspapers have portrayed Pat Cummins’ public rejection of Usman Khawaja’s account of the 2018 ball-tampering scandal as a deepening row in cricket, with headlines describing the dispute as a battle between former team-mates.

Cummins told a news conference on Friday that Khawaja’s claims were “100% wrong” and “nonsense”. Khawaja had written in his autobiography, published this week, that the whole Australia team knew about the plan to alter the ball with sandpaper and should have shared responsibility.

The BBC’s review of Saturday’s front pages found sharply worded coverage across several papers. The Australian ran “Captain Pat throws the book at Khawaja”; the West Australian led with “Utter Nonsense”; and the Courier Mail declared that the “gloves are off”. The Sydney Morning Herald described Cummins as “defiant”, while The Age focused on David Warner’s accusation that Cummins had “thrown Uzzie under the bus”.

The argument has reopened disagreements about who knew of the plan during the 2018 Test against South Africa in Cape Town. Steve Smith, Warner and Cameron Bancroft were punished after Bancroft was caught using sandpaper on the ball. Khawaja’s account has received support from Warner and former Australia squad member Chadd Sayers, but former coach Darren Lehmann, assistant Graeme Hick and bowler Mitchell Starc have rejected it.

The newspaper headlines reflect the intensity of the latest exchange, rather than resolving the underlying dispute over what other players knew.

Sign in to give this article a thumbs up or down.

About this discussion and AI questions

Private test discussion. Comments are readers’ views and are not yet automatically fact-checked. Editing is available for 60 seconds after posting.

Sign in with a confirmed reader account and choose a username to read comments and participate.

Sorting applies to top-level comments; replies remain oldest first. New comments and likes can change the order. Refresh for the current ranking.

Loading comments…