As former captain Steve Smith and never-to-be-captain David Warner served their 12-month bans, there were all sorts of relevant questions about their looming repatriation.

How would they be greeted by their teammates in what seemed, after the events of Cape Town, an unhappy, even acrimonious and deeply divided dressing room?

What toll would the hostile reaction of the English crowds and media during the back-to-back World Cup and Ashes series take on the pair as they attempted to restore their reputations?

Would two erstwhile alpha dogs come to heel under the leadership of limited-overs skipper Aaron Finch and Test captain Tim Paine, or would they sit broodingly on the back bench in the manner of the deposed Tony Abbott?

In the case of Smith, words of contrition have been reassuring — albeit some of those were compromised by the commercial transaction that inspired them.

The controversy in South Africa saw Steve Smith plummet from world cricket's golden boy to pariah status. ( AP: Themba Hadebe )

Self-inflicted wounds or not, it would be a flint-hearted observer who did not appreciate the enormous plunge Smith has taken from golden boy to pariah and the profound impact this had on him.

From Warner, silence has been golden. Rather than swing wildly at lucrative offers to tell his tale he has, against apparent instinct, raised his bat and served his time with frankly unexpected dignity.

This approach might not completely satisfy those who believe Warner was a bit too late coming clean on his personal role in the sandpaper affair and consequently made it even more difficult for Cricket Australia to control the damage created during Smith and Cameron Bancroft's bungled press conference.

Yet Warner's disciplined silence and apparent dedication to regaining his place in the Australian team flies in the face of the initial assumption that he would cash in on the current affair show circuit and resume cricketing life as a Chris Gayle-style T20 gun for hire.

And so Smith and Warner are fit and eligible, which raises another question no-one predicted when their bans were imposed: How do you squeeze them into the Australian line-up?

Twelve months — even three months — ago, Australia's batting stocks seemed so thin that picking Warner and Smith was as problematic as finding a place for LeBron James and James Harden in a C-grade midweek basketball team.

But after ODI series wins in India and against Pakistan, suddenly an Australian limited-overs team that was considered no certainty in its opening World Cup game against Afghanistan is being talked about as a title contender.

The most vulnerable member of that team was out-of-form captain Aaron Finch, whose leadership seemed to have strayed into Theresa May territory, especially with a like-for-like replacement opener about to be released from ball-tampering prison.

With so many incumbent batsmen performing so well for Australia's ODI team, can the returning stars even fit into a World Cup XI? ( Reuters: Andrew Boyers )

Yet in his last six ODI innings Finch has made 93, 0, 27, 116, 153 and 90, Australia has won every time and confidence in both the Victorian opener and his leadership is suddenly Jacinda Ardern safe.

So even after Warner smashed 86 off 53 balls for the Sunrisers Hyderabad in his first Indian Premier League game, where does he fit into the Australian World Cup line-up?

Opening in place of Usman Khawaja who is thriving in that role? In the middle order where Shaun Marsh's handy form and experience, Peter Handscomb's strong performances and Glenn Maxwell's match-winning capability have created a queue?

And that is not allowing for the return of Smith, who is also vying with those well-performed incumbents for a spot. Or, perhaps, hoping the selectors give Handscomb the gloves in the place of Alex Carey and create another place for a specialist batsman.

These are not quite the sort of problems the Australian selectors expected to encounter when they lost two batsmen consistently ranked inside the world's top five.

It is a dilemma certainly more pleasant than the other presented upon Smith, Warner and (earlier) Bancroft's return — the lingering question about how deeply the ball-tampering culture was embedded in the Australian team before its semi-comedic exposure in Bancroft's undies.

The issue buried deeply beneath Cricket Australia's cultural review was exhumed by Ian Chappell, Mark Taylor and Ian Healy in a discussion on Nine's Wide World of Sport to mark the anniversary of the scandal.

Across the cricketing world, Australia's shame and the unusually harsh punishments meted out have, it at least seems, driven ball tampering from undergarments to underground.

The lack of late swing produced by Australia — and, it should be noted, the South Africans in their home series defeat to Sri Lanka — begged the obvious question of what was being done to manipulate the ball in previous Tests when it was dipping and diving?

Despite Warner and Smith serving their time, questions surrounding ball tampering in cricket remain unresolved. ( Reuters: Rogan Ward )

As Chappell, Taylor and Healy surmised, you don't go straight from a pointy fingernail to sandpaper. What happened before and who knew about it? And, for that matter, as a then-serving Cricket Australia board member, how much responsibility does Taylor accept?

The return of Smith and Warner will eventually answer the pertinent questions about their personal futures and their roles within the Australian team.

But while they have served their time, the extent of ball tampering during and before Cape Town remains both awkward and unresolved.

More on this story on ABC TV's Offsiders with Kelli Underwood at 10:00am Sunday.