The difference is that the MCC Laws say you can shine the ball without the use of an artificial substance. I'm not sure where sweat and saliva fit into that. Maybe they're not considered "artificial"?Harry.......all of those above have been used since the dawn of cricket!!! And I'm sure you are not naive enough to think that the Aussies don't partake as well.......everyone is at it.
And what about shining the ball then....how is that not tampering with it??
Irrelevant. Steyn's average is 4 runs lower, that more than makes up the different between wickets. All that says is that Anderson plays more.I did a quick lookup on the most successful pace bowlers since 2010 and what do you know? Jimmy it is! Only Peter Siddle makes the cut from Australia which is a far cry from the past!
View attachment 20469
Maybe there's a bit of a confusion. I meant to show the pace bowlers who have taken the most wickets since the start of this decade. There's no doubting Dale Steyn is the most dangerous bowler around but it also signifies that Jimmy Anderson has been amongst the highest and most impactful bowlers.Irrelevant. Steyn's average is 4 runs lower, that more than makes up the different between wickets. All that says is that Anderson plays more.
We already know you can't tamper with the ball. That's enshrined in the Laws of the game, so no sunscreen, minty spit, hair gel, deliberate boot spiking or pockets full of dirt. That is cheating. Thanks for bringing up the litany of past Non stories involving England
Fixed that for you.
Do you think, at my game on Saturday, I should instruct the players that they must not wear sun screen in 30+ degres heat?
When I was qualifying some years ago the chap running the course suggested that amomgst the things an umpire should carry on the pitch were "boiled sweets or mints to give to the players". Some older umpires still often do so in my experience.
I'd go with this order too. Though Morkel, Siddle and Philander are harder to rate. Obviously Philander has been the "best" of the three over the past few years, statistically. However, I think we'd all agree that Philander isn't worth his 17 average.The current cupboard is pretty bare for quicks really when you consider the options. I'd be ranking Steyn, Anderson, Morkel, Siddle, Philander and then daylight.
Lot's of blokes like Patto, Broad, Roach, etc that are very, very dangerous on their day but lack the consistent penetration and durability that the others have.
Oh of course, he's not a 3-test wonder. But I'm sure you'd agree that he's also not a genuine sub-20 average bowler. That would put him way superior to Dale Steyn.Philander's no three test wonder anymore. He's been playing for nearly two years, and has showed little signs of taking the foot off the gas. He's easily opening the bowling in my World XI, and if he's not the second best quick in the world, he's ahead of daylight for third.
Massively, massively disagree on Roach.Morkel doesn't deserve to be top tier yet, he's very much in amongst the second tier, IMHO.
Would much rather have Roach or Pattinson myself.
Yeah, Roach has huge potential and could become a lot better than Morkel but would he get in the SA side ahead of him at present? NOMassively, massively disagree on Roach.
Not sure on Pattinson, haven't seen enough of him in honesty. Though, as the avatar hints, I doubt I'd be swayed
Morkel has more potential than Roach imo. Easily.Yeah, Roach has huge potential and could become a lot better than Morkel but would he get in the SA side ahead of him at present? NO
Well he wouldn't because Morkel adds something different to the saffie bowling, but I maintain I prefer Roach as a bowler.Yeah, Roach has huge potential and could become a lot better than Morkel but would he get in the SA side ahead of him at present? NO
Yet I have to say I don't rate Morne highly, I would rather have Broad doing that role, with his extra batting handy.
Daft thing about Broad is he can go from Devon Malcolm to Curtley Ambrose in the same innings.Also Broad seems to just rip through batting lineups from time to time. Morkel is a bit more of a steady wicket accumulator, with match winning performances happening less often.