Migara
International Coach
PEWS usually makes good comments but this particular one lack logic. Vass was better producing reverse swing, and was only second to Pakistani seamers. You can argue otherwise, but that will be the sentiment of majority of people who has seen Vaas. That automatically doesn't mean Vaas > Aanderson. Former was a designer made slow pitch bowler and latter is a designer made for swinging conditions. Whenever Pakistani's get the ball to reverse in the 29th over there will be murmurs on tampering (aka cheating) and they deserve the eyebrows to be risen due to their past. (But it doesn't mean they cheat, but they are more suspicious of it). England has the been questioned on this before, not by Sri Lankans, but by Aussies on early reverse swing, once again appearing by 30-35 overs, and murray mint saga.You'll obviously never think Anderson is as good at producing reverse swing as Vaas if you use Vaas > Anderson as a fact in your assessment of whether his reverse swing was legitimate.
Seriously, it would literally be impossible for anyone to ever be as good as Vaas at producing reverse swing by this logic. The minute anyone provided evidence to the contrary it'd automatically just be used to show they cheated. You can't use someone's inferiority as evidence of their cheating and then use their cheating to back up your assessment of their inferiority. It's circular reasoning at its absolute finest.
A is always better than B, because when B performs better than A it means B has cheated, because A is always better than B, because when...
Yes, I stick to my statement, it looks suspicious, and it's umpires duty to check for it and if they can come out with a satisfactory answer I am happy to admit I am wrong. But till proven otherwise, the amount of reverse swing looks very suspicious. And it's not a matter of Anderson and Broad getting it, relatively unknown Jordan 9already doing) and Plunkett (one or two tailed in) starts to hoop it around it becomes very very suspicious.
