The only evidence of ball tampering in the fourth ODI at Lord's as Paul Collingwood uses the wrong ball (his own) to knock off the bails

So what’s the next accusation the English media have in store for Pakistan? Whilst they’ve broke three match fixing stories, the next one will probably be about how Umar Gul was able to reverse swing the ball so much in engineering England’s downfall in both the last two ODIs.

In both matches, there was a sense of inevitability as Umar Gul and Shaoib Akhtar  began to reverse swing the ball as English wickets tumbled. It was as if the hand of God was guiding the ball down the wicket and giving it a little sideways nudge at the end. It was signature Pakistan. No other bowling attack in the world could ever attest to showing such quality swing bowling in cleaning up a batting line up.

As the whiter ball came into play in the 35th over of the fourth ODI, you could see the cameras starting to zoom in on the Pakistan players’ hands to check if there was anything untoward going on. There was even a comment by one of the commentators at how remarkable it is that a newish second ball can begin to reverse in and around the 42nd over, just 7 overs after it had been taken.

The ball tampering accusations were hurled at us in 1992 with Waqar and Wasim and it may happen again, but as Geoffrey Boycott said back then, “they could have bowled England out with an orange”.

Captains take a bite. Maybe there was something wrong with the Australian food?

Afridi was being touted for captain in the Test and ODI formats and I would not have minded. He made a good case with his recent performances and showed signs of maturity but his actions here have got me wondering if he really has matured. Yes, every team probably does it Shahid, but I doubt they use their teeth and make it so blatantly obvious. He may as well have gone up to umpire Asoka De Silva and asked to use his dentures. And when quizzed on Pakistani television, why on earth did he come out with the excuse that he was smelling the ball? He would have even been better off saying that he was starving because of the poor Australian cuisine.

Afridi has history of course. In a game against England, he walked onto the middle of the pitch and preceded to do a few pirouettes to scuff up the track with his spikes. Highly subtle once again. Yet maybe he should have used his spikes on the ball this time by stepping on it as it obviously legal as it worked for Stuart Broad in the recent match against South Africa where he got away with it.

Stuart Broad, sinking his spikes into the ball & doing "nothing wrong"

And the difference between what Broad and Afridi did? Nothing. So why did he get away with it? Well it’s obvious, Broad is an Englishman. Broad knew what he was doing and as soon as the allegations emerged, the English PR machine went into overdrive with Broad being “astonished” by the allegations, Strauss calling them “malicious” and Cook being angry since they’d done “nothing wrong”. At the time, Nasser Hussain, Michael Vaughan and Simon Wilde of The Sunday Times had suggested that the outcome would have been far different if the bowler who did it was from Pakistan. It is clear this difference they spoke of is being shown to some extent in how Afridi’s actions were dealt with. If you look at the effect it has on the ball, surely metal spikes are worse than the enamel that teeth are made of? But I guess in the eyes of the ICC, a Pakistani is worse than an Englishman too.

What Afridi did was wrong and embarrassing, but that and what Broad did shows why it continues to pay to be from certain countries. Just ask Sulieman Benn who was suspended after an incident with Mitchell Johnson and the saint that is Brad Haddin. Haddin, who instigated the clash, and Johnson who clearly makes physical contact with Benn first (at 3 minutes 55 secs), were only fined a fraction of their match fees, whereas Benn was banned, after the match referee had finished analysing his findings. That match referee was Broad’s daddy Chris, by the way. If you don’t want to call it racism, then call it whatever you will, but what it is, is obvious.