Loading It wasn’t just the Australians in Cape Town who’ve penned that deep, storied history of Test cricketers artificially changing the condition of the ball (adopting the language of rule 41.3 of The Laws of Cricket). Yet only the Australians are "cheats"? Seriously, in 2005 - in that most epic of Ashes series - the English weren’t doing anything very much different, to what three Australians were absolutely hammered for last year? The history of shifty ball-tampering in international cricket is complex. In his autobiography published earlier this year, the English spinner Monty Panesar admitted that Test teams that he played in deployed sunscreen and lollies; Panesar himself copped to using the zipper in the fly of his cream strides, to gouge the ball. In the 1990s the England captain was caught with dirt in his pocket. Shahid Afridi, at the time the Pakistan captain, went all Hannibal Lecter on a ball in a T20 international against Australia in 2010, and copped a two-match ban. Three years later, the South African Faf du Plessis, during a Test match against Australia, adopted Panesar’s party trick of roughing up the ball on the zipper of his trousers. The match referee in that instance imposed a monetary fine only.

Loading In those cases involving Afridi and du Plessis, the umpires determined that the artificially-manipulated cricket balls should be replaced. Under the rules of the game, the ball only gets changed if it’s damaged (and even then, not always). Take note of that. Now, let’s calmly, rationally and dispassionately compare those examples to that which concern the apparently "unforgivable" (in ol' Harmy’s eyes) Smith. Because seriously, this whole "cheater" and pantomime booing thing is unimaginative, base and getting pretty bloody boring. No matter how long you’ve been baking in the early September sun at Old Trafford, who exactly taunts and abuses a batsman who scores a Test double century? Smith (together, of course, with Warner and Bancroft) has now served his hastily imposed and grievously harsh 12-month ban from international cricket. Despite what Harmison might have you believe, Smith wasn’t sat on the sideline for cheating at all; instead, for breaching Cricket Australia’s Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel. Specifically, for being guilty of conduct which was contrary to the spirit of cricket; unbecoming; harmful to the interests of cricket; and likely to bring the cricket into disrepute. The CA sanctions, which Smith didn't appeal against even though they were hopelessly over the top, would inevitably have been reduced on appeal once judged by an impartial tribunal. For the same episode and the on-field conduct, the International Cricket Council banned Smith for a whole one Test match; the ICC left Warner well alone.

David Warner’s conduct - he was considered the "ringleader" of the triumvirate - can be summed up as follows: planning an attempt to artificially alter the condition of the ball during the Cape Town Test; giving Bancroft a sneaky demo on how to do it with a concealed sliver of 80-grit sandpaper; cajoling Bancroft to carry out the plan; and throwing smoke bombs at match officials, when the ham-fisted "sandpaper" subterfuge was revealed. Loading Replay Replay video Play video Play video As for Smith? He wasn’t even directly involved. Rather, he turned a willfully blind eye to the whole conspiracy. A conspiracy which failed as the umpires decided to not change the ball (the opposite of what happened in the episodes involving Afridi and du Plessis). Undoubtedly, Smith’s involvement in the sorry episode points to him having possessed feeble leadership, having lacked judgment, and having had myopic insight in circumstances where he’d been entrusted with one of the most important jobs in Australian sport. But to blithely tar Smith as a cheat, never deserving of redemption; that’s a grave mistake for anybody. For Harmison, it’s downright foolish to the point perhaps we should sympathise because everyone says the wrong thing every now and then; he just did it to an international audience.