Let's not talk about rugby this week, shall we? Let's talk instead about cricket, though not only the success of the Proteas in Australia, but also the controversy du jour of Faf du Plessis's alleged mint-tampering with the ball.We have thoroughly dominated Australia, first here in South Africa against an admittedly weakened ODI opponent, but then also in Australia against a supposedly reinforced team (though I must confess, I don't recall as poor an Australia side in my cricket-watching lifetime).Regardless, what counts is the scoreboard, and while Adelaide has not gone to script to give us a desired whitewash in Australia, we've nevertheless done enough to drive its cricketing fraternity into severe introspection, and its media, quite literally, into the wall. Or a glass door, but who's counting?The controversy over Du Plessis and his mint-polishing method has, however, taken the shine, if you'll pardon the pun, off our victory somewhat. I won't surmise what the outcome of his appeal will be, or even offer my own view on whether or not he, and the dozens of other cricketers who do the same thing, apparently, are cheating.Instead, let's look, hypothetically, at what minty, sugary saliva might do to a cricket ball.The way in which a cricket ball swings when it is older is similar in principle to how aeroplanes fly. The movement of air over the surface of the ball creates pressure and if you can get air moving faster on one side you have a pressure (and thus force) imbalance, which pushes the ball off a straight and true trajectory - reverse swing.While cricket balls are not shaped like aeroplane wings, you can still change air flow by changing the surface of the one side. This is why you get ball-tampering scandals like dirt in a pocket or a bottle top used to rough up the side of the ball. That roughness, when contrasted with the smooth, shiny side (which is why you see players furiously polishing one side of the ball, and using saliva, from the get go), provides the magic you're looking for.Clever ideas have been used to maximise this imbalance. I recall England once measuring the "sweatiness" of all their players' hands and then forbidding those players with the sweatiest hands from touching the ball between deliveries. That's because moisture, on the rough side, anyway, is the enemy of the desired outcome. It counteracts the dirt you hid in your pocket to dry the ball out!I heard that teams would throw the ball to the wicketkeeper on the bounce, on the one side every time. I f a player has the skill to bounce the ball on the same half every time, then well done! I'm sceptical.And now we have mints. Let's assume, hypothetically, that a player is trying to alter the surface of the ball with his minty saliva.I have my doubts - I can't see enough sugar being spread uniformly on the ball, then staying there, to cause a large enough effect. But until aerodynamic testing is done, I'd say there's no reason to think mints even work. Intent is another matter, though...