Why are rule changes always unfair to bowlers?
Columnist
By Kersi Meher-Homji, 23 Jun 2009 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Cricket, Mankad, Pakistan cricket, Shahid Afridi, The Ashes, Twenty20, World Twenty20
Pakistan's Shahid Afridi makes a run against Australia during the one day international cricket match between Pakistan and Australia in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Wednesday, April 22, 2009. (AP Photo/Andrew Parsons)
“Be Afridi, Very Afridi”, read a poster at Lord’s during the World Twenty20 final on Sunday. And the in-form Sri Lankans understood its full demonic meaning as Pakistan’s dynamic all-rounder Shahid Afridi slammed 54 not out, leading Pakistan to an easy eight wicket win to lift the Trophy.
He was the Man of the Final just as he was the Man of the Semi-Final against South Africa on Thursday.
It was a magnificent victory for Pakistan against all odds.
Watching cricket the last few months has been like going to the movies. First, there are the advertisements (equivalent to IPL). Then there are fast moving and ear-shattering previews from future movies (equivalent to World T20).
And now we await the main feature, The Ashes.
My sentiment in writing this post is, Why do changes in rules always favour the batsmen?
Formerly a batsman at the bowler’s end could be given out as run out if he stepped outside the crease before the bowler delivered the ball and broke the stumps.
According to a recent rule, a bowler cannot do that.
The batsmen get a distinct advantage during a tense finish when singles taken as above may win a match.
During the semi-final on Thursday at Trent Bridge, Pakistan’s fast-medium pacer Umar Gul did not deliver the ball twice when South Africa’s Albie Morkel at the bowler’s end left the crease.
It happened in the 19th do-or-die over.
Perhaps Gul pulled out because of heavy wind, but I suspect it was to stop Morkel stealing a single. As Pakistan won by seven runs, every run was vital.
It is an old chestnut.
Let’s go back to the 1947-48 season, when India toured Australia.
In the match against an Australian XI in Sydney in November 1947, India’s all-rounder Vinoo Mankad noticed that the Australian opening batsman Bill Brown at the bowler’s end was leaving the crease before he delivered the ball.
He warned Brown once but next time he ran him out by whipping off the bails in the act of delivering the ball.
Mankad did the same in the second Test in Sydney a month later.
And hell broke loose.
This gained him some notoriety and a new word was coined for such dismissal: “to be Mankaded.”
For example, Australia’s Ian Redpath was “Mankaded” by the West Indies pace bowler Charlie Griffith in the Adelaide Test of January 1969.
Mankad got a bad name despite his world class left-arm spin bowling and centuries in two Melbourne Tests against the fury of Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller that summer.
Sir Don Bradman, in his autobiography Farewell to Cricket, defended Mankad:
“In some quarters Mankad’s sportsmanship was questioned. For the life of me I can’t understand why. By backing up too far or too early, the non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage.”
When the team departed for India, the Don presented Mankad with an autographed photograph with the words “Well bowled, Mankad” inscribed on it.
“Mankading” a non-striking batsman is a debatable issue.
My compromise: If the bowler breaks the stumps after he has finished his bowling action, the non-striking batsman out of the crease should be ruled not out.
But if the non-striker leaves the crease before the bowler has finished his delivery action and breaks the stumps, he should be judged as run out.
Howzat?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (99)
- Media should call stumps on Rodney Hogg (93)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (86)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (4)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (15)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (0)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (4)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- Cricket, Mankad, Pakistan cricket, Shahid Afridi, The Ashes, Twenty20, World Twenty20
Michael C said | June 23rd 2009 @ 5:41am | Report comment
Simple reason might be the traditional ‘amateur’ vs ‘professional’ culture of cricket dating right back, the professionals were tending to be bowlers who were effectively employed as human bowling machines. One might imagine it’ll take another 50-100 years to change attitudes!!!
vinay verma said | June 23rd 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Kersi- It would appear a lot of the Laws were written by batsmen. Even today a batsman,and a very fine batsman,Martin Crowe sits on thew Rules committee advising the Icc and The MCC.
Law 42 (section 15) titled Fair and Unfair Play says ” the bowler is permitted,before entering his delivery stride,to run a batsman out….” It goes further to say “…it is unfair for the batsman to attempt to steal a run…”
Like in life it becomes a blurred line between legal and illegal. It is also a reality that coaches and players will push the boundaries at times. Remember Hansi Cronje with earphones on the field and receiving messages from the coach? This is where the Spirit is so important. Adam Gilchrist was a renowned walker. Semifinal of a World Cup,I think against SA.
I know that Vinoo Mankad was a fair and decent man and the Don acknowledged that.
It is time that batsmen were put in their popping crease.
Spiro Zavos said | June 23rd 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Kersi, I think the psychology behind the laws favoring the batsmen rather than the bowlers is that the batsman only has to make one mistake Bowlers can make many mistakes and still succeed. There are, I think, nine different ways a batsman can be dismissed. I would suggest that the hazardous nature of trying to be a successful batsman is the underlying zen of the game favouring them.
Remember the old joke, which was valid until Sir Richard Hadlee and Sir Ian Botham (both bowling all-rounders) were made Sirs that the only bowler knighted was Sir Francis Drake, boom! boom!
sheek said | June 23rd 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Kersi,
Batsmen are Lions of the Coliseum, bowlers the Christians!
And what Spiro said…..
Brett McKay said | June 23rd 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Kersi, as a batsman, let me answer your “Why are rule changes always unfair to bowlers?” question stereotypically: Because they deserve it!!
An old club team-mate of mine (and not so much old as in age, but more that I’ve wished him well in retirement at the end of every season for the past 13) always says “take the pads off ‘em, that’ll even things up.” I often think he’s right, but I wait until I put him back over long-on before I tell him that.
Spiro has it on the spot. A bowler gets 24/60/unlimited opportunities (depending on which form is being played) to take a wicket, but a batsman only has to make one mistake. It’s the same reason why I’m happy to walk when obviously out, but stand my ground when doubt exists: it all evens up in the end. For every time a bowler thinks he could have run out the non-striker, he’s probably been on the fortunate end of a dubious LBW or caught behind.
The only other way to answer your question Kersi is with popular cliche: it’s a funny old game, cricket…
onside said | June 23rd 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Kersi,
Fred Tyson was very successful because apart from his athletic brilliance the then rules
allowed him to put his front foot a long way down the pitch.How should history judge his
performance compared with bowlers that were subjected to the current front foot rule.
As a matter of interest were slow bowlers at all aided by the old lack of a front foot rule.
Was the change of the number of balls in an over from eight to six in Australia seen as
an advantage or disadvantage to the bowler.
How would cricketers fare these days if they played on uncovered pitches ,and would
you see the advantage being with the bowlers or the batsman.
re Mankad its a professional v amature thing.In amature times a batsman caught creeping
over the line would by virtue of inaction by the bowler be shown as not playing in the spirit
of the game,gently humiliated, which is quite unsettling in that the total runs made are due
to the gracious decision of an opponent. WC Feilds would relate very well to todays game,
“never give a sucker an even break”
One rule I would like to see changed is the bat pad rule for an LBW decision.Surely if the
batsman is ‘plum’ ,but has knicked the ball onto his pads that would have uprooted the
middle stump he should be given out.No knick,hits pads ,out LBW.Knick,hits pads ,not out.
Doesn’t make sense.
vinay verma said | June 23rd 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Kersi – Do you think Kamahl was a frustrated bowler “Why are they so Unkind?”
Kersi Meher-Homji said | June 23rd 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
You have a point, Onside.
But the LBW decision at times is so difficult that it’s more of an interpretation than a decision. Once a batsman nicks the ball which hits the pad, the umpire would have to decide about the angle of deflection due to the nick. However, an experiment in grade cricket should be interesting.
Spiro,
In a light-hearted vein: Hadlee and Botham were knighted because they could also bat (although they were better bowlers). Has a bowler who is a rabbit with the bat, ever been knighted?
Brett McKay said | June 23rd 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Kersi, I would hope an LBW experiment like you’ve suggested is not allowed anywhere near Grade cricket – smashing the ball onto your pads often isn’t enough to survive LBW appeals as it is!! I’d hate to add the variable of angle of deflection as well!!
Rich_daddy said | June 23rd 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Another problem which probably resulted in the Mankad rule is being removed was the fact there was no limit to the amount of times a bowler could attempt to run out a batsman I remember when India was playing Pakistan in an Australian Tri Series match in 1997/98, the pakistan bowler stopped his run up in successive deliveries to make sure the batsman on the non stikers end was not out of his crease. At the death this could really unsettle the batsman at the strikers end and really get under the skin of the crowd watching it.
To add to Kersi’s compromise, I think a “3 challenge system” similiar to that currently used in tennis could be used. Each bowler gets 3 mankad attempts for their 10 overs (maybe less for 20/20). If they are right, then they keep trying to run batsman out til the cows come home. If they are wrong they only have a certain amount of times they can do it.