Mankad’s legacy: breaking the gentlemen’s code
The Mankad - a sure device to generate ill will and villains (Image: AAP)
Related coverage
When Vinoo Mankad made the decision to run out Bill Brown backing up at the non-striker’s end in 1947, he ensured his place in cricketing history as probably the biggest bastard ever to play the game.
It was – and still is – considered the height of bad sportsmanship to “Mankad” an opposition player.
At the time, the Australian media was up in arms over the incident, which was – and still remains, a perfectly legal mode of dismissal.
It’s a controversial element of the game that, every now and then, rears its ugly head – most recently in the English County competition, in which Surrey’s Murali Kartik ran out an opposition non-striker, with Surrey captain Gareth Batty refusing to call the dismissed batsman back when offered the opportunity by the umpire.
In most cases, a bowler will simply warn a batsman who appears to be backing up aggressively in order to steal a run.
This is generally what happens at the amateur level, with the bowler pausing in his delivery stride and feigning to knock the stumps over before tut-tutting the batsman: ‘do that again, son, and I’ll actually go through with it!’
But to go through with the act is to openly flaunt the “gentlemen’s code” – an unwritten etiquette that has governed the game for hundreds of years, from the professional level down to the village competitions.
I was actually Mankaded once, as a junior, in a representative fixture. I was on 70* at the time and – dare I say it – poised to notch up my maiden ton. But some morally corrupt bowler decided to Mankad me.
The 14-year-old opposition captain was put on the spot by the umpire and asked whether he approved of the dismissal.
Being 14 and perhaps forced to make the first ethical decision of his life, the kid lowered his thumb like a Roman Emperor deciding the fate of a gladiator, and I was on my way to the dressing-room, a sobbing, inconsolable mess.
Every sport has a “moral code” in addition to the official rules that are in place. In soccer, for example, players are generally expected to kick the ball out when an opposition player is down injured so as not to exploit the advantage.
In tennis, a player is expected to proffer an obligatory hand-signaled ‘apology’ when they win a point via a let cord (probably the most disingenuous gesture in all of sport). And in rugby league… actually, in rugby league there is no moral code – although I believe there are some “moral” codes off the field, specifically regarding the ratio of men to women in a hotel room tryst.
But what I’m saying is that every sport has a certain set of behavioural on-field expectations on its players – which, when broken, can elicit a serious backlash from both the opposition and fans alike.
Why should there be any moral code in any sport, anyway?
As Vince Lombardi once said: “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” Or some such.
But it’s true: in sport, like politics and war, there are winners and losers. Careers are at stake and financial incentives are on the line.
In the modern era more than ever before, teams are prepared to do anything to achieve a result.
But would we remember Vinoo Mankad if he hadn’t committed the biggest act of bastardry post-WWII? Probably not. Even though he was a decent cricketer in his own right – he made five test centuries and took 162 test wickets – he will be forever known for his opportunistic and cowardly decision to run out one of the 1948 Invincibles.
Sport is pantomime – and we need heroes and villains. Keep the Mankads rolling, I say.
The Ashes journey begins
The Australian cricket team have left Australia to begin their tour of England, with a mission to reclaim the Ashes.
Australian captain Michael Clarke and his teammates were optimistic about their chances before jetting off.
Click here to hear the thoughts of our Australian cricket team as they left for England.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- England are a greatly overrated Test team (183)
- DIZZY: Australian bowlers look the goods for the Ashes (76)
- Warner’s case to bat at six (74)
- The Aussie cricket team aren’t THAT bad (58)
- Clarke take note: England has some weak points for Ashes (48)
- David Warner unleashes stream of abuse on Twitter (46)
- DIZZY: It’s time for the Aussie batsmen to fulfill potential (43)
- Why Channel Nine will retain the international cricket TV rights (9)
- New Zealand shows fight, and then capitulates, again. (12)
- How can we win the Ashes? (44)
- I should have called Craddock: Warner (33)
- Aussies Abroad: Journeymen expats tear up early County season (33)
- Adam Gilchrist bows out Gangnam Style (3)
- Landmark day for women’s sport as cricket cuts a cheque (15)
- Why Channel Nine will retain the international cricket TV rights (9)
- New Zealand shows fight, and then capitulates, again. (12)
- How can we win the Ashes? (44)
- Aussies Abroad: Journeymen expats tear up early County season (33)
- Adam Gilchrist bows out Gangnam Style (3)
- The Aussie cricket team aren’t THAT bad (59)
- Australians off to win back the urn (1)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Cricket


August 31st 2012 @ 2:14pm
Matt F said | August 31st 2012 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
I love the whole “spirit of the game” stuff that cricket, by and large, does so well, but I have to admit that I’ve never really understood why the “Mankad” is so frowned upon. Surely it’s also etiquette for a batsman to stay behind in his crease until the ball has been bowled?
September 2nd 2012 @ 10:20pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 2nd 2012 @ 10:20pm | Report comment
No, because bowlers are professionals and batsmen are gentlemen, and hypocricy is the English vice.
To try and cheat the bowler to steal a run is the sort of thing gentlemen who want to win do.
For a professional to try and enforce the laws against a gentleman is the height of bad sportsmanship.
If you’re a hypocrite, that is.
August 31st 2012 @ 2:31pm
sheek said | August 31st 2012 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Dave Edwards,
I admire a young bloke talking about a topic well before he was born. But you are horribly wrong on several accounts about Mankad.
Firstly, this sentence is nothing short of disgraceful – “he will forever be known for his opportunistic and cowardly decision to run out one of the 1948 Invincibles”.
Opportunistic maybe, but cowardly has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nothing whatsoever.
Mankad was frustrated. Brown was notorious for backing up halfway up the pitch anyway. If you consider Mankad cheating by breaking Brown’s stumps with him out of his crease, then what the hell do you suppose Brown was doing?
Any batsman halfway up the pitch is obviously attempting to “cheat” in order to get a quick single at the fielder’s disadvantage. So either you say they’re both equally guilty, or either you say they were both indulging in sportsmanship. But Brown lost.
Read the history behind the dismissal. Mankad did the same to Brown in a tour match preceding the test. On that occasion Mankad had previously warned Brown before dismissing. Come the test match Mankad had obviously got tired of warning Brown because he took no notice.
So what did Mankad do? He dismissed Brown without prior warning. Brown got his just desserts.
As for the media, well no doubt most of them obviously got their facts wrong & were typically knee-jerky then just like today’s media.
The great Don Bradman, who captained Australia in this series, defended Mankad as being within his rights. That’s good enough for me.
And what about Bill Brown? What did he think of all this?
Brown has never bore any ill will towards Mankad. Brown knew he was in the wrong, & has always accepted his dismissal with good humour.
Brown & Mankad engaged in a piece of “gamesmanship” & Brown lost. That doesn’t make Mankad a coward, nor evil. Far from it.
Mankad was a far better cricketer than you give him credit for. His 162 test wickets came at a healthy average for an all-rounder at 32.32. And he captured his 162 wickets from 44 tests at 3.7 wickets a test, again very good. Mankad also shared the world record opening batting partnership of 413 with Pankaj Roy. His highest test score from “only” 5 centuries was 231.
He also lost his entire 20s to test cricket due to WW2. We will never know how much more he might have achieved. He was quite a bit better than run of the mill.
There were 4 great Indian cricketers in the first 20 years of their test cricket history (1932-51). They were Vijay Merchant, Lala Amarnath, Vijay Hazare & Vinoo Mankad. Merchant had a first-class batting average of 71.64. You should have a good read-up on each of them.
August 31st 2012 @ 3:25pm
Dave Edwards said | August 31st 2012 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Appreciate the in-depth feedback, Sheek. Sorry, there needs to be a tongue-in-cheek button on the QWERTY keyboard because I didn’t meant to infer that Mankad was a coward. I think, however, that the Mankad itself is a metaphor for “do whatever it takes to win” – which I’m all for.
Also, I didn’t say “only” five centuries. Clearly he was a pretty good player, to average in the 30s with bat and ball against Australia and England back then is probably a good return on uncovered wickets.
I tried to keep a bit of balance in the article… but my own personal opinion is that anyone who does a Mankad – and follows through with it to the point of the batsman actually being dismissed – is a bit of a prick.
August 31st 2012 @ 5:01pm
sheek said | August 31st 2012 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
Dave,
I’ll give you the benefit of tongue-in-cheek, although some of the wording you used suggested otherwise.
And you’re still going on about how being ‘Mankaded’ is so unfair. You need to toughen up.
Any good batsman will move up the crease in order to sneak a quick run.
Any good batsman who in Mankaded trying to sneak a run will accept that it is all part of the game.
And let’s forget this rubbish about ‘pre-warning’. As if any good batsman is going to take any notice.
A bowler who breaks the stumps in his run-up to dismiss a batsman out of his crease is within the laws of the game.
It’s in the laws, so get over it!
August 31st 2012 @ 5:14pm
Dave Edwards said | August 31st 2012 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
That was you who Mankaded me back in 1998, wasn’t it….
August 31st 2012 @ 5:51pm
sheek said | August 31st 2012 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
No Dave,
As much as I love my cricket, I’m not much good at playing it.
But if you’re still playing cricket, you need to change your mindset.
Being Mankaded is like drink-driving or running the red lights (not that I advocate either).
But if you get away with it 99 times & get pinged on the 100th occasion, cop it sweet – you had a good run!
September 3rd 2012 @ 10:06am
Bayman said | September 3rd 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Dave,
Conversely, I think the batsman who continually leaves his crease early is being ‘a bit of a prick’ and is knowingly cheating. Hence, I have no issue with the Mankads of this world.
On the Brown dismissal, Sheek is right. Brown had been dismissed by Mankad in exactly the same way in an earlier tour game – so it wasn’t as though Brown had no form, or no experience of the possibilities. A few years ago I had the great pleasure to sit at Bill Brown’s table during a cricket function and we spoke of the ‘Mankad’.
I asked him why he had done it – left his crease – given he had been dismissed the same way in the state game. He just laughed and said, “Slow learner”. He certainly held no grudge against Mankad and admitted he was just trying to gain a bit at his end so he might be a bit safer at the other end should a run be on.
Given wicketkeepers don’t warn batsmen about the possibility of stumpings I don’t see why a backing up too far batsman deserves any more consideration – especially given that the striker doesn’t always deliberately leave his crease – he may just over-balance – but the bowler’s end batsman is always being deliberate about his actions.
Interestingly, I am currently doing some research on umpires and discovered that the ‘Mankad’ was in vogue back in the nineteenth century in a couple of games between the colonies of Victoria and New South Wales.
Back then it was certainly seen to be a legitimate form of dismissal without any connotations of “unfairness” placed on it. In fact, the first time it happened, in January 1862 at the MCG, the dismissal of Victoria’s Huddlestone occurred ‘amidst much laughter’ and was described by one Victorian newspaper as a “prettily played dodge” which suggests a degree of admiration rather than scorn. Huddlestone, incidentally, was Victoria’s top-scoring batsman in that innings so his dismissal might have invoked some wrath if there was any to be had – but it seems there was none.
I suspect Ian Whitchurch’s explanation earlier might have some bearing on how the dismissal has been seen in the twentieth century and the feeling has just lingered on without any real basis for doing so. It’s a batsman’s game after all – just look at Twenty/20. As Freddie Trueman once said, without any great joy, the last bowler to be knighted was Sir Francis Drake.
September 4th 2012 @ 5:12pm
Dave Edwards said | September 4th 2012 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
Interesting to hear of your research on umpires and the evolution of Mankad acceptance!
August 31st 2012 @ 2:38pm
Pope Paul VII said | August 31st 2012 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
I thought I’d read somewhere that Vinoo had got sick of Brownie wandering about and had warned him. Didn’t he do it twice on the tour?
In the spirit of Mankad the 1979 two test series between Australia and Pakistan was a cracker. Miandad ( fancy? ) ran out Hoggy as he did some gardening, Hoggy took it out on the stumps before he thought to use the bat on Miandad’s toothy grin. Thirsty Hursty mankaded ( hurrah! ) Sikhander Bahkt and Sarfraz, no doubt annoyed at being outdastardlyed by a handful of upstarts, got Hilditch for handled ball when he generously tossed him the ball.
August 31st 2012 @ 5:29pm
brendan said | August 31st 2012 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
IMO when Hilditch was given out for handling the ball for lopping it back to from memory to Safraz Nawaz now that was poor sportmanship.I dont object to players being Mankaded its no different to baseballers trying to steal a run and the pitcher throwing to the relevant base.I doubt anyone has been mankaded on the first time they have tried it in an innings.Amazing etiquette in Cricket the benefit of the doubt always goes to the batsman and a bowler can only bowl so many bouncers per over that might knock the batsman head off.
September 3rd 2012 @ 9:41am
Bayman said | September 3rd 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Brendan,
I think you’re right about Sarfraz. Hilditch just made the mistake of picking up the ball, well clear of his wicket, to lob it back to the bowler (Sarfraz). Clearly he was not trying to defend his wicket with his hand – which is usually why batsmen are given out in this manner.
His crime, apparently, was that during that Perth Test he had been the skipper in charge (captain was off the field at the time) when Hurst Mankaded a Pakistani tailender and Hilditch, as acting captain, had declined to call him back. The reason being that the Pakistani had been leaving his crease on several occasions prior to finally being run out.
Hurst, at least was acting within the rules on a player who was deliberately taking advantage. Sarfraz was just being a spiteful prick – even if the law did support his action at the time. Hilditch just made the mistake of trying to be nice – no doubt because both Tests of that short series had involved a bit of friction between the teams.
September 1st 2012 @ 1:09am
ak said | September 1st 2012 @ 1:09am | Report comment
The laws of cricket allow mankading. So those who say that a player who is ‘mankaded’ without warning is unlucky mean that the batsman who breaks the rule is unlucky and the bowler who ‘mankads’ him is the culprit. This is like saying how the hell can you arrest a thief without giving him atleast one chance to escape. Ha Ha Ha !!! Height of absurdity.
September 1st 2012 @ 4:28am
Ramesh said | September 1st 2012 @ 4:28am | Report comment
It’s akin to say that following the cricket rules is against the spirit of the game. So, by this logic, the author(s) of the cricket rules are the real “bastards”. The point is very clear that if the rule is against the spirit of the game then change it – otherwise players would be breaking the rule if they aren’t following it.
Don Bradman in his autobiography defended Mankad, saying: “For the life of me, I can’t understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the nonstriker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the nonstriker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage.”
BTW, your wording for Vinoo Mankad is deplorable.
September 1st 2012 @ 6:02am
Lolly said | September 1st 2012 @ 6:02am | Report comment
In the recent Surrey match, I think the batsman was warned. Nothing wrong with doing it in that case.
September 1st 2012 @ 11:02am
sheek said | September 1st 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
In summary Dave,
Sorry for coming down hard on you, but your comments regarding Vinoo Mankad’s character were totally out of order.
I wasn’t willing for someone unfamiliar with the history of what happened in 1947/48, & reading your account, to take your version of events as being the gospel truth.
Mankad was a fine cricketer & human being, & his actions were within the laws of the game. Contrary to you & others, I would further suggest his actions were also within the spirit of the game.
September 4th 2012 @ 5:07pm
Dave Edwards said | September 4th 2012 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
Please don’t ever consider my version of events as the gospel truth! The Roar is an opinion website (for unpaid contributors) and I was simply waging mine. As a result, it stirred up a bit of a response and that’s a good thing.
I agree that a Mankad dismissal is ok – as long as there is at least one warning given. By the same token, should a fast bowler be given a certain amount of front foot no-balls before an umpire tells him he can’t bowl for the rest of the innings? Arguably so.
September 1st 2012 @ 3:57pm
Russ said | September 1st 2012 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Dave, I’m going to correct you on an even earlier point of history. Cricket has not, “for hundreds of years” been governed by gentlemanly etiquette. It was an upper-class sport for much of its history, but the gentlemanly code is largely an invention of the period post-WWI, under the influence writers such as Cardus and Warner. If you hunt down descriptions of cricket in its Victorian days of betting it is quite clear that sharp practice was typical, if frowned upon.
If you read early treatises on the laws, it becomes clear that many laws were enacted to counter-act the problems of cricketers attempting to cheat. Ironically, the Mankad is one such law, because the batsman is trying to gain an unfair advantage, which is why it is mentioned under the law for unfair play . What Box mentions in the above text is that bowler’s began to take undue advantage of that law, by pretending to bowl, then going back and running out batsmen. That is where the perception of unfairness comes from, and rightly so.
Somehow, between the early-20th century and the mid-20th century it became unfair to effect any form of runout of the batsman trying to gain an advantage, even though the law was changed to prevent bowlers from pretending to bowl – the ball being dead if a bowler goes through the act of bowling without releasing. Which is a very odd thing.
Some blame ought to be put on umpires, instead of applying the law become moral guardians of it, by questioning the captain over the appeal. If it is such an unfair penalty, then it ought to be changed. I’d all but guarantee that if a non-striker who left his crease before the ball was bowled was called by the umpire for a “batting no-ball”, his side penalised one run, his partner dismissable, but not allowed to score from the ball bowled, that the practice would cease forthwith. In such a situation commentators would be scathing of any batsman who left the crease early, and rightly so.
September 2nd 2012 @ 10:24pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 2nd 2012 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
Its also interesting how pad-play became “good cricket” sometime during the Golden Age,
September 1st 2012 @ 6:08pm
Jason said | September 1st 2012 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
Agree with sheek and others who have defended Mankad. Brown in particular never bore any ill will to Mankad for the incident and in fact agreed that he deserved it.
For what it is worth, Mankad is the only payer in the history of test cricket to have 2 test double centuries AND 2 test 10 wicket matches.