- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
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?