Mankad's legacy: breaking the gentlemen's code

By Dave Edwards / Roar Pro

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 Crowd Says:

2013-12-11T17:31:27+00:00

James

Guest


The way I see it, the game and its official keepers have two options in the case of the genial Bill Brown: 1.) To have prescribed penalties that the umpire enforces. (Russ, above, suggests sensibly allowing a "batting no-ball": in other words, the striker can be bowled, but cannot score. This would be akin to the "defense offside" rule in American football, in which a defensive player crossing the line before the "snap" of the ball draws a penalty that does not stop play, entitling the offense to a play in which any mistakes or failures can be wiped out by the penalty. Invariably smart teams use their "free play" to take a risky long throw down the field. The team can only benefit.) 2.) The current rules governing Mankading, which puts enforcement in the hands of the bowler. #2 is, to my mind, infinitely preferable because it's more consistent with the "spirit of the game," in which the umpire is there to settle questions that good sportsmen absolutely cannot settle, and the fewer such questions the better. A non-striker who will persist in being naughty, though warned, has sown the wind and must reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:6), and that is to take the penalty of his actions. To the righteous non-striker, all his bails are secure, all his paths straight, and the bowling alike far from his doorstep. Rather in the spirit of the sport, I'd say. It's difficult to think of a better example than Mankad of using the rules: "My dear good chap, if you _will_ insist, I shall be very reluctantly compelled," etcetera. This is hardly taking advantage of a loophole, but using the rule precisely as it was intended: as a means for the defense to keep naughty batters in the crease without running to papa.

2013-03-16T18:56:11+00:00

Kapali

Guest


Compared to cricketers of the present generation, Mankad was a more decent and respected cricketer,a perfect gentleman.Having lived during Mankad's time I can say that he was not only adored but respected and held in high esteem by cricket lovers of those years. It will be ridiculous to use despicable adjectives to describe this great cricketer. For the sake of cricket, please withdraw all the bad attributes to his personality.

2012-12-11T03:47:15+00:00

Descendant

Guest


Hi mate, I was googling stuff about cricket as you would expect me to have keen interest in what people opine about "Mulvantrai" aka "Vinoo". Its quite disheartening and personal to hear such remarks. I do now wish to present any defence as he has done what he has, I can't change the past. And there will be always the a group of people who would deplore his actions and group of people who would appreciate. Just to give some personal insight into the man's son as I wasn't born when he was alive, Ashok - he was known as "kaka" which literally translates into "Uncle" which is quite a respectful title in India. He was quite a polite individual and the family we grew up in, profanity is rarely exhibited irrespective of the degree of crime. Excellence in any field is revered even in writing. Mediocrity is deplored. I am not sure what I wish to say except thanks to people who have been objective and thanks to you to Dave for providing a perspective. I can tell you this much I have a played a bit of cricket in Australia, trust me gentleman's game is not played even here. Just the other day if you google in a club match there was incident of physical assault. I want to say a lot in his defence but I think after drafting my initial response I have just edited the whole thing..Sorry David mate got a bit emotional..

AUTHOR

2012-09-04T07:13:20+00:00

Dave Edwards

Roar Pro


Ahh, I see where you're going with this... Clever stuff.

AUTHOR

2012-09-04T07:12:17+00:00

Dave Edwards

Roar Pro


Interesting to hear of your research on umpires and the evolution of Mankad acceptance!

AUTHOR

2012-09-04T07:07:46+00:00

Dave Edwards

Roar Pro


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.

2012-09-04T05:19:29+00:00

Marcus Taylor

Roar Rookie


Why the dilemma? The batsman is cheating. Maybe we should make a law that you cannot get out stumped either? Or perhaps the batsmen should be considered not run out when they are within two metres of the crease? Or even, let the bowler release the ball two or three metres closer if the batsmen choose to start running from there

2012-09-03T00:06:23+00:00

Bayman

Guest


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.

2012-09-02T23:41:20+00:00

Bayman

Guest


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.

2012-09-02T12:24:18+00:00

Ian Whitchurch

Guest


Its also interesting how pad-play became "good cricket" sometime during the Golden Age,

2012-09-02T12:20:14+00:00

Ian Whitchurch

Guest


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.

2012-09-01T08:08:04+00:00

Jason

Guest


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.

2012-09-01T05:57:25+00:00

Russ

Guest


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.

2012-09-01T01:02:26+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


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.

2012-08-31T20:02:26+00:00

Lolly

Guest


In the recent Surrey match, I think the batsman was warned. Nothing wrong with doing it in that case.

2012-08-31T18:28:24+00:00

Ramesh

Guest


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.

2012-08-31T15:09:13+00:00

ak

Guest


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.

2012-08-31T07:51:59+00:00

sheek

Guest


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! ;-)

2012-08-31T07:29:05+00:00

brendan

Guest


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.

AUTHOR

2012-08-31T07:14:28+00:00

Dave Edwards

Roar Pro


That was you who Mankaded me back in 1998, wasn't it....

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar