Ah, the Mankad. Has any single sporting action ever caused so much furious debate?
Certainly there has never been any issue that so divided opinion, despite the fact that one side of that divide is obviously wrong?
The Mankad has reared its ugly head once again due to the Women’s T20 World Cup, where England’s Katherine Brunt decided that if it came to a choice between winning the game and not performing a Mankad, she would take the latter route, for what doth it benefit a bowler if she runneth out the non-striker, but forfeiteth her soul?
(Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)
It sparked off the usual arguments, with the cricketing world asking itself the eternal question: is it okay to Mankad?
It’s a vexed question, but also a very easy one, because the answer is yes. Yes it is. It’s perfectly fine to Mankad.
When is it okay to Mankad? Any time you get the chance. Who should you Mankad? Anyone you can. What’s wrong with Mankadding? Absolutely nothing. Should there be more Mankadding? Yes there bloody well should.
All this is true, and frankly it’s time for everyone who moans about poor sportsmanship to get a freaking grip.
We beg, if we may, the opportunity to submit what may be a pertinent fact, to wit: a bowler running out a batter who is backing up too far is legal according to the laws of cricket.
Here is another pertinent fact: every batter who backs up too far is well aware of this fact, and decides to leave their crease knowing full well that they could be run out. Many anti-Mankadders say that one should never execute the manoeuvre without first issuing a warning to the non-striker. This, however, is not something that need ever come up during a game, because every single player who walks to the wicket has already had a warning, and the warning is called the rules. So no problem there.
Frankly, the idea of warning a sneaking non-striker before flicking off the bails makes as much sense as deliberately dropping the first catch a batter offers, just to remind them that you can get out caught, and the next one you’ll hold onto if they keep hitting them in the air.
Why is that for every other mode of dismissal, we accept that if the batter makes a fatal miscalculation and the fielding team is sharp enough to take advantage, that’s the end of that, but in this particular one we wring our hands and fret?
(Photo by Paul Kane – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
The whole issue of Mankads and warnings and the rightness or wrongness of doing one without the other, or doing one at all, comes up because of the bizarre idea that running out an opponent who is seeking to gain an advantage is unsportsmanlike. There is literally no basis for this idea besides a general weaselly feeling.
The Mankad is perfectly within the rules, and can only be executed against an opponent who has made a deliberate decision to risk it – avoiding a Mankad is the easiest thing in the world, as all it requires is staying in your ground until the ball is bowled.
Moreover, a refusal to countenance Mankads, as England skipper Nat Sciver did, declaring her team just didn’t play the game that way, amounts to an act of sabotage against your own team.
The cricketing world knows it can now safely scamper down the pitch before every ball, because the English will never prevent them. Sciver has dealt her country a severe blow, by standing up for every non-striker’s right to stand permanently halfway down the wicket.
Should you remain too dull-witted to agree with me by this stage, let me quote the late Donald George Bradman, who was not only a paragon of the spirit of cricket, but was also the captain of Australia in the game wherein the Mankad got its name, when Vinoo Mankad ran out Bill Brown. He wrote of the incident:
Immediately in some quarters Mankad’s sportsmanship was questioned. For the life of me I cannot understand why. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker 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 non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage… I always make it a practice when occupying the position of non-striker to keep my bat behind the crease until I see the ball in the air. In that way one cannot possibly be run out, and I commend this practice to other players.
So there you have it, straight from the Don himself: Mankadding is perfectly fair, perfectly reasonable, and anyone who gets out that way has only themselves to blame.
Which means that Nat Sciver, Katherine Brunt, Jimmy Anderson and everyone else who frowns upon the Mankad are quite literally spitting on Bradman’s grave. And I don’t find that sportsmanlike at all.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
dungerBob, it isn't because of which happened first - if a batsman is struck in front and it goes on to hit the stumps it goes down as bowled. When a decision of out for two or more modes of dismissal would be justified then it goes in alphabetical order i.e. bowled first precedence then caught, then lbw, then obstruction, then run out then stumped. When it still existed (but now comes under obstruction), handled the ball came between caught and lbw.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Dave J, are you by any chance old enough to remember the very first tie in international one day cricket? How the match ended? Or the second last ball (and second last dismissal) of the 2nd semi-final in 1996 world cup?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Dave J, almost every time a batsman picks up a ball and throws it back to the fielding side, it is dead, and you cannot be dismissed when the ball is dead. Handled the ball, as it was, but now comes under obstruction is about handling the ball or obstructing the fielding side when the ball is actually in play.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
I can certainly see you point about the risk v reward scenario and don't actually disagree that it does add an extra element of strategy to the game. I just don't like those already pampered batsmen fudging a head start. If it were up to me I'd allow the umpire to whack them on the knee with an axe when they see them doing it. :angry:
HR
Roar Rookie
Fair enough. I wouldn't mind bowlers being happier to Mankad non-strikers - it's a reasonable mode of dismissal if the non-striker isn't watching the bowler or is risking a quick single. If bowlers were happier to do it, it's an interesting risk-reward scenario for the non-striker - do they gain a bit on every possible run while also risking their own dismissal, or do they play it safe and stay in their crease until the ball is bowled? It adds another little bit of strategy and interest that would be removed if it was automatically one-short (there would be no reward in the risk-reward equation), but it works better if the risk is also genuinely there (i.e. the bowler is happy to Mankad the non-striker).
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Whenever it happens it sparks furious debate and I don’t know why. Ben is perfectly correct.. The batsman knows what the rules are and does not require a warning… It’s an attempt by the batsman / batter/batswoman to gain an unfair advantage deliberately or not. Run em out.. Or rather Mankad them.
JGK
Roar Guru
Not counted as a ball. By the way, being out of your ground is not enough. You have to be out of your ground and the bails taken off before the point at which the bowler would have reasonable been expected to have bowled the ball. In practice it is actually a pretty small window.
DTM
Guest
I was watching a club game yesterday. Last over, 7 runs to win. Batsman at the non strikers end trying to steal a bit of ground was mankaded (clearly out of his ground). Umpire called a dead ball and waved a finger at the bowler. I'm not sure the umpire got this right - there is nothing in the rules to say the bowler has to warn the batsman (just as there's nothing in the rules for the batsman to warn the fielding team that he's trying to steal a run). However, I have a question for Roarers. Assuming the non striker is given out on say the first ball of the over, is this counted as a bowled ball and therefore there are only 5 balls to go or is it not counted and there are 6 to go?
Micko
Roar Rookie
Apparently when the SCG was renovated a few years ago they took out the Doug Walters Stand…and literally left it at that, not even naming a bar (which would probably be appropriate :silly:) or something else after him at the SCG to replace the permanent loss of that stand named for him. Nice way to treat a legend. Doug Walters said he doesn’t have much of an ego, but it was a point of pride not just for him, but for his kids & grandkids as well. :unhappy:
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Well there you go
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Yep. My fave cricketer name. The old Channel 9 team could not go five minutes of an Adelaide test with mentioning them. In my circle Vic earn't a name change because of it.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Ben, I agree with you all the way. If Mankading is wrong, so is stumping a batsman by a wicket-keeper.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Yep, my point exactly. .. I actually don't think they will ever end doing this and you're probably right about just making the game even more complicated than it already is. It's just something that's irked me for years. A pet peeve I suppose.
HR
Roar Rookie
The rule now states that the bowler is permitted to run the non-striker out “at any point before he releases the ball provided he has not completed his delivery swing.” So the bowler is expressly forbidden from Mankading the non-striker if he has gone through his bowling action – he can’t pretend to bowl the ball, hold on to it through the normal delivery swing and then break the stumps afterwards. That’s just a no-ball consistent with Law 21.8 as far as I can see, and shouldn’t result in a Mankad, unless the non-striker had left their ground before the point at which the ball would be expected to be delivered. At that point it gets a bit knotty – the third umpire would have to look at previous deliveries from the bowler to establish when the ball would be expected to be released, check whether the non-striker had left their ground at the instant when the ball would be expected to be delivered, and then decide from there whether it is a no-ball or a wicket (which I don’t think would count as a delivery).
HR
Roar Rookie
I'll concede that stating it has to be one or the other was a bit strong. I'll revise that to: the rate of Mankading (already infinitesimal as it is) would drop to nothing if the non-striker could cost their team a run by leaving their ground before the delivery of the ball.
HR
Roar Rookie
It would probably just lead to the non-striker starting from further behind the crease to build up speed so that they were running by the delivery stride of the bowler. Calling it one short if the non-striker is out of their crease before the ball has been released would be an almost guaranteed way of obviating the Mankad, because no non-striker would chance the run that they were taking being struck out as one short.
Micko
Roar Rookie
It would be a nightmare to umpire: calling dead balls and having arguments with players who claimed they hit it.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
Personally I don't think leg byes should exist. That's a whole other column...
BennO
Roar Rookie
You might be better off asking IAP because this whole thread began because they're upset/angry over the word, batter. As for me, I probably could be a bit happier today but that's mainly because I'm annoyed I've got to work on a Saturday. But taking the p!ss out of people clinging to the word "batsman" is making it a bit easier to get through the day.
MarkD
Guest
Is that really true, are you actually happy ? Because being angry or getting upset over gender specific words seems a little sad. :silly: