The finish to the BBL11 Challenger final between the Sydney Sixers and the Adelaide Strikers was surely the most controversial in the competition’s ten-year history.
With one ball remaining in the game and needing two runs to win, the Sixers would spark Australia-wide debate about the so-called ‘spirit of the game’, when they chose to retire out injured batter Jordan Silk for fully-fit wicketkeeper-batter Jay Lenton, in the hopes of scrambling the winning runs.
How decisive the move was will never be known, with Strikers fielder Jon Wells – perhaps out of haste knowing there was no injured runner to target – fumbling on the boundary to gift the Sixers the winning boundary.
The reaction from the Fox Cricket commentary box was swift and uncomfortable, with Australian great Adam Gilchrist, one of the country’s fairest ever players, unsure about the Sixers’ tactics.
“I don’t know about this, I do not know about this,” Gilchrist said as the move was being made.
“My gut feel says I don’t like it. The Sixers have been pressed, it’s been rammed home to the Sixers in the lead-up to this finals series, we’re sticking by the rules, the rules that we made up two weeks ago, but we’re sticking by them. The Sixers have said, well, there is a rulebook there, we’re going to exploit a rule here.”
Fellow commentator Mark Waugh agreed, saying the move was ‘within the rules, but it’s probably not within the spirit of the game.’
Outside the box, the reaction was more divided, with plenty of scorn heaped on the Sixers and coach Greg Shipperd.
Leading the charge was well-known political and economics journalist and blogger Greg Jericho, who described the retirement as an ‘absolute dog move’.
The Sixers’ ploy was also quickly savaged for being ‘putrid’ and ‘absolutely disgraceful’, amid laments for the spirit of the game.
However, there was plenty of praise for the Sixers as well, with former England international and BBL veteran for the Melbourne Stars, Luke Wright, calling the move ‘very smart’.
Acclaim came in for the two-time reigning champions’ ‘clear thinking under pressure’, while former AFL player Michael Barlow said Lenton, an assistant coach for the Sixers before being thrust into the game due to the COVID-enforced withdrawal of regular wicketkeeper Josh Philippe, played a key role.
Waugh’s critical reaction in the immediate aftermath also received a going-over, with AAP journalist Scott Bailey pointing out that the Test great has long been an advocate for teams retiring out struggling batters in T20 cricket.
Meanwhile, Test captain Pat Cummins steered clear of the controversy, while nicely summing up what we all were thinking.
Notably, Gilchrist and Waugh’s initial opinions of the incident cooled substantially once the match concluded, with the latter saying after the match: “I’m happy with it, I’m fine with it.
“All the things that have happened to the Sixers in this tournament – not being able to play Steve Smith, etc. – they’ve played by the rules tonight, so I’m happy with it.”
“I was questioning it as it played out… I thought, ‘hang on a minute, is this right?’” Gilchrist added.
“But thinking about it, I agree with Junior; it is within the rules and it’s actually fairly quick thinking, nifty thinking, and that’s years and years of experienced cricket heads coming together there.
“I can’t do anything other than to sit back and go, well done, they’ve picked up an opportunity there within the rules.”
Hayden Kerr scores the winning runs for the Sydney Sixers during the BBL Challenger final.. (Photo by Steven Markham/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
Strikers captain Peter Siddle was also fine with the tactic when asked about it after the game.
“You can retire blokes, at the end of the day,” Siddle told Fox Cricket.
“He can retire, it’s not actually a big issue.
“Obviously I was disappointed at the time. It’s just a retirement, isn’t it… that’s just a part of the game.”
Strikers coach Jason Gillespie was fine with the move, too, posting on Twitter that he had ‘no issue with it at all’.
Sixers captain Moises Henriques was also staunch in his defence of his team’s actions, describing the move as ‘clearly within the rules of the game’.
“Unfortunately, we had a guy go down with a hamstring, one of the fittest guys in the league [Silk],” Henriques told Fox Cricket after the match.
“Probably something to do with our schedule and our five flights in eight days and so many back-to-back games.
“He normally bats five, so the fact that he’s gone in to bat at eight – I think we’re sacrificing enough as it is.”
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Interesting point. You should be able to pick up which hand the ball is in if you keep you’re eye on it but it will be harder to be sure where to focus in advance if the bowler changes hands mid run-up, hence slower reaction time. But I wonder if that is really much more a safety problem than the bouncer itself, or bowling from different points on the return crease?
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Agree, cheating shouldn’t be rewarded. The Pakistan game (in 1979) actually resulted in a win for Australia. Allan Hurst mankaded Sikander who had kept backing up too far deliberately as you say. Hurst gave no warning which infuriated the Pakistanis, and when Australia came out to bat for a short run chase, Sarfraz appealed when Andrew Hilditch threw the ball back to him (another convention breached). It could have been avoided if Hurst had given a warning. The irony is that Vinoo Mankad actually gave a warning to Bill Brown before doing his original Mankad in 1947, and still got a hostile reaction, which seems unfair.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
It’s the bowler who does the Mankad before he’s bowled.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
I have no idea why anyone would think this was not in the spirit of the game. People just like feeling angry.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
I was thinking more about picking up the ball from the hand. I mean it's an absurdly theoretical argument since very few bowlers can even get the ball to pitch with both hands, let alone bowl fast and accurate with either hand. But a batter needs to know which hand the ball is going to be released from so they can pinpoint the release and get into position. If you don't pick up a 140kph bouncer from the hand you'll be in a lot of trouble.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
100%. Even society has acceptable norms of behaviour that aren't all codified by laws. It's not illegal to walk down the street and call every person you see a mo_ron, a half_wit or ugly. Doesn't mean it's acceptable though.
JediWombat
Roar Rookie
I believe in "the spirit of the game" in terms of being sportsmanlike, but I have no problem with the Mankad. It's not against the spirit of the game to runout a batter. If you leave your crease while the ball is in play, a fielder is holding it, and they're running towards your end, you deserve to get run out.
JediWombat
Roar Rookie
There's an argument that without the pressure created by a capable runner, the fielder wouldn't have muffed the pick-up. Who knows how much of an impact that had, though.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Is the safety issue because a bowler could pretend to run in with ball in right hand if they didn’t have to nominate and then switch at last moment to left, losing important reaction time in dealing with fast bowling?
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Good question. I suppose if batsmen can switch hit, but the lbw law and definition of leg side/off side stays as for the position batsman initially lines up, then I guess it’s logical to let the bowler do the same. On the other hand, the batsman has to take an initial position and they only change position rarely, for some white ball cricket and it’s not an obvious advantage in defence. So maybe it does give the bowler a bit of an unfair element of surprise. Though again, it’s so rare and would take exceptional skill to do well, why not let them have that element of surprise and add some fun to the game? Or is it a safety issue as those below suggest? No obvious answer, but I’d be happy not forcing them to nominate, unless it really is a safety issue.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Please re-read: I wrote “ The point is, of course, the retirement WASN’T against the spirit of the game.”. i.e. agree with you. My problem with Dizzy is that he thinks only the laws of the game matter, whereas I think the spirit of the game matters too. He recently supported Ashwin who defended going for an extra run when the ball deflected off him. Dizzy also supported Ashwin on Mankading.
Censored Often
Roar Rookie
I really should read things twice.... The curse of old age, sorry!
Censored Often
Roar Rookie
Why then if it's against the spirit of the game are there not one but two laws allowing a batsman to retire (and it's been used frequently across most levels of cricket for at leas the 50 years I've been watching or playing)?
JediWombat
Roar Rookie
I'm an Adelaide-born Strikers fan and I have no problem with Silk retiring hurt. Now, the three separate terrible calls on wide deliveries... that's where my problem is. If any one of them gets called correctly, the Strikers probably make the final. At the end of the day though, if Carey or Renshaw had been even moderately capable of their jobs on the night, not of this would have even happened.
Ian_
Roar Rookie
Yep, I thought bringing the field in to save 1 (or at least not allow 2) was a pretty obvious play, so surprised they didn't do it.
Ian_
Roar Rookie
I think he might have got himself into the IPL ring at least.
Ian_
Roar Rookie
I was surprised he was allowed to retire hurt as he was carrying injury into the match/innings. But in practice it makes no difference, except to Silk's average - if not able to retire hurt, he could have just retired out.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Dog move, really? I file it in the folder labelled "first world problems". If the sixers required 10 runs off the last 2 balls & Jordan Silk pretends to have strained a hamstring to get Dan Christian onto the field, we might have something to discuss here.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Meh
Micko
Roar Rookie
Voila! You've got an article now.