- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Opinion
I had planned to write an article that comprehensively answered, one by one, the arguments put forward by those who claim the ‘mankad’ – otherwise known as running out a batter who is out of their ground when the ball is alive, as specified in the Laws of Cricket – is a shameful piece of sharp practice.
I had planned it, but with great sadness I realised I would not be able to write that article, because the people who make the aforesaid claim don’t have any arguments to answer.
Instead, what they have is a grab-bag of adjectives, feelings and self-righteous whining of such overwhelming vagueness that Bud Tingwell himself would refuse to take their case.
So I had to abandon the article answering their arguments, and in its place offer an article telling them to shut their sanctimonious yaps.
Because it needs to be made unambiguously clear: there is nothing wrong with mankading.
I don’t mean “it’s technically legal, but…” I don’t mean “I know it’s slightly dodgy but…” I don’t mean “It’s not a great look, but they have every right to…”
I mean plainly and simply that the mankad is F.I.N.E. – as legitimate a manner of dismissal as any other, and nobody who complains about it has any basis to their complaints beyond hollow appeals to imaginary concepts.
They will tell you it’s against the spirit of cricket, but if asked exactly why, they come up empty.
The first thing to note is that a ‘mankad’ is not actually a mode of dismissal: it’s a particular way to effect a mode of dismissal, in this case the runout.
A mankad differs from more common ways of running batters out in the same way that caught-and-bowled differs from catches in the slips, or that chopping on differs from being clean-bowled. It is simply one way that a fielding team can take advantage of a batter who has made an error of judgement in terms of when they leave their crease.
The second thing to note is that being mankaded is almost absurdly easy to avoid. The main way in which it differs from other ways of getting out is that not being mankaded is 100 per cent within the batter’s control. Keep your bat or feet grounded behind the crease until you see the ball leave the bowler’s hand, and you can’t be mankaded. Literally.
If it was easy to avoid being LBW or caught behind, bowling would be a hideous job. It is strange indeed that people claim a dismissal is ‘unfair’ when exposing themselves to the risk was entirely the batter’s decision.
The third thing to note is that giving a warning before running out a backing-up non-striker is completely unnecessary. Every batter who’s ever walked onto a cricket field has already had a warning: the warning being the Laws of Cricket, in which the possibility of being run out if you leave your crease before the ball is bowled is clearly spelt out.
Batters need warning about possible mankads the same way they need warning that if they shoulder arms to a straight one they might be bowled.
The fourth thing to note is that anyone claiming mankads are unsportsmanlike due to the use of ‘trickery’ or similar needs to lay off whatever they’ve been huffing. Trickery? You mean a bowler might have attempted to… deceive a batter? Who ever heard of such a thing?
(Photo by Hamish Blair/Getty Images)
And again, let me emphasise, a batter who stays behind the crease until the ball is bowled cannot be ‘tricked’ in this way. Given the utter freewill involved in the batter’s actions, there’s more ‘trickery’ involved in bowling a slower ball than in mankading someone.
Which leads neatly to the fifth thing to note.
A bowler runs up pretending to bowl a fast ball, but instead bowls a slow one. Or vice versa. Or maybe they pretend to bowl a legbreak, but they bowl an offbreak instead.
A batter faces up in a right-handed stance, but switches to a left-handed stance instead once the bowler delivers. Or maybe he starts standing in his crease, then jumps down the wicket.
A fielder sees a batter skip down the wicket, pad the ball away, and even though the batter is not attempting a run, the fielder picks the ball up, flicks it onto the wicket, and runs the batter out.
Hey, let’s go further: a fielder stands at slip, but as the batter prepares to play a sweep shot, runs around to leg slip to take a catch.
A throw from the field hits the batter’s bat and careens away for four runs, through no fault of the fielder or skill on the part of the batter. The batter cheerfully accepts the four runs.
A batter hits the ball back down the pitch, whereupon it ricochets from the bowler’s hand and hits the wicket, catching the non-striker out of their ground. Or the ball hits the non-striker’s bat and rebounds to a fielder, who catches it. The fielding team appeals, the batter is out.
A batter hits the ball in the air and is caught, but refuses to leave. The umpire didn’t see the ball hit the bat, so gives them not out. The batter stays silent and continues batting.
Any and all of the above are, I am reliably informed, are much fairer and more in line with the sacred ‘spirit of cricket’, than a bowler who is alert enough to an opportunity to run out a batter who’s trying to steal an advantage, even though the choice of whether or not to provide the bowler that opportunity is the batter’s and the batter’s alone.
I might mention that the term ‘mankad’ was coined when the great Indian all-rounder Vinoo Mankad took advantage of Australian batsman Bill Brown’s foolhardiness and ran him out. Afterwards, Brown’s captain, Don Bradman, opined that he could not understand why anyone would consider Mankad’s actions to be unsporting in any way: in Bradman’s view it was the batsman’s responsibility to stay in his crease, and if he was dozy enough to take off before the ball was bowled it was his own silly fault.
Not everyone, of course, is a fan of Bradman, but that should at least put paid to any notion that the correct view of the mankad (i.e. that it is perfectly fine) is a product of the cynical, win-at-all-costs modern era.
(Photo by S&G/PA Images via Getty Images)
So let us summarise. The mankad is not just within the rules, it is an entirely legitimate way to get a batter out, and far less devious or unfair than many others, given avoiding dismissal in this manner is far easier than any other way.
If anyone doesn’t want to get mankaded, they can render the would-be mankader utterly impotent by just staying put until the ball’s in the air. If they find their urge to grab a few extra metres down the wicket so irresistible that they simply must take off while the ball is in the bowler’s hand, then they can accept that risk just like a batter who hits the ball in the air accepts the risk that they might be caught, a batter who jumps down to a spinner accepts the risk that they might be caught, and a batter who steals a sharp single to backward point accepts the risk that they might not make it.
The only real problem I have with the mankad is that it’s not done more often. If bowlers were more willing to whip the bails off when batters try to steal a march, we might all be used to it by now and the whingers might have stopped whingeing.
But until any of them comes up with a reason why any of that is untrue, beyond content-free hand-wringing about ‘sneakiness’, I implore them all: do the entire cricketing world a favour and zip it.
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch international cricket on KAYO