Roar Guru
Joined September 2018
38.8k
Views
49
Published
601
Comments
Like so many other Australian Cricket fans, I was mortified by the ball tampering scandal in Cape Town in March 2018. It made me question my life-long passion for Cricket and my steadfast support for the national team. And so, combining my passions for cricket, the law and writing, I embarked on a search for `The Spirit of Cricket'; one cricket tragic's attempt to define `the line'. Does Cricket have a distinct spirit? Can we define 'the line'? How are the values Cricket holds dear different from any other sport?
Published
Comments
After previously suggesting on The Roar that T20 cricket has hit its older brother - 50-over cricket - out of the ground and down…
I've previously written that T20 is good for Test cricket when batters apply a T20 mindset to Test match problem-solving. Witness Ben Stokes at…
"It's just not cricket." "I can't stand the pyjama game! There's not enough time for a batsman to build an innings. And you may…
e Charlie Dean Mankad dismissal several dozen times and believe both the Indian and English teams have correct and incorrect arguments regarding the ruling.
As far as I know, never, in the 145-year history of Test cricket, has a team embraced a strategy of doing the best they…
On the occasion of Shane Warne's State Funeral, I humbly offer these lines of verse: At the top of his mark he lingers, Flicking…
In the early 1990s when I was dating my future wife, the easiest way to persuade her to join me at the cricket was…
What a brilliant Test match! It was the best of an Ashes summer that has already boasted an Australian Ashes series win and an…
It's January 2003 and the entire cricketing nation is focused on the outcome of a single delivery at the Sydney Cricket Ground. The members…
These are my favourite memories from Test matches played at the Sydney Cricket Ground. Boycott gone first ball It's the new year Test in…
As I watched this Boxing Day Ashes Test gallop, thrillingly, towards a deflated conclusion – before lunch had even been called on the third…
It's 1978 and I've just turned ten years of age. Double digits at last! I'm sitting in front of the old black and white…
It's well past midnight – on a 'school night' – and I'm sitting in my home study, leaning forward with my red eyes transfixed…
Every time a Test team collapses in the modern era – and is bowled out of 36, 60 or 67 – the cricketerati goes…
We're well into the final day of the final Test of a gripping series. Australia won the first Test and India won the second.…
If the period in world cricket from 1977 to 1995 belonged to the West Indies and the period from 1995 to 2005 belonged to…
Calls for Tim Paine's head are overblown, as are predictions from an overseas expert that his days as the Australian captain are numbered. I…
There’s a fierce determination in his dark eyes. They bristle with conquest; a malevolent desire to prove himself as the best against the best.…
As the winning runs were scored, I glanced at Allan Border - his shoulders sagging and slumped in cold resignation - and I felt…
Sitting in the MA Noble Stand on Sunday night, watching India's valiant attempt to chase down Australia's 389, I mused whether One Day International…
Thanks Andy. For what it’s worth, I wish I’d taken the same line that Ben did…albeit without being capable of his verbal flourish. 😔
Cut the whingeing, mankads are fine
Ben, I think my article, at least in part, inspired your article.
And, yes, you’ve given me the rhetorical ass-kicking of my life. So thanks for that.
Importantly, however, you’ve convinced me that I’m wrong.
I can’t answer your basic question regarding why running a non-striker out at the bowler’s end is against the spirit of the game. My only answer is that it was always perceived thus. There’s even a scene in the 1984 Bodyline mini-series where a young Douglas Jardine endorses such a wicked practice and we all know what a prick he turned out to be!
But just because it’s always been thus doesn’t make it right.
The last thing – I hope – I will say on the topic is that the non-striker as “a lot going on”. They have to watch the bowlers hands (at 90 degrees), time their departure from the safe zone at just the right moment, focus on the batter and be ready to assess whether the ball has pitched in line, hit in line and would have hit the stumps before…finally…watching where the ball ends up and judging whether there’s a quick single in it.
In other words, they are simultaneously avoiding being run out, umpiring the game and looking for quick singles.
Cut the whingeing, mankads are fine
No, Homer, I don’t believe I did say that.
I was merely explaining why the situation is different from the scenarios you described and why I would prefer a warning first.
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
I agree deepoz…so my comment at 9.50am this morning.
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Thanks Tight-Head, I thought, as I typed, that somebody might make that point! 😁 😁 😁 😁
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
PeterC, I refer you to my article. I never said a non-striker can not be run out. I advocated changing the rules so that a non-striker is at risk of being run-out if they leave their ground after the bowler’s front foot lands and I advocated enshrining the convention of giving a warning.
I do, however, understand the arguments in favour of a warning being unnecessary.
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Thanks, Ben, as one of the hand-wringers on this site, I feel like I’ve been run-out whilst backing-up the bowlers end!
Cut the whingeing, mankads are fine
AUTHOR’S NOTE:
I used the term “Mankad” in my article several terms and that term also appears in the title.
I have just read this article and I now profoundly regret using that terminology. Vinoo Mankad deserves a better legacy. I undertake not to use that term in the future and I urge others to do the same.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/mankad-did-so-much-more-than-run-people-out-20220927-p5bl89.html
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Hi Nightwatchmen,
Having just read this terrific article, I agree we should stop using the term “Mankad”.
I now regret using it in my article and I won’t use it in the future:
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/mankad-did-so-much-more-than-run-people-out-20220927-p5bl89.html
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Homer, I still think those situations are different.
When I watch the cricket, I want to see the bowler using all their skills to try and get the batter out and I want to see the batter use all their skills to protect their wicket and score runs.
I don’t see any kind of “cricket skill” in pretending to bowl, pulling out of your action and effecting a run out at the bowler’s end.
What next? Allowing bowlers to baulk in their bowling action to trick the batter into half playing a stroke and losing their balance…and then bowling the ball at their stumps?
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Ross, does the same thinking apply to a batter, at the striker’s end, taking guard outside his crease? What about a batsman who anticipates the length of a delivery and skips down the wicket before the ball is released? If those batters takes a single, they have also run less than 22 yards to get to the other end. Should the umpire call “one short” in those circumstances too?
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Not sure if that was directed to me, Homer, but I state my solution in the article; namely, the batsman has to stay in their ground until the bowler’s front foot lands and they can be run out if they leave their ground too early. Given the polarised opinions on this issue – take a look at Twitter – I would also like to see the convention of providing a warning enshrined in the rules.
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Sure PeterC, but how would you feel if a bowler claimed 5 wickets that way in an innings?
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Thanks JGK. Fair enough! If Dean was constantly leaving her crease before the ball was bowled and was warned then I withdraw any criticism of the Indian players. They were right to run her out. 😊 😊 😊
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Thanks JGK. Fair enough! If Dean was constantly leaving her crease before the ball was bowled and was warned then I withdraw any criticism of the Indian players. They were right to run her out. 😁 😁 😁
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
I’ve got no problem with you disagreeing JGK. That’s what this site is for. 😁
I still reckon it’s close. I’ve got Dean’s bat leaving the crease almost simultaneously with Sharma’s front foot landing. I understand that it takes more time for the front arm to roll over, but I think we need to take into account that Sharma had slowed down both her forward moment and the rotation of her front arm because she was pulling up to head back towards the stumps.
May I ask where you get the 70 figure from and the fact that she’d been warned? I haven’t seen that analysis.
But my point remains that it would have been better if she’d been run out on a more obvious example of her trying to get an unfair advantage. To me, the delivery she was Mankaded on looks too much like a non-striker anticipating the moment of delivery and her momentum taking her down the pitch rather than an obvious example of a non-strike taking off before the ball is bowled.
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Thanks JGK. I’ve been looking for that but didn’t find it. Can you share where you found that information?
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Because Mankading is so fraught with controversy. Take a look at Twitter if you doubt that. If a non-striker is trying to get an advantage by leaving their ground earlier, give them one warning and then it’s game on.
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
I’d be happy with that amendment Ulysses.
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Okay, Ben, it’s a bit hard to argue with that. But there’s a reason the Mankad causes controversy and that’s because, whilst backing-up, a non-striker can be fooled into thinking that the ball will be delivered resulting in their momentum taking them out of their ground. And that’s even in circumstances where the non-striker isn’t attempting to get an advantage.
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue
Yep, Joshua. It may happen as soon as August when they play the South Africans. But I think what they’ve achieved over the last four tests is worth celebrating, particularly given how pathetic the Poms were in the last Ashes series.
Why I admire the Poms
Ageed, Sedz. I imagine they would assess the conditions before the toss, just like any other team, and agree on a game plan. It will be interesting to see when they decide to bat last and when they don’t.
Why I admire the Poms
What’s your beef with Derek Pringle?
The others I get…but I found Dez pretty inoffensive…
And didn’t Gubby Allen refuse to bowl bodyline?
Why I admire the Poms
Thanks DaveJ.
Yeah, I wrote that part for dramatic effect. I’m not suggesting, in reality, that any team would run dead in their first innings to ensure a big total to chase in their second. England were, of course, doing their best to maximise runs in their first dig in order to minimise the chase in their second.
The overall point is that the Poms are deliberately batting second so they know (in both innings) what their target is. In the four Tests they played his season, they won the toss twice and sent the opposition in both times. Against the Indians, Stokes even said something akin to “we prefer to chase”.
That approach stands in opposition to the time-honoured approach of batting first whilst the conditions are best.
Why I admire the Poms
I agree with everything you said James H.
The comments following my article have changed my thinking on this issue and your post provides a nice summary of what I now think.
Bowlers are right and wrong to Mankad batters but there's a solution to cricket's most polarising issue