It’s probably too late to get Mankad out of the cricket lexicon but if the name can’t be changed, the connotation can.
Instead of the act of running out a non-striker being considered devious, it should be seen as clever.
The player breaking the Laws of Cricket when Vinoo Mankad effected his infamous dismissal in a 1947 Test was Australian batter Bill Brown.
Should the act of getting an illegal head-start before the bowler has delivered the ball become known as Browning?
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch the Big Bash League on KAYO
This was not even close to the first time it had been done in first-class cricket and historians say the mode of dismissal is nearly as old as the game itself with recorded cases in the early 1800s.
(Photo by Darrian Traynor – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
It’s also worth noting that Mankad had dismissed Brown via the same method in a tour game the previous month after he had given him the “gentlemanly” warning a few balls beforehand.
None other than Australian captain, Sir Donald Bradman, vouched for Mankad’s sportsmanship and wrote that “there was absolutely no feeling in the matter as far as we were concerned, for we considered it quite a legitimate part of the game”.
You can’t get a better endorsement in cricket than one from The Don.
The closest thing to a Mankad in another sport is a baseball pitcher throwing out a runner on base if they stray too far from safety.
It can be tedious when a pitcher repeatedly hurls the ball to a base instead of home plate but no one has ever accused them of acting against the spirit of the game for doing so.
The runner is trying to gain an unfair advantage and they’re putting them in their place, literally.
Hopefully we don’t see the non-striker in cricket resort to such tactics to put a bowler off. Stand a metre or so outside their crease as the bowler runs in then get back behind the line before the stumps can be broken.
As far as the name is concerned the toothpaste is probably out of the tube as far as it being called a different name other than Mankad. It even appears his ancestors are divided on whether it should remain or be removed from cricket’s often confusing vocabulary.
But it’s not too late to make it known by another name if the ICC shows strong leadership. Alas, that is usually too much to ask but maybe with India exerting Palpatine-like influence over cricket’s high council, the BCCI might go into bat for one of their finest pioneering players.
The MCC recommended a change from batsman to batter in the Laws of Cricket two years ago and the ICC approved.
Removing gender-specific terminology like that from the official scrolls of the sport should have been done many years ago. Third man is now just called third but there’s a few of the other terms still need alternatives.
Twelfth Man know becomes just the 12th? What’s nightwatchman now going to be? Nightwatcher?
These may sound trivial and traditionalists will say they should remain but try telling that to the many girls and women being enticed to take up cricket as it looks to expand its participation base.
The MCC announced earlier this week a tweak to the terminology around the Mankad following Melbourne Stars spinner Adam Zampa’s botched recent effort.
Zampa’s attempt against the Renegades was kyboshed by the third umpire because his bowling arm had already gone past “the highest point” of his action.
The Laws of cricket have now been amended to remove any ambiguity.
38.3.1.1 The instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball is defined as the moment the bowler’s arm reaches the highest point of his/her normal bowling action in the delivery swing.
38.3.1.2 Even if the non-striker had left his/her ground before the instant at which the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, once the bowler has reached that point it is no longer possible for the bowler to run out the non-striker under this Law.
Former England top-order batter Mark Butcher had an interesting viewpoint on the recent escalation in this mode of dismissal.
Speaking on the Wisden Cricket Weekly Podcast, he claimed in rather dramatic fashion that “there will be blood” at the grassroots level with the rising prevalence of the Mankad.
“I can just see absolute carnage happening up and down this land and many others if people start doing it as a matter of course in club games. Because there’s very little regulation in terms of people’s behaviour there and the game as it is played and has been played for years and years with guys umpiring their own players and that type of thing’” he said.
“The game has always been played on the basis that there will be a bit of good sportsmanship. Otherwise, we will not be sharing jugs in the bar, type thing. And if this starts happening up and down the land there will be blood – I’m telling you that now.”
Butcher has long advocated against its use, well before the current spike in occurrences, tweeting four years ago that it was like sleeping with your best pal’s – “perfectly legitimate but don’t complain if you get chinned for it”.
James Anderson replied with “legal but frowned upon?” and Butcher hit back with “I think that’s what I meant, Mr GOAT!”.
There was no blood spilt a couple of months ago at sub-district level in Melbourne but plenty of bad blood between St Bernard’s and Kew when a Mankad was effected and recorded for posterity (and infinite hilarity) by the stationary frogbox at the club ground.
The full gamut of views on this act gushed out from the various observers at the game – from “very simple, stay in your crease” to “f- – -ing shit club if that’s f- – -ing acceptable” to “it’s in the rulebooks, dickhead” to the unforgettable “you’re a disgrace to sub-district cricket”.
Butcher spoke in hyperbolic terms but he’s right.
As anyone who’s ever played in the lower grades will tell you, when players umpire their own teammates, tempers can fray very quickly when an obvious dismissal is ruled not out by the batter’s buddy.
There was a recent case where a third-grade team forfeited the rest of a game with the result in the balance because they were fed up with blatant caught-behinds being given not out.
Cricket has been known as the gentleman’s game in the long room at Lords for generations but there’s very little nobility on a synthetic wicket in the suburbs when a contentious decision is made.
There is no more contentious act right now than pulling off a Mankad.
So any non-strikers out there who are considering leaving your crease early, you’ve been warned.
>Cricket News
%20(3).jpeg)
0 Comments