The Mankad

[Shady Slim]

in cricket, we have a lot of pride in being the gentleman’s game, and one of the ways we show this is by frowning on people who mankad a batsman with no warning... we’re pretty much the only sport that frowns upon a completely legal and, in a by the book sort of reading, completely legitimate way for a team to achieve its goal for the innings

something that i saw suggested on facebook last night by the page abstract cricket memes was to do away with the warnings but to concede an auto no ball for a failed mankad, to bring it in line with the steven finn stumps rule for no balls

so

bearing that there change in your mind, what are your thoughts on the mankad? and are there ways you think it could be made a bit more congruent and not as taboo? post!

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Will the no ball then be followed by a free hit?

Talk about escalating a situation lol.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

People should put up with it and stop whinging.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The fact that we are seeing it in Under-19 World Cup means that the kids are smarter than their senior counterparts.
If it's a mode of dismissal, then why not use it.

 

[Burgey]

^the last two posts are takes from people whose experience playing cricket is limited to a PS4.

 

[Red]

I've never understood why mankadding is frowned upon. Stay in your crease until it's actually safe to move out of it. Or try to take an advantage, get caught out on it, and get given out.

Seriously perplexes me. There's a line there, and if you're over it, you're out.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Instinctively I like the convention of warning the batsman at least once before effecting a Mankad, but if I analyse this first thought on the subject it's probably just because it's "the done thing" and, prima facie, it does look a slightly underhand way to dismiss someone.

However it's not too much of a stretch to think of a googly in the same way. It's a delivery that's essential function is to deceive the batsman. The striker has every reason to expect to receive a leg-break in the way the Mankaded non-striker was expecting the bowler to be committed to the delivery.

I can't ever recall anyone kicking up a stink about being bowled through the gate left when they played for the expected leg-spin, but, by jingo, the damn thing turned from off to leg. However when a chap is Mankaded one often hears or reads that it's just not cricket. Although more often than not it's journalists and folk like us who spend more time than might be healthy thinking about the sport, who get scandalised on the Mankadee's behalf

 

[Cabinet96]

something that i saw suggested on facebook last night by the page abstract cricket memes was to do away with the warnings but to concede an auto no ball for a failed mankad, to bring it in line with the steven finn stumps rule for no balls

I don't understand this. When is there ever a failed Mankad? It's literally only ever done as a means to either warn a batsman or run them out. And why would the rule change to try and stop it be an attempt to punish the fielding side.

To me the solution is pretty obvious, at least at an international level (would make the umpires job harder in club/domestic stuff). If a bowler oversteps when bowling, they concede a run. So why not make the batting side concede a run if the batsman is out of the crease when the ball is released. This would completely remove any advantage to be gained from backing up and there would never be a Mankad run out ever again.

 

[Crazy Sam]

The whole point of the contest in cricket is bowlers trying to get the on-strike batsman out, not ****** 'gotcha' moments with the non striker. It's not entertaining nor skilful and just makes me think the bowler doing it isn't good enough to get wickets properly.

Should be a friendly warning the first time from bowler to non striker, particularly in this type of instance where the batsman clearly just wasn't paying attention rather than actively trying to gain an advantage.

 

[Shady Slim]

I don't understand this. When is there ever a failed Mankad? It's literally only ever done as a means to either warn a batsman or run them out. And why would the rule change to try and stop it be an attempt to punish the fielding side.

the idea is if you add this in, it removes the need for the warning, and thus, it makes the mankad “legitimate” - and avoids the stupid dance every time there’s a big mankad where everyone digs in on their side of the mankad debate and won’t shut up about it for a month

now i don’t necessarily support it, i like the warning and the spirit of cricket, gentleman’s game sort of business we have, but think it’s an interesting suggestion and merits discussion

 

[Flem274*]

i think it's legit, though i've never really remembered to bother noticing the non striker when bowling. in school cricket we probably could have mankaded each other every other ball if we'd bothered to check.

it's about running between the wickets after the batsman hits it, not starting your first run halfway down the pitch.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Mankad is absolutely fine as long as it's done properly, as in the batsman is actually moving out of his crease well before the ball is bowled.

Only time Mankad is unacceptable is in a situation like the Ashwin/Buttler where (on the delivery in question) the batsman wasn't actually out of his crease when the ball would have been bowled and the bowler pretended to bowl it and then waited for the batsman to leave.

 

[cpr]

The whole point of the contest in cricket is bowlers trying to get the on-strike batsman out, not ****** 'gotcha' moments with the non striker. It's not entertaining nor skilful and just makes me think the bowler doing it isn't good enough to get wickets properly.

Should be a friendly warning the first time from bowler to non striker, particularly in this type of instance where the batsman clearly just wasn't paying attention rather than actively trying to gain an advantage.

The whole point of every sport is to beat your opponent through skill or wits, and a Mankad is no different to that. As Brumby says, some bowlers bowl deliberately deceiving balls on the reg and we applaud them for it, why not the bowler who aims his ball at a different set of stumps? We seem to berate the bowler who pulls a sneaky, when that bowlers sneaky is deliberately aimed at the batsman who's regularly pulling a sneaky.

Tactics like the Mankad are applauded in other sports - Baseball being the obvious comparison with the pitcher taking out the runner stealing a base. But you could draw a comparison to football and the man taking a quick free kick/corner because he's spotted the opposing keeper isnt ready (think Liverpool v Barca last season), or the Rugby team taking the quick line out to catch a team on a break.

The only other sport that seems to frown on clever play is tennis, with the dislike for the underarm serve/body shots. I'll let them take a high ground as they are consistent about it. Cricket can't claim moral high ground when a bowler deliberately hitting the batsman in the sack is a fantastic and hilarious move

 

[DriveClub]

The whole point of every sport is to beat your opponent through skill or wits, and a Mankad is no different to that. As Brumby says, some bowlers bowl deliberately deceiving balls on the reg and we applaud them for it, why not the bowler who aims his ball at a different set of stumps? We seem to berate the bowler who pulls a sneaky, when that bowlers sneaky is deliberately aimed at the batsman who's regularly pulling a sneaky.

Tactics like the Mankad are applauded in other sports - Baseball being the obvious comparison with the pitcher taking out the runner stealing a base. But you could draw a comparison to football and the man taking a quick free kick/corner because he's spotted the opposing keeper isnt ready (think Liverpool v Barca last season), or the Rugby team taking the quick line out to catch a team on a break.

The only other sport that seems to frown on clever play is tennis, with the dislike for the underarm serve/body shots. I'll let them take a high ground as they are consistent about it. Cricket can't claim moral high ground when a bowler deliberately hitting the batsman in the sack is a fantastic and hilarious move

Amen

 

[NZTailender]

****ing batsman thinks the game revolves around them. Take out the mankad and the batsman may as well stand halfway down the pitch for a headstart. Ridiculous. if you can't stay in your crease until the ball is bowled you deserve to be made to look like a ****ing chump.

See also: get a ****ing technique for the short ball you whiney willow jockeys

 

[honestbharani]

If you are a batsman, you gotta stay inside the crease and watch the ball for as long as possible, whichever end you are at. Its that simple, really. You leave your crease and don't know where the ball is, you always risk getting out. Don't be a baby about it.

 

[Burgey]

Honestly, if you think that you’ve literally never played cricket above a level where they bowl with a tennis bal.

You want the sport to devolve to the point where a batsman has to presume a bowler is going to pretend to the bowl the ball instead of delivering it in a normal fashion, a l the. Last any Ashwin cheating incident. Leave me out of it.

 

[honestbharani]

^the last two posts are takes from people whose experience playing cricket is limited to a PS4.

Honestly, if you think that you’ve literally never played cricket above a level where they bowl with a tennis bal.

You want the sport to devolve to the point where a batsman has to presume a bowler is going to pretend to the bowl the ball instead of delivering it in a normal fashion, a l the. Last any Ashwin cheating incident. Leave me out of it.

Lol @ Burgey with the condescending stupid posts as usual.


Its obvious that bowlers Mankad batsmen AFTER seeing them leave the crease before they bowl. And when you do it so many times, of course the bowler can take a pause at delivery stride and run you out. TBH, you are the one coming across as someone who has not played any real games of cricket, except in your own dreams. Your job as a batsman is to stay within the crease. I mean, what's your next pearl of wisdom? The non-striker can stand half way down the pitch as the bowler starts his run up as the ball "is not in play" yet? Just see how many in this very thread feel this is no big deal. As a matter of fact, bowlers are allowed to pause at delivery stride for years now.


And FTR,

Leave me out of it.

No one asked you to be in it.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

^the last two posts are takes from people whose experience playing cricket is limited to a PS4.

Quite the wrong way round, Burgey: I've no experience of PS4, but play cricket currently

 

[cnerd123]

However it's not too much of a stretch to think of a googly in the same way. It's a delivery that's essential function is to deceive the batsman. The striker has every reason to expect to receive a leg-break in the way the Mankaded non-striker was expecting the bowler to be committed to the delivery.

I can't ever recall anyone kicking up a stink about being bowled through the gate left when they played for the expected leg-spin, but, by jingo, the damn thing turned from off to leg.

Actually back in the days of Bosanquet there were several players (read: English and Australian batsmen) who claimed the Googly was unfair.

People just need to accept it and stay in their crease till the ball is bowled. It's not that hard.