*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[social]

Edges to the boundaries require no skill too. But the batsman still gets 4 for it. Mankad is just punishing a player who doesn't play by the rules.

Also this was what was happening when the bowler actually did bowl.

And regarding traditional attitude, not everything that is traditional is good or correct.

View attachment 33047

How does legitimising Mankads add anything positive at all to cricket?

 

[Cruxdude]

How does legitimising Mankads add anything positive at all to cricket?

Stops batsmen taking undue advantage. A 2ft start does make it easier to complete runs that would not be possible otherwise.

 

[Cruxdude]

How does legitimising Mankads add anything positive at all to cricket?

The player in question did it 72 times in this one innings. How do you stop someone from doing that? This is the only option available right now and the Indian team went with it correctly.

 

[social]

Stops batsmen taking undue advantage. A 2ft start does make it easier to complete runs that would not be possible otherwise.

If she allegedly had an undue advantage 70 times in that innings alone then why didn’t England win?

It’s almost as if lifting her bat off the ground a millisecond before delivery is no advantage at all

 

[Cruxdude]

If she allegedly had an undue advantage 70 times in that innings alone then why didn’t England win?

It’s almost as if lifting her bat off the ground a millisecond before delivery is no advantage at all

Dude. What sort of an argument is this? Also look at the picture I posted. The bowler has not released the ball yet and she is more than a foot outside the crease.

 

[Cruxdude]

If you say such a start doesn't matter when players get run out by inches pretty much every match, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[social]

Dude. What sort of an argument is this? Also look at the picture I posted. The bowler has not released the ball yet and she is more than a foot outside the crease.

Photos of this are all over the internet

Previous frame her bat is behind line so we’re talking a tiny fraction of a second here

You claim it’s an advantage when it obviously isn’t otherwise England would have walked it in

 

[Cruxdude]

Photos of this are all over the internet

Previous frame her bat is behind line so we’re talking a tiny fraction of a second here

You claim it’s an advantage when it obviously isn’t otherwise England would have walked it in

Not all advantages are going to result in a team winning. Otherwise every time a team has a catch dropped when they are batting, they should win the match. A very weird argument.

Fractions of a second matter in many run outs and saying it is just a tiny fraction so should be ignored doesn't make sense in a game where so many matches turn on these sort of tiny fractions. We aren't going to give a batsman out if a tiny fraction of his bat is across the line.

 

[Cruxdude]

An interesting article on the dismissal's history

 

[Neil Young]

Not all advantages are going to result in a team winning. Otherwise every time a team has a catch dropped when they are batting, they should win the match. A very weird argument.

I'd wager a team that dropped 72 catches would lose 99 times out of 100.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think the problem is the fact that a lot of the Eng and NZ cricketers seem to think the "now" part of this. Shouldn't the law ALWAYS need to consider the viewpoint of all nations and the way they play?

You can clearly see why its grating to have Eng or Aus or NZ cricketers explain what the spirit of cricket means everytime to every other country and their players?

100% it should. And yes, I now see why it would be grating or frustrating to have these 'biased' conversations, because I know how it feels on the other foot. I had no idea Indians saw the game differently. We are indoctrinated to see Mankads, and some other things in the game as against the spirit of the contest. That's so deeply rooted in us, that it's sub-conscious but ever-present - as you can see with the fall out from this.

See, this is where conversations should get to. We're now at a point where we understand where each other are coming from. It would be ideal if everyone knew this so we could be more understanding of why people act the way they do, and we could position the law accordingly. And if it comes up again, I can be part of the explanation to those from those countries you named as to why Indian cricketers are not immoral or cheats, but simply products of their environment.

 

[SteveNZ]

The only reason for not supporting Mankading seems to be ohh we don't do such things here. Every other excuse just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

As per the above, we've now realised that people have different perspectives based on the way they were brought up playing the game. That isn't an excuse either way - that Indian people see it as a legitimate dismissal for a batsman taking liberties, and a lot of others (I can only speak for NZ) were drummed in that it is not the way the game is played.

And now some of us know where we stand, as I've said ad nauseum, we can now address it with a strategy that satisfies the way that all people were brought up to understand it.

 

[Neil Young]

See, this is where conversations should get to. We're now at a point where we understand where each other are coming from. It would be ideal if everyone knew this so we could be more understanding of why people act the way they do, and we could position the law accordingly. And if it comes up again, I can be part of the explanation to those from those countries you named as to why Indian cricketers are not immoral or cheats, but simply products of their environment.

It does beg the question then why Mankading isn't commonplace in any international featuring India.

 

[SteveNZ]

It does beg the question then why Mankading isn't commonplace in any international featuring India.

Yep, fair question. To answer that, I think you'd have to contrast Indian domestic cricket and how that looks without outside influence, versus international cricket where they are probably very aware of the moral codes others have been taught to operate under.

 

[social]

As per the above, we've now realised that people have different perspectives based on the way they were brought up playing the game. That isn't an excuse either way - that Indian people see it as a legitimate dismissal for a batsman taking liberties, and a lot of others (I can only speak for NZ) were drummed in that it is not the way the game is played.

And now some of us know where we stand, as I've said ad nauseum, we can now address it with a strategy that satisfies the way that all people were brought up to understand it.

It has been addressed

The law has been changed & that’s pretty much the end of it

 

[TheJediBrah]

That isn't an excuse either way - that Indian people see it as a legitimate dismissal for a batsman taking liberties, and a lot of others (I can only speak for NZ) were drummed in that it is not the way the game is played.

Maybe you guys are still traumatised by underarm, which was also a perfectly legal tactic at the time. Yet the majority involved weren't happy with it

 

[Socerer 01]

Maybe you guys are still traumatised by underarm, which was also a perfectly legal tactic at the time. Yet the majority involved weren't happy with it

Chatfield literally regrets doing the runout v England because he did not do it properly in his bowling stride but via the underarm for one

 

[Socerer 01]

It does beg the question then why Mankading isn't commonplace in any international featuring India.

Because India is a land of more than a billion people with differing views and not a hive mind? As HB pointed out Sehwag did not like it when Ashwin did it against Thirimanne and so withdrew the appeal for one. Don’t think Dhoni was a fan of it either

In any case I remember this being illegal/incredibly difficult to do legally for a long time for a while which may have minimised it’s effect

 

[SteveNZ]

It has been addressed

The law has been changed & that’s pretty much the end of it

With all due respect, if that were the case, would the last 10-20 pages of this thread exist?

 

[SteveNZ]

Maybe you guys are still traumatised by underarm, which was also a perfectly legal tactic at the time. Yet the majority involved weren't happy with it

Yeah that's a decent parallel, although I guess there was less precedent and discussion previously of that as an option. That was sorted out pretty quickly, and yes I get that the law changed but clearly the cultural issues and preconceptions haven't been fully addressed.