Mankads

[Socerer 01]

The nationality of the mankader is not really relevant. In terms of my criticisms of it, anyway.

It was more in response to this sudden new belief that apparently every kid in India does it and it is a way of life in Indian cricket and no where else when multiple other players of differing nationalities have done it in the past and we will see more players from differing nations do so in the future once the taboo around it is lifted and this spirit talk dies down

 

[Starfighter]

But life evolves, doesn't it? A lot of things found acceptable in 1947 are no longer done so.

Boneheaded argument. There are plenty of things that are acceptable now that weren't then.

 

[Neil Young]

Boneheaded argument. There are plenty of things that are acceptable now that weren't then.

That's the point, bruh. Life moves on.

 

[Neil Young]

It was more in response to this sudden new belief that apparently every kid in India does it and it is a way of life in Indian cricket and no where else when multiple other players of differing nationalities have done it in the past and we will see more players from differing nations do so in the future once the taboo around it is lifted and this spirit talk dies down

This point here was made by an Indian national (well, I assume he is).

But the broader point is it isn't a cricket way of life. Which is why it's controversial, and essentially what we are discussing.

 

[Starfighter]

That's the point, bruh. Life moves on.

And life - not to mention law (in a cricket sense) - has decided it is legitimate to run out the batsman at the non-striker's end, regardless of what whingers like you think.

 

[Neil Young]

A life - not to mention law - has decided it is legitimate to run out the batsman at the non-striker's end, regardless of what whingers like you think.

No need for the insults, my friend. We just have different views. Don't get so invested. It's just a forum.

 

[Starfighter]

No need for the insults, my friend. We just have different views. Don't get so invested. It's just a forum.

Invested? You've made far more posts on the issue since yesterday.

 

[Neil Young]

Invested? You're the one who's made about twenty posts on the issue since yesterday.

Well, yeah, I find the discussion interesting and I'm interested in the differing views. But I'm not so invested that I feel the need to insult someone who doesn't agree with me. I don't really care who agrees with me or not. I know I'm right. Or something.

Happy Mankading.

 

[Xix2565]

Hard to respect bragging about blatant idiocy.

 

[ashley bach]

Hard to respect bragging about blatant idiocy.

Hard to respect pricks who ONLY EVER seem to come up with smart arse comments.

 

[Xix2565]

Hard to respect pricks who ONLY EVER seem to come up with smart arse comments.

If there were comments worth more than that I've yet to see them. I'm not sure why I should be blamed for general incompetency.

 

[ashley bach]

If there were comments worth more than that I've yet to see them. I'm not sure why I should be blamed for general incompetency.

It's just not necessary to keep calling others idiots and incompetent.
It may come as a surprise to you, but I enjoy your posts very much, weather I agree with them or not, that doesn't matter.
But there's just no good reason for the abuse, that's always going to get nowhere.

 

[Socerer 01]

This point here was made by an Indian national (well, I assume he is).

But the broader point is it isn't a cricket way of life. Which is why it's controversial, and essentially what we are discussing.

How do you or for the matter the few pros on twitter aghast at it get to decide that this isn’t the cricket way of life when it has occurred throughout the history of the game and has been effected by cricketers from various nations? Sporadically for other reasons yes but it still has. And secondly even here you’ve got TJB agreeing that it was a fair dismissal for one and he isn’t Indian for one. And thirdly there have been fans from various countries on social media who agree on the runout being fair including ones from the Anglosphere

Steve at least has the decency to be accepting that his own point of view on this is limited to his own cricketing experience and the culture he is exposed to although I disagree with him on it being an exclusively Indian thing that he keeps hampering on about for some reason. But it is way better than you and the ashley dude making strawman arguments on how it isn’t something that is a part of cricket, violates the spirit of cricket, is a humans right violation without addressing the crux of the issue which is non-strikers backing up constantly or proposing an alternative to prevent that other than ‘just warn them lulz’ when that has been as effective as a paper boat trying to sail in a storm

 

[Neil Young]

How do you or for the matter the few pros on twitter aghast at it get to decide that this isn’t the cricket way of life when it has occurred throughout the history of the game and has been effected by cricketers from various nations? Sporadically for other reasons yes but it still has. And secondly even here you’ve got TJB agreeing that it was a fair dismissal for one and he isn’t Indian for one. And thirdly there have been fans from various countries on social media who agree on the runout being fair including ones from the Anglosphere

Steve at least has the decency to be accepting that his own point of view on this is limited to his own cricketing experience and the culture he is exposed to although I disagree with him on it being an exclusively Indian thing that he keeps hampering on about for some reason. But it is way better than you and the ashley dude making strawman arguments on how it isn’t something that is a part of cricket, violates the spirit of cricket, is a humans right violation without addressing the crux of the issue which is non-strikers backing up constantly or proposing an alternative to prevent that other than ‘just warn them lulz’ when that has been as effective as a paper boat trying to sail in a storm

hmmm....

Anyway, for whatever reason, this topic seems to have hit a nerve with some of you guys. If players were comfortable with it as a mode of dismissal, we'd see it a lot more cricket (so my sleuthing skills deduce most cricketers agree with me). And despite the protestations I have read on here, it isn't that difficult a skill (is it even a skill?), hence not the reason behind its sporadic appearance in cricket.

As a cricket fan, I understand the rule but I just don't agree with it, and hope it changes. That's not to say the non-striker should be taking liberties; they clearly shouldn't. But that is easily resolved by a word from the umpire and then run deductions for repeated transgressions.

My view really goes little further than that. Not even a hint of a human rights violation.

 

[honestbharani]

I dont think Neil was arguing to the level of mr mr or Ashley. And I am happy to discuss how the laws can ensure a fair balance is stuck between batsmen being forced to stay in the crease at either end and the bowlers not using every ball as an opportunity to try this dismissal. At the very least, the failed attempt at running out the non-striker while backing up should ensure a free-hit for the batsman.


That said, @Neil Young and @SteveNZ , the point is not that only Indians do such dismissals. The point was that it was a very commonplace thing for us growing up. There is a big difference. It does not even mean every Indian cricketer is suddenly a supporter of such dismissals either. But it does explain its not seen as the biggest deal here.

 

[Neil Young]

That said, @Neil Young and @SteveNZ , the point is not that only Indians do such dismissals. The point was that it was a very commonplace thing for us growing up. There is a big difference. It does not even mean every Indian cricketer is suddenly a supporter of such dismissals either. But it does explain its not seen as the biggest deal here.

Ultimately this may just be the big difference in the viewpoints here. And I totally take the point you made yesterday regarding the attitudes of Aus, Eng and NZ posters.

 

[Xix2565]

Anyway, for whatever reason, this topic seems to have hit a nerve with some of you guys. If players were comfortable with it as a mode of dismissal, we'd see it a lot more cricket (so my sleuthing skills deduce most cricketers agree with me). And despite the protestations I have read on here, it isn't that difficult a skill (is it even a skill?), hence not the reason behind its sporadic appearance in cricket.

I mean who're the ones actually making up assumptions to try and justify hurt feelings? Who are the ones yet to make a defensible position on removing it that never moves beyond "I don't like it"? Who never seem to kick up a storm about anything else?

The laws are clear on this, and hurt feelings when the team you support loses only go so far when it comes to denying them or proposing changes that generally have no reason to happen since they concern an imaginary problem made up just to make up the changes. So I'm not sure exactly why people who can't come around to it even now should deserve the benefit of doubt that they are not idiots or in some way competent.

 

[Neil Young]

I mean who're the ones actually making up assumptions to try and justify hurt feelings? Who are the ones yet to make a defensible position on removing it that never moves beyond "I don't like it"? Who never seem to kick up a storm about anything else?

The laws are clear on this, and hurt feelings when the team you support loses only go so far when it comes to denying them or proposing changes that generally have no reason to happen since they concern an imaginary problem made up just to make up the changes. So I'm not sure exactly why people who can't come around to it even now should deserve the benefit of doubt that they are not idiots or in some way competent.

You're quite convinced my feelings are hurt, aren't you?

Anyway, by way of a heads up, the team I support did not lose. They were miles away on a beach.

 

[Xix2565]

You're quite convinced my feelings are hurt, aren't you?

Anyway, by way of a heads up, the team I support did not lose. They were miles away on a beach.

I mean if the logic of the law is relatively sound, why all the fuss? Clearly all the fuss has been on how one feels, that the dismissal is not seen as a proportionate response to the batter gaining a headstart by backing up a lot. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much moaning about the spirit of the game.

The word you can also be used in a general manner to mean the ones I want to address. Doesn't matter who you support or not, there's really no reasons being provided by those against running out the non-striker.

 

[Neil Young]

I mean if the logic of the law is relatively sound, why all the fuss? Clearly all the fuss has been on how one feels, that the dismissal is not seen as a proportionate response to the batter gaining a headstart by backing up a lot. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much moaning about the spirit of the game.

Did I ask you why you think these types of dismissals are not more common? Was it you that said because it was a difficult skill?

My view is that players are not comfortable doing it, hence only 8 or so instances in 80 years of international cricket. Regardless of my personal feelings (hurt or otherwise) on the matter, it's pretty clear (to me) why it doesn't happen more often.

Though, as I have said, it should be taken out of the players' hands. Clearly the prospect of being run out at the bowler's end is not sufficient enough a deterrent if a non-striker can leave their crease 72 times in one innings.