Mankads

[RossTaylorsBox]

Faking is the only way a Mankad happens

That and a batter leaving their crease.

 

[honestbharani]

Anyways, I dont think batsmen backing up is cheating either. Its a risk and the run-out is the worst case and the quicker run is the reward.

Mankads should be the method used to stop short runs. They're part of the game and neither thing is cheating.

Was literally typing the above as your reply came up. lol

 

[Xix2565]

Yeah I'd much rather be known as dumb with a good heart rather than a smart prick nobody likes

Neither are equivalent to brainless tbf so you do you.

 

[Starfighter]

If laws are put in place to preserve the spirit of cricket, then that means Mankads don't contravene the spirit of cricket since there's no laws preventing them.

The fact his point elides @social baffles me. If we stop talking about Bodyline for a moment (and no, leg side fielding restrictions had nothing to do with Bodyline, and everything to do with perceived issues in the post-war game), reactions to incidents up to and including the Mankad's runout of Brown are generally clear that it even if it was sneaky it was legitimate. No need to invoke 'spirit', something the laws themselves do not mention until the 1980 code. The deeply negative perception of the dismissal seems to have developed some time significantly after WWII.

This is Note 2 of Law 27 (No Ball) of the Laws of Cricket as adopted on May 7 1947:

2. Law 46 Note 4 (vii) covers attempts to run before the ball is delivered, but should the non-striker unfairly leave his ground too soon, the fielding side may run out the batsman at the bowler's end by any recognised method. If the bowler throws at the near wicket, the umpire does not call "No Ball", though any runs resulting are so scored. The throw does not count in the "Over".

 

[Victor Ian]

Anyways, I dont think batsmen backing up is cheating either. Its a risk and the run-out is the worst case and the quicker run is the reward.

Yeah. A batsman is quite within their rights to try and gain an easier run. It's like stealing a base in baseball. But if you don't time it properly, the risk will get you out.

What was most amazing about the particular mankad that has started this discussion is how the batsman was half way down the crease and still running when the bowler had stopped and walked back to the stumps to run them out. A complete lack of care on the batsman's part.

 

[mr_mister]

Neither are equivalent to brainless tbf so you do you.

Dumb = brainless

 

[honestbharani]

I really dislike all this focus on the bowler and their having to live to a set of standards contrary to the laws.



Not at all. The only way a mankad happens is by the non striker being out of their crease. All the faking in the world wont get a batsman out if they stay in their crease and don't try to gain an unfair advantage.

Its not the robber's fault if you fake leaving your home and they come in to steal and you come back, man. Its yours.

 

[mr_mister]

Its not the robber's fault if you fake leaving your home and they come in to steal and you come back, man. Its yours.

We need stand your ground laws in cricket

 

[Son Of Coco]

What I don't get is why batsmen aren't held accountable for running short runs. It's literal cheating. My only problem with Mankading potentially is bowlers faking out the batsmen. But hey, umpires exist for a reason.

They are. The run doesn't count.

 

[Victor Ian]

I would like to know if trying to gain that extra foot or two is even worth it. How many quick singles do you get in a game? Is it enough to make up for the times you get run out because of the confusion of urgency it creates to try and take that run? Too often, someone is half way down the pitch, so the batsman starts to run, before they realise they never should have taken it. Many times they get back, but a lot of run outs are caused by trying to steal quick singles. If the average is 30 runs for batsmen, do they actually steal enough runs to make up for the muddled runouts this brings?

 

[Starfighter]

I would like to know if trying to gain that extra foot or two is even worth it. How many quick singles do you get in a game? Is it enough to make up for the times you get run out because of the confusion of urgency it creates to try and take that run? Too often, someone is half way down the pitch, so the batsman starts to run, before they realise they never should have taken it. Many times they get back, but a lot of run outs are caused by trying to steal quick singles. If the average is 30 runs for batsmen, do they actually steal enough runs to make up for the muddled runouts this brings?

Batsmen keep going for quick singles, so I can imagine the think it's worth it and frankly that's more important than the actual effect.

And really, run outs are not all that common, not least because many attempts miss.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I would like to know if trying to gain that extra foot or two is even worth it. How many quick singles do you get in a game? Is it enough to make up for the times you get run out because of the confusion of urgency it creates to try and take that run? Too often, someone is half way down the pitch, so the batsman starts to run, before they realise they never should have taken it. Many times they get back, but a lot of run outs are caused by trying to steal quick singles. If the average is 30 runs for batsmen, do they actually steal enough runs to make up for the muddled runouts this brings?

It's a good question. I can't see how the difference between walking through the crease as the bowler bowls, keeping your bat behind the line, and getting a headstart that means you are out of the crease completely is so great that the latter is of any benefit. Particularly when it carries multiple risks of getting out.

 

[Victor Ian]

Batsmen keep going for quick singles, so I can imagine the think it's worth it and frankly that's more important than the actual effect.

And really, run outs are not all that common, not least because many attempts miss.

How much is uncommon? To me it feels like there is usually 1 per game, in ODI's. That could be way off the mark. Is this a figure anyone can quickly find?

 

[mr_mister]

You'd all be the cops who give tickets to people going 1kmph over the speed limit

 

[mr_mister]

I would like to know if trying to gain that extra foot or two is even worth it. How many quick singles do you get in a game? Is it enough to make up for the times you get run out because of the confusion of urgency it creates to try and take that run? Too often, someone is half way down the pitch, so the batsman starts to run, before they realise they never should have taken it. Many times they get back, but a lot of run outs are caused by trying to steal quick singles. If the average is 30 runs for batsmen, do they actually steal enough runs to make up for the muddled runouts this brings?

IMO backing up is mainly about getting your speed up for the run rather than that extra inch. Nobody expected bowlers to go full nerd with it

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

You'd all be the cops who give tickets to people going 1kmph over the speed limit

Incorrect, I think cars should be abolished entirely.

 

[mr_mister]

Incorrect, I think cars should be abolished entirely.

This is the most RTB post ever haha

 

[Starfighter]

How much is uncommon? To me it feels like there is usually 1 per game, in ODI's. That could be way off the mark. Is this a figure anyone can quickly find?

I'm talking about tests.

 

[honestbharani]

I would like to know if trying to gain that extra foot or two is even worth it. How many quick singles do you get in a game? Is it enough to make up for the times you get run out because of the confusion of urgency it creates to try and take that run? Too often, someone is half way down the pitch, so the batsman starts to run, before they realise they never should have taken it. Many times they get back, but a lot of run outs are caused by trying to steal quick singles. If the average is 30 runs for batsmen, do they actually steal enough runs to make up for the muddled runouts this brings?

In this instance, for example, the difference was between a #11 and an actual capable batter facing more deliveries. I think it does make a difference given the way cricket is set up, where everyone has to bat but not everyone has to bowl. And yes, this can be a very useful thing even in tests if there was no risk associated.

 

[Starfighter]

IMO backing up is mainly about getting your speed up for the run rather than that extra inch.

One can very easily time 'getting one's momentum up' to arrive at the crease at release or slightly after. Doing it in a manner (as some do) so one is consistently well down the wicket means it is reasonable to infer additional reasons.

Nobody expected bowlers to go full nerd with it

Considering the earliest definitely known such dismissal was in 1843, batsmen have had plenty of forewarning.

This was published in a well known instructional book in 1845:



I would suggest that batsmen would do well to heed the advice.