The Mankad

[TheJediBrah]

Sure. Has it happened ever though?

On individual occasions? Absolutely. With enough regularity to be an issue now? No, but things are clearly changing with regard to how "Mankads" are regarded and the potential for them becoming more mainstream and it's definitely a possible consequence

 

[ankitj]

I have only ever seen Mankad attempts to be successful. Never seen wickets broken when non striker batsman is inside.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I have only ever seen Mankad attempts to be successful. Never seen wickets broken when non striker batsman is inside.

Whether or not the wickets are broken or not is irrelevent. It's the same issue (or potential issue) if they just stop before bowling and move to do it. And it happened in one of the T20 WC games yesterday, or might have been the day before

 

[ankitj]

Whether or not the wickets are broken or not is irrelevent. It's the same issue (or potential issue) if they just stop before bowling and move to do it. And it happened in one of the T20 WC games yesterday, or might have been the day before

You imagine that fielding side does Mankading because they scheme steal an "undeserving" wicket. But I think (partly based on playing in an environment where Mankading was not uncommon) it happens because bowlers find it annoying, distracting and unfair that batters will leave the crease before the ball is delivered. Hence attempts always happen after bowler sees batsman leaving the crease clearly. Hence what you describe never happens.

What happened few days back, if you are referring to same event in my mind, was again what I described here. And wickets were not broken. It pretty much served as a warning.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You imagine that fielding side does Mankading because they scheme steal an "undeserving" wicket. But I think (partly based on playing in an environment where Mankading was not uncommon) it happens because bowlers find it annoying, distracting and unfair that batters will leave the crease before the ball is delivered. Hence attempts always happen after bowler sees batsman leaving the crease clearly. Hence what you describe never happens.

No you misunderstand completely. As far as I'm concerned if the batter is out of their crease then they deserve to be run out, no warnings needed, and the bowlers have every right to do it.

What I'm talking about is a potential world where bowlers start doing it just to try their luck. The more I think about the more I doubt it's going to become a huge issue because the vast majority of bowlers are not really going to try it and most batsmen will start to wake up to the dangers, which is already happening.

I don't think it's likely to be common but the difference in incentives is too great for some not to consider doing it. If you get it right it's a wicket, if you get it wrong and the batsman never left their crease there's genuinely no downside other than maybe a slight sting to over rates but that's nothing, relatively speaking.

What happened few days back, if you are referring to same event in my mind, was again what I described here. And wickets were not broken. It pretty much served as a warning.

I haven't been watching much but the one I saw I think was Kane Richardson batting against Afghanistan, and he wasn't leaving his crease early at all, or at any stage of the innings. That's not a "warning", it's gamesmanship.

 

[Shady Slim]

what's cool about the no ball idea is it, theoretically, also removes the need for the warning and the etiquette brouhaha around it too

you're out of your crease, boom, gonezo, if you're not, bowler's made a tactical choice and team pays with the noey, done.

 

[TheJediBrah]

what's cool about the no ball idea is it, theoretically, also removes the need for the warning and the etiquette brouhaha around it too

you're out of your crease, boom, gonezo, if you're not, bowler's made a tactical choice and team pays with the noey, done.

Yep pretty much solves any issues doesn't it.

Theoretically however, a distinction would have to be drawn as to exactly where the no-ball is called and where it isn't. At some point between the bowler pulling up and not bowling (which happens often) and actually knocking the bails over deliberately.

 

[_00_deathscar]

It solves the issue and ok to bring it in, but what the **** are you on about @TheJediBrah - acting like bowlers are attempting Mankads every over.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It solves the issue and ok to bring it in, but what the **** are you on about @TheJediBrah - acting like bowlers are attempting Mankads every over.

Come on guys I feel like some of you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I've been very clear, it just takes a little reading:

With enough regularity to be an issue now? No, but things are clearly changing with regard to how "Mankads" are regarded and the potential for them becoming more mainstream and it's definitely a possible consequence

 

[_00_deathscar]

It’s only a potential issue if batsmen keep breaching that line, in which case they deserve it.

The deterrent to cross that line is there. And you don’t need one to not mankad, it just means batsmen aren’t crossing that line.
No one is going to mankad if batsmen stay behind that crease.

 

[ankitj]

Bowlers legitimately don't want to have to watch the non striker's bat. Not even Ashwin.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If Mankads are only attempted when batsmen are stealing ground then there's no point caring about whether it's a no-ball or not, because it will never happen. So why be against it?

 

[cnerd123]

I feel like some of you are deliberately misunderstanding me.

I feel like you're deliberately being a moronic troll

How do you function in day to day life being such an imbecile?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I feel like you're deliberately being a moronic troll

How do you function in day to day life being such an imbecile?

However it is seems to have worked out a lot better for me than whatever you're doing has for you

take care brother

 

[Ashes81]

For me the Mankad should only be used in exceptional circumstances, when a batsmen is consistently out of his ground and has been warned by the bowler.

Anything else, particularly when it's at the end of a very tight game, leaves a pretty sour taste.

 

[Xix2565]

Suck on that tbh. Anything can be sour based on whether your team loses.

 

[Socerer 01]

For me the Mankad should only be used in exceptional circumstances, when a batsmen is consistently out of his ground and has been warned by the bowler.

Anything else, particularly when it's at the end of a very tight game, leaves a pretty sour taste.

but what if the batsmen has been consistently out of his ground, warned by the bowler and it's at the end of a very tight game huh? HUH?

 

[ankitj]

Anything else, particularly when it's at the end of a very tight game, leaves a pretty sour taste.

That's not because Mankading is inherently bad. That's just our conditioning over the years.

 

[Ashes81]

but what if the batsmen has been consistently out of his ground, warned by the bowler and it's at the end of a very tight game huh? HUH?

Then do it.

Why don't sides Mankad consistently then - do it in the 2nd over of a T20 instead of the 19th or whatever.

Invariably it's only ever used as a last resort and has nothing to do with a particular batsmen taking the piss.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Then do it.

Why don't sides Mankad consistently then - do it in the 2nd over of a T20 instead of the 19th or whatever.

Because that's when batsmen tend to leave their crease early