The Mankad

[Red Hill]

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.

There’s a line. Be behind it until you’re sure the bowler’s delivered the ball. Or risk getting run out. It’s not complicated.

 

[Bijed]

Mankads are fine imo. They don't make for interesting or satisfying viewing, but their function is legitmate. When I've played, I've always warned the batsman if they're leaving the crease, but I don't think it's 'wrong' not to.

I want there to be a Mankad off the last ball of a tied super over at the next WC final

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

yeah . . . not quite

No batsman is going to literally watch the ball out of the bowlers hand and not leave the crease until they see that it's been bowled. That's not how cricket works or has worked for a long time.

As long as the batsman waits until the time that the bowler can reasonably expected to have bowled the ball (the laws even state this dircetly IIRC) then it's fine and there should be no risk of being mankaded.

There’s a line. Be behind it until you’re sure the bowler’s delivered the ball. Or risk getting run out. It’s not complicated.

Have you actually played cricket at any semi-decent level or even just watched professional cricket? Do you have any idea how huge a change that would be for a batsman to literally not leave the crease until they watch that the ball has been bowled?

If you really expect or desire that sort of change then fair enough but it's never, ever, going to happen.

 

[Burgey]

There’s a line. Be behind it until you’re sure the bowler’s delivered the ball. Or risk getting run out. It’s not complicated.

Somehow you fail to comprehend the two things are not mutually exclusive.

This is a sport where they’ve brought in penalties to stop fielders from feigning having the ball and throwing it, yet you’re somehow happy to have a bowler pretend to bowl to get a bloke out of their crease.

What a shitful sport it’ll turn into when blokes are worried about whether a fella running into bowl is going to try to fake you out at the non-striker’s end. Say goodbye to the quick single.

 

[zorax]

Yea a bowler is not allowed to 'fake out' a batsman. That's not how the Mankad law works. Complaining about that is like moaning about bad LBW decisions or fielders claiming bump catches. Just because there are potentially errors/dishonesty with the application of the law doesn't make the law bad.

Hard to believe this is actually a sincerely held opinion and not more classic Burgey trolling.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

If all you're saying is the batsman shouldn't try to leave the crease before the bowler releases the ball then of course that's right, and it's their own fault if they get mankaded. No one is arguing with that.

But it sounded like you were suggesting that the non-striker should stand still behind the crease watch the bowlers hand the whole time and not start moving until the ball has been bowled, which I'm pretty sure is what Burgey was responding to and if that is what you're suggesting then he's right to be condescending tbh. Apologies if that's not what you're suggesting and I just misunderstood.

 

[zorax]

It's really not that hard to keep your bat behind the popping crease and to only start backing up once the ball has been released. Literally millions of cricketers have been doing it for half a decade now. I do it all the time

Such a dumb thing to gripe about

 

[Burgey]

That’s not what anyone’s griping about ffs. I realise you have a bit on your plate atm but read the thread ffs.

Edit: and try to comprehend it

 

[Burgey]

If all you're saying is the batsman shouldn't try to leave the crease before the bowler releases the ball then of course that's right, and it's their own fault if they get mankaded. No one is arguing with that.

But it sounded like you were suggesting that the non-striker should stand still behind the crease watch the bowlers hand the whole time and not start moving until the ball has been bowled, which I'm pretty sure is what Burgey was responding to and if that is what you're suggesting then he's right to be condescending tbh. Apologies if that's not what you're suggesting and I just misunderstood.

Don’t apologise, it seems that’s precisely what hb seemed to be suggesting, and if he wasn’t then he needs to have long, hard look at his posting on this issue

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yea a bowler is not allowed to 'fake out' a batsman. That's not how the Mankad law works. Complaining about that is like moaning about bad LBW decisions or fielders claiming bump catches. Just because there are potentially errors/dishonesty with the application of the law doesn't make the law bad.

Hard to believe this is actually a sincerely held opinion and not more classic Burgey trolling.

You realise that you're agreeing with Burgey here?

Effectively, others are saying "you should be allowed to fake out the batsman". And Burgey is saying "no you shouldn't ".

Burgey's the one agreeing with the law

 

[honestbharani]

yeah . . . not quite

No batsman is going to literally watch the ball out of the bowlers hand and not leave the crease until they see that it's been bowled. That's not how cricket works or has worked for a long time.

As long as the batsman waits until the time that the bowler can reasonably expected to have bowled the ball (the laws even state this dircetly IIRC) then it's fine and there should be no risk of being mankaded.



Have you actually played cricket at any semi-decent level or even just watched professional cricket? Do you have any idea how huge a change that would be for a batsman to literally not leave the crease until they watch that the ball has been bowled?

If you really expect or desire that sort of change then fair enough but it's never, ever, going to happen.

If all you're saying is the batsman shouldn't try to leave the crease before the bowler releases the ball then of course that's right, and it's their own fault if they get mankaded. No one is arguing with that.

But it sounded like you were suggesting that the non-striker should stand still behind the crease watch the bowlers hand the whole time and not start moving until the ball has been bowled, which I'm pretty sure is what Burgey was responding to and if that is what you're suggesting then he's right to be condescending tbh. Apologies if that's not what you're suggesting and I just misunderstood.

Don’t apologise, it seems that’s precisely what hb seemed to be suggesting, and if he wasn’t then he needs to have long, hard look at his posting on this issue

Yay at more "I don't agree with your PoV, so you have never played cricket in your life" posts. And yes, its not that difficult to leave the crease AFTER the ball has been bowled even as the non-striker. No one is saying they should not move. IIRC, Steve Waugh was basically running with the bowler when quick runs were needed in the super 6 game in the 1999 WC. The point is batsmen at either end have to ensure they have something behind the line till they are sure they can't be run out and if they leave, there is the risk of them being run out. Simple as.

I never found it that hard to ensure I had something behind the line even when I was backing up as the non-striker. And so do so many batsmen for so many thousands of balls. There is no question of "fairplay" nonsense here. The rules tell the batsmen to stay inside the crease or risk being run out. So don't cry if you do decide to leave the creae and someone runs you out.

 

[googlyeyes]

Might as well ban stumpings tbh. Non strikers have nothing to do and just stroll out like lazy idiots with their mouths open. Wouldn't kill the ****s to make sure that the bowler has released the ball before starting a run.

 

[thecricketstory]

Mankading again!

Even though the law of Mankading is widely reviled, the MCC regard it as essential. Until MCC's stance changes, the law will remain on the books. Background to the law/MCC stand is detailed in the video below.

 

[Red Hill]

Have you actually played cricket at any semi-decent level or even just watched professional cricket? Do you have any idea how huge a change that would be for a batsman to literally not leave the crease until they watch that the ball has been bowled?

You wanna turn this into a pissing contest about who's played the most/higher grade cricket?

I'm not even gonna pretend I am elite. But I've played in excess of 250 games of club cricket. I know how the game works. And it's perfectly feasible (and indeed is coached at a junior level) for the non-striker to start back from the crease, follow the bowlers momentum thru the crease and start backing up as the ball is delivered.

Somehow you fail to comprehend the two things are not mutually exclusive.

This is a sport where they’ve brought in penalties to stop fielders from feigning having the ball and throwing it, yet you’re somehow happy to have a bowler pretend to bowl to get a bloke out of their crease.

What a shitful sport it’ll turn into when blokes are worried about whether a fella running into bowl is going to try to fake you out at the non-striker’s end. Say goodbye to the quick single.

See above. The non striker doesn't have to stand static and watch the ball be delivered. He just has to time his movement in backing up with the bowler's run in and delivery stride and actually be aware of what's happening. It has no impact on the short single unless the only way you were gonna get a short single was by being a mile out of your crease at point of delivery, in which case you deserve to be mankadded (or at least warned), and in which case we are back where we began, ie. the non-striker taking an unfair advantage.

 

[OverratedSanity]

See above. The non striker doesn't have to stand static and watch the ball be delivered. He just has to time his movement in backing up with the bowler's run in and delivery stride and actually be aware of what's happening.

Ummm, but he cant do that if the bowler is deliberately deceptive in his action which is what Burgey is talking about.

Dont have a problem with the mankad in general, but all attempted mankads arent the same. The premeditated kind where the batsman doesnt even have an advantage in terms of leeaving the crease early because he only left the crease at the time the bowler wouldve delivered the ball (if he hadnt deliberately slowed down) are kinda ****.

I like the one run short idea cabinet proposed, makes things much simpler.

 

[Howe_zat]

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

I'm pretty ambivalent about the Mankad but it is a very different thing to decieving a batsman with a real delivery. Running out the non-striker just isn't the same thing as bowling because it doesn't involve a ball being bowled, and that's what starts cricket.

It feels off kilter to me when a bowler deliberately tries to Mankad a batsman by making him think he's about to bowl it, because he's got the batsman out on a technicality without doing any cricket. It's like making the opposition walk through a confusing corrior in the pavilion so as they get timed out, or sending someone to deflate the tyres on the opposition team bus.

Fine, if a batsman is out by his own cockup and can't keep his bat in place. But what we saw in the U19s (and in the world T20 first round a few years ago) and celebrating it like they took a real wicket is just not kosher IMO.

 

[Howe_zat]

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.

****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

Did you guys see the recent one? Or the one from the T20 with Chapman against Oman?

The non-striker wasn't trying to steal a run in either case. They were timing their run perfectly and left the crease at the same moment the ball would have been bowled, if the bowler was actually trying to bowl. Instead the bowler is further down the pitch than the batsman, then spins around and goes for the wrong set of stumps. It's lousy.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yea a bowler is not allowed to 'fake out' a batsman. That's not how the Mankad law works. Complaining about that is like moaning about bad LBW decisions or fielders claiming bump catches. Just because there are potentially errors/dishonesty with the application of the law doesn't make the law bad.

Hard to believe this is actually a sincerely held opinion and not more classic Burgey trolling.

That's totally what we're seeing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J67BXBHJa9A

 

[OverratedSanity]

Did you guys see the recent one? Or the one from the T20 with Chapman against Oman?

The non-striker wasn't trying to steal a run in either case. They were timing their run perfectly and left the crease at the same moment the ball would have been bowled, if the bowler was actually trying to bowl. Instead the bowler is further down the pitch than the batsman, then spins around and goes for the wrong set of stumps. It's lousy.

The laws state the batsman can't leave until the bowler is "normally expected to deliver the ball" (or do they, the whole things a bit of a mess) , so literally the only problem with every Mankad controversy has been the umpires not actually making the decision and determining whether the dismissal was a valid Mankad according to the law as written. I don't see why the umpires involved couldn't just say "yeah that's not actually out according to the rules"

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yay at more "I don't agree with your PoV, so you have never played cricket in your life" posts. And yes, its not that difficult to leave the crease AFTER the ball has been bowled even as the non-striker. No one is saying they should not move. IIRC, Steve Waugh was basically running with the bowler when quick runs were needed in the super 6 game in the 1999 WC. The point is batsmen at either end have to ensure they have something behind the line till they are sure they can't be run out and if they leave, there is the risk of them being run out. Simple as.

I never found it that hard to ensure I had something behind the line even when I was backing up as the non-striker. And so do so many batsmen for so many thousands of balls. There is no question of "fairplay" nonsense here. The rules tell the batsmen to stay inside the crease or risk being run out. So don't cry if you do decide to leave the creae and someone runs you out.

I don't really get what you're saying here, as you're not adding anything new to the conversation as far as I can tell. The issue we're discussing is about whether the batsmen needs to look out for the bowler faking him out.

You wanna turn this into a pissing contest about who's played the most/higher grade cricket?

I'm not even gonna pretend I am elite. But I've played in excess of 250 games of club cricket. I know how the game works. And it's perfectly feasible (and indeed is coached at a junior level) for the non-striker to start back from the crease, follow the bowlers momentum thru the crease and start backing up as the ball is delivered.



See above. The non striker doesn't have to stand static and watch the ball be delivered. He just has to time his movement in backing up with the bowler's run in and delivery stride and actually be aware of what's happening. It has no impact on the short single unless the only way you were gonna get a short single was by being a mile out of your crease at point of delivery, in which case you deserve to be mankadded (or at least warned), and in which case we are back where we began, ie. the non-striker taking an unfair advantage.

I'm not going to argue about whether completely changing the way the game is played is good or bad. Just be aware that what you are suggesting is a huge change to the way the game of cricket is currently played at most levels, not just elite. Maybe it would be for the better and be fairer, idk, but I'm going to reiterate that it's simply not going to happen.