Most cricket fans either would have seen it by now, or least heard about it. It's been making waves on social media (like everything seems to do), the radio and the TV. It is of course the "Mankading" incident in the final over of the Under 19's World Cup match between West Indies and Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe, needed just 2 to win off the last over with just 1 wicket remaining. WI paceman Keemo Paul came running in, then this happened.
Mankading - the act of the bowler breaking the wicket at the non-striker's end as he runs up to bowl, and running out the non-striker who is walking out of his crease too early.
It was named after Indian all-rounder Vinoo Mankad who, in the second test of a tour to Australia in 1947- 48, ran out Bill Brown at the non-striker's end. Despite having done exactly the same thing earlier in the series, this incident in the Test really brought it to the attention of the public and particularly the press.
The current law is slightly confusing in it's origin, but quite clear. Historically the MCC have been the custodians of the laws of cricket but all laws created and amended by them are ratified by the ICC before being applied to matches. The original MCC law (Law 42.15) reads as follows:
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead Ball as soon as possible.
This law was in place during the famous Vinoo Mankad Test match, and quite simply Mankad had not done anything wrong. His actions were in keeping with the laws of the game.
What many may be unaware of however, is that in 2011 the ICC tweaked this law slightly. They replaced before entering his delivery stride with before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing.
Crucially for Keemo Paul, this slight law change also meant that his actions were in keeping with the laws of the game. He has also done nothing wrong.
So why all the controversy?
Immediately after this incident, Twitter instantly went mental. (As it often does). Current players, ex-players, writers and fans all have an opinion and there seem to be few issues in cricket that have divided opinion more than mankading. Most are either vehemently against it, or can't see the problem with it.
Historically it has been accepted that if a bowler feels that the batsman is backing up too far, a warning is given before a run out is attempted. Good old spirit of the game. Growing up, I always thought this was the law of the game. You gave 1 warning, then it's fair game. But even then it never entered my head as I trundled in to bowl to mankad. Even if a prior warning was given. In 12 years of club cricket (which occasionally throws up some idiot attention-seeker who likes to show off his knowledge of the laws to make up for his crapness) I've never seen a mankading incident. In the professional game it rarely happens. Perhaps because of the inevitable press melee that will follow it. Even in professional sport, nobody wants the reputation as a bad sport. Just look at the famous Trevor Chappell under-arm ball incident and Stuart Broad not walking in the Ashes test.
I like to take a pragmatic view of it.
The bottom line is, in the laws of the game, it shouldn't be a problem. It's perfectly legal to run out a non-striker if he's backing up too much, and who can blame a bowler for doing it? Modern day bowlers, especially in one-day cricket are getting more and more flogged. They can't over step when they run in to bowl and have a strict channel in which to bowl in otherwise it's called wide. Why should a batsman be able to steal a yard without retribution? And what makes it worthy of a gentlemanly warning? It's pretty close to cheating in fact. It's always accepted that batsmen can overstep the line when it comes to the spirit of the game. They never walk when they nick it. Surely this is win for a bowler? I don't think you can escape the feeling of hypocrisy when a mankading incident is so maligned by many. I completely agree that a batsman should be more prepared to be run out if he tries to push his luck at the non-striker's end.
But in this case, I think I'm against what happened.
The psychology behind it leaves me feeling very uneasy. At no point was the Zimbabwe batsman trying to gain extra ground. Keemo Paul ran in to the crease with no intention of bowling that ball. The batsman was out of his crease by a millimetre and actually did a better job of staying in his crease than most do. Paul was simply trying it on. What's the difference between this and a batsman not walking you ask? Michael Atherton once wrote that he never walked when he edged it as he felt that in the professional game the umpires are paid to make the decision when it came to marginal calls. With the review system at present, a batsman doesn't easily get away with it now. The skill of the umpire (and they are very skilled, just like the players) was never called upon.
Overall I feel it was a sad sight that a tight match was ended by an incident like this. It just feels wrong. It doesn't feel like it should be part of the game, and it doesn't feel like a match with such importance (a quarter final place of a world cup was at stake) should be decided in the absence of a piece of cricketing skill. I think that it's this general feeling of unfairness that sways it for me. It's ugly to see an U19 player who may be the future of the game to feel comfortable trying a tactic that is so frowned upon by so many. The spirit of cricket is important. It's what makes cricket a game rather than a business.
I'm sure it'll happen again as this may have set a precendent. If it happens in a senior World Cup match, Twitter may explode..
Saturday, 6 February 2016
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Cricketing Characters #5: Eric Rowan
As all men that have ever played cricket know, there is one absolutely indispensable piece of kit that you would never consider for an instant leaving out of your kit bag. Even more important than the bat. Unless you were aiming for a career as a soprano singer, the box is the first piece of kit that goes on when you're padding up. Having said that, I've had the occasional alarming lapse when I've forgotten it, but have always remembered before reaching the middle.
This guy on the other hand, scored 150 in a test match without wearing one...
This is Eric Rowan. He was born in Johannesburg in 1909 and played first class cricket for Transvaal and Eastern Province, as well Test cricket for South Africa. An often controversial and demonstrative figure, he regularly took on the cricketing establishment both on and off the pitch.
He made his Test debut in 1935 at the age of 25 when on tour to England, as a reward for a prolific few years opening the batting for Transvaal. Wisden reported: "He did not bat with either dignity or precision; he regarded his cricket in most lighthearted style; his confidence was amazing".
He had a stuttering early test career, with inconsistency meaning he was in and out of the team. His initial brimming self confidence playing for Transvaal as a youngster was especially bruised in his second tour for South Africa against Australia, when bowler Charlie Grimmett had him dismissed 5 times in his 6 innings, leading to him being dropped. A pre-war test recall was not forthcoming, and was reportedly as much due to an abrasive manner when it came to authority as it was about lack of runs.
Runs were fairly hard to come by in the subsequent pre-war years until in 1939 he scored a record 309 not out for Transvaal against Natal. This stood as a first class record in South Africa right up until 1993. The war curtailed this upward cricketing momentum however, with a South Africa not playing first class cricket again until 1945. Eric himself serving as a Lieutenant in the Armoured Car Regiment.
When first class cricket resumed, Eric picked up where he left off, nearly scoring a second triple century (284) in 1945 against Griqualand West. Despite his form he had to wait until 1948 until a Test recall came his way, when he was selected for the home series against England.
Perhaps a sign of his ability to rub people up the wrong way, it was announced during play in the second test that Eric would be dropped for the next test. The selectors clearly had an axe to grind! Eric proceeded to score 156 not out to save the test, reportedly so incensed that he went out forgetting to insert the all important box. He batted for 6 hours and reportedly found time to give the selectors a V sign from the middle. When questioned about this he said he was giving them a V for Victory and when told that it was wrong way round he replied "it depends what side of the ground you're sitting"
This performance was enough to get him restored to the test team for the next test, but his relationship with the captain Dudley Nourse remained strained. His performances on the field made him impossible to ignore however, scoring a Currie Cup record of 277 not out in 1950, then plundering 176 before lunch in a match against Rhodesia later the same year.
Further controversy followed in a 1951 Test against England at Old Trafford when he was batting with John Waite. So slow was the run rate, that the pair were slow hand-clapped by the increasingly restless spectators. In true rebellious Eric Rowan style, he and Waite responded by sitting down on the pitch and waited for the clapping to stop. Eric was later reportedly involved in a scuffle in the pavilion on the way off. Clearly his actions ruffled some feathers with the Lancashire faithful.
Despite the various spicy incidents, this 1951 tour proved to be the making of Eric. He was picked as vice captain, and often found himself leading the team due to injury to the skipper Nourse. He went on to dominate the tour with the bat. He hit his highest test score of 236 at Headingley and topped the batting averages in both test cricket and first class cricket. This was enough to see him named Wisden's Cricketer of the Year in 1951.
Somewhat surprisingly he was not retained in the South African squad the following year. Despite being 43 years old he was seemingly still in his prime as a batsman. He responded to his omission from the test squad by having his most prolific season in first class cricket. He retired from first class cricket shortly afterwards however, sensing a test return was not on the cards.
Post retirement he continued playing club cricket in Transvaal until the age of 51 for Jeppe Old Boys, and continued to work with schools for many more years. He passed away in 1993 aged 84.
Eric's career is beset by controversy, fall outs, fights and above all, tenacity. His greatest achievements came when he was going head to head with authority. Maybe it's urban legend that he scored that 150 against England without wearing a box, but it seems to fit with his overall story. He reportedly occasionally omitted his batting gloves as well. Whatever else he was, he was clearly a hard man who evokes a image of a 70's footballer - tough, muddy, an everyman. An image that's lacking in modern sport with all it's professionalism and scrutiny. Although the odd dust-up does happen on the pitch, to me it has often the air of spoilt kids who know the camera is on them (Virat Kohli, David Warner, Marlon Samuels, I'm talking about you in particular..). It seems Eric genuinely didn't care and played the game in his own way. And even if his story has the added the embellishment that time often brings, it's still a good one.
I certainly won't be doing away with my box though in tribute though..
This guy on the other hand, scored 150 in a test match without wearing one...
This is Eric Rowan. He was born in Johannesburg in 1909 and played first class cricket for Transvaal and Eastern Province, as well Test cricket for South Africa. An often controversial and demonstrative figure, he regularly took on the cricketing establishment both on and off the pitch.
He made his Test debut in 1935 at the age of 25 when on tour to England, as a reward for a prolific few years opening the batting for Transvaal. Wisden reported: "He did not bat with either dignity or precision; he regarded his cricket in most lighthearted style; his confidence was amazing".
He had a stuttering early test career, with inconsistency meaning he was in and out of the team. His initial brimming self confidence playing for Transvaal as a youngster was especially bruised in his second tour for South Africa against Australia, when bowler Charlie Grimmett had him dismissed 5 times in his 6 innings, leading to him being dropped. A pre-war test recall was not forthcoming, and was reportedly as much due to an abrasive manner when it came to authority as it was about lack of runs.
Runs were fairly hard to come by in the subsequent pre-war years until in 1939 he scored a record 309 not out for Transvaal against Natal. This stood as a first class record in South Africa right up until 1993. The war curtailed this upward cricketing momentum however, with a South Africa not playing first class cricket again until 1945. Eric himself serving as a Lieutenant in the Armoured Car Regiment.
When first class cricket resumed, Eric picked up where he left off, nearly scoring a second triple century (284) in 1945 against Griqualand West. Despite his form he had to wait until 1948 until a Test recall came his way, when he was selected for the home series against England.
Perhaps a sign of his ability to rub people up the wrong way, it was announced during play in the second test that Eric would be dropped for the next test. The selectors clearly had an axe to grind! Eric proceeded to score 156 not out to save the test, reportedly so incensed that he went out forgetting to insert the all important box. He batted for 6 hours and reportedly found time to give the selectors a V sign from the middle. When questioned about this he said he was giving them a V for Victory and when told that it was wrong way round he replied "it depends what side of the ground you're sitting"
This performance was enough to get him restored to the test team for the next test, but his relationship with the captain Dudley Nourse remained strained. His performances on the field made him impossible to ignore however, scoring a Currie Cup record of 277 not out in 1950, then plundering 176 before lunch in a match against Rhodesia later the same year.
Further controversy followed in a 1951 Test against England at Old Trafford when he was batting with John Waite. So slow was the run rate, that the pair were slow hand-clapped by the increasingly restless spectators. In true rebellious Eric Rowan style, he and Waite responded by sitting down on the pitch and waited for the clapping to stop. Eric was later reportedly involved in a scuffle in the pavilion on the way off. Clearly his actions ruffled some feathers with the Lancashire faithful.
Despite the various spicy incidents, this 1951 tour proved to be the making of Eric. He was picked as vice captain, and often found himself leading the team due to injury to the skipper Nourse. He went on to dominate the tour with the bat. He hit his highest test score of 236 at Headingley and topped the batting averages in both test cricket and first class cricket. This was enough to see him named Wisden's Cricketer of the Year in 1951.
Somewhat surprisingly he was not retained in the South African squad the following year. Despite being 43 years old he was seemingly still in his prime as a batsman. He responded to his omission from the test squad by having his most prolific season in first class cricket. He retired from first class cricket shortly afterwards however, sensing a test return was not on the cards.
Post retirement he continued playing club cricket in Transvaal until the age of 51 for Jeppe Old Boys, and continued to work with schools for many more years. He passed away in 1993 aged 84.
Eric's career is beset by controversy, fall outs, fights and above all, tenacity. His greatest achievements came when he was going head to head with authority. Maybe it's urban legend that he scored that 150 against England without wearing a box, but it seems to fit with his overall story. He reportedly occasionally omitted his batting gloves as well. Whatever else he was, he was clearly a hard man who evokes a image of a 70's footballer - tough, muddy, an everyman. An image that's lacking in modern sport with all it's professionalism and scrutiny. Although the odd dust-up does happen on the pitch, to me it has often the air of spoilt kids who know the camera is on them (Virat Kohli, David Warner, Marlon Samuels, I'm talking about you in particular..). It seems Eric genuinely didn't care and played the game in his own way. And even if his story has the added the embellishment that time often brings, it's still a good one.
I certainly won't be doing away with my box though in tribute though..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)