*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[honestbharani]

It is just stupidly wrong and inaccurate, simply because of the number of people who play cricket in India.

And I was run out this way when I was 12 playing U15s when 3 people pulled out the last minute at school due to failing their exams the previous day. Anecdotally, it has always been the batter who was blamed when they were dismissed this way and it happens quite often in the levels I played at, in beach, street and school cricket.

Funnily enough, it almost never led to a fight and in beach cricket, we have had fights about batsmen getting bowled.

FWIW, this was about 25 years ago.

 

[SteveNZ]

How did you get that from my comment? Some people acting holier than thou while doing other acts that are even worse just shows that "spirit of the game" is something that is completely made up and exists only where it is convenient.

Where do you get this 99.9% from? Considering that most cricketers (including casual) are in India and you will absolutely get run out backing up that far in India you are surely wrong.

Ok, so are we mature enough to have a conversation about why it seems to be a strictly Indian mode of dismissal? Mankad, Ashwin, Deepti, and apparently the whole nation do it. That isn't the case anywhere else in the world.

Why?

 

[Cruxdude]

Ok, so are we mature enough to have a conversation about why it seems to be a strictly Indian mode of dismissal? Mankad, Ashwin, Deepti, and apparently the whole nation do it. That isn't the case anywhere else in the world.

Why?

I had responded earlier to this. Posting it again here.

I saw someone post on twitter that most Indians start playing cricket through gully cricket and other equivalents which are pretty cut throat. So these sort of things are pretty much considered par for the course. Maybe that explains why it is completely acceptable for many Indians and not for the rest.

I think what makes this argument so bitter is that people who oppose this seem to attack the morals of the players for no fault of theirs.

When we play cricket, it is pretty much like 10 overs or so and the onus is to run as much as possible and steal as many runs as possible. We take the risk knowing that we can be run out and it is pretty much accepted.

 

[Cruxdude]

Ok, so are we mature enough to have a conversation about why it seems to be a strictly Indian mode of dismissal? Mankad, Ashwin, Deepti, and apparently the whole nation do it. That isn't the case anywhere else in the world.

Why?

So a counter question. Why are you fine with a batsman getting a 2 ft advantage when looking for quick runs? Do you think it is completely fine for a batsman to do it without any consequence?

 

[SteveNZ]

I saw someone post on twitter that most Indians start playing cricket through gully cricket and other equivalents which are pretty cut throat. So these sort of things are pretty much considered par for the course. Maybe that explains why it is completely acceptable for many Indians and not for the rest.

I think what makes this argument so bitter is that people who oppose this seem to attack the morals of the players for no fault of theirs.

Well no, now that the context is given, I personally am happy. I learned something I didn't know or hadn't considered. Maybe it's the passion,the upbringing, the win at all costs that is indoctrinated into Indians from a very young age.

And I can speak as a cricketer in NZ, you wouldn't be allowed to Mankad at junior levels. Youd get a very hostile reception if you tried it at senior level...no youd probably get knocked out.

So there's your spirit of cricket difference. All we needed to do was listen to each other's point of view rather than attack and deride it.

 

[SteveNZ]

So a counter question. Why are you fine with a batsman getting a 2 ft advantage when looking for quick runs? Do you think it is completely fine for a batsman to do it without any consequence?

I'm not. I've said all along I want a stronger law that I now know needs to consider the viewpoint of all nations and the way they play.

 

[Socerer 01]

Ok, so are we mature enough to have a conversation about why it seems to be a strictly Indian mode of dismissal? Mankad, Ashwin, Deepti, and apparently the whole nation do it. That isn't the case anywhere else in the world.

Why?

Just off the top of my head, Keemo Paul and Noor Ahmad have done it in u19 world cups, Senanayake did it versus Buttler once, Charlie Griffith and Ewen Chatfield have done it once and Gayle once joked about doing it on field

So no this isn’t a case of this being an Indian only thing as you seem to believe

 

[Cruxdude]

I'm not. I've said all along I want a stronger law that I now know needs to consider the viewpoint of all nations and the way they play.

I am guessing you will be ok with Ash's suggestion of having a dot ball followed by a free hit for the bowler when the third umpire detects it.

But what do we do in the meanwhile when the MCC wants people to effect a run out. Just give the batsmen a free run? I say keep running the non-striker out till the rules are changed if they ever are.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not. I've said all along I want a stronger law that I now know needs to consider the viewpoint of all nations and the way they play.

I think the problem is the fact that a lot of the Eng and NZ cricketers seem to think the "now" part of this. Shouldn't the law ALWAYS need to consider the viewpoint of all nations and the way they play?

You can clearly see why its grating to have Eng or Aus or NZ cricketers explain what the spirit of cricket means everytime to every other country and their players?

 

[Neil Young]

I am totally ok to agree to disagree. This law and the way its interpreted is one of my biggest pet peeves in cricket, so I do realize I maybe a bit more aggressive on this than normal. Sorry about that. I just dont think anyone should be put through questions and judgements of morality and fairness for simply running out a batter when they were not in their crease with the ball in play.

All fair enough. I do think, though, the more common it ever became, the less common it would become. Because as had been repeatedly highlighted in this thread, it's not difficult for a batsman to keep behind the line. And they would soon learn their lesson.

 

[Socerer 01]

I think the problem is the fact that a lot of the Eng and NZ cricketers seem to think the "now" part of this. Shouldn't the law ALWAYS need to consider the viewpoint of all nations and the way they play?

You can clearly see why its grating to have Eng or Aus or NZ cricketers explain what the spirit of cricket means everytime to every other country and their players?

Up until Deepti did it, the number of Indians who have done this has been equal to the number of Kiwis who have done it in international fixtures

 

[honestbharani]

Up until Deepti did it, the number of Indians who have done this has been equal to the number of Kiwis who have done it in international fixtures

TBF, there was this other time Ashwin did it to a SL batsman but Sehwag withdrew the appeal

 

[grecian]

boo

 

[social]

I don't agree that it doesn't ruin games. It absolutely does for the bowling team, you could clearly see it in the expression of the Indian captain, just before the run out, how frustrating it was to see Dean take such a big start pretty much every ball. She was regularly backing up between 1-2ft and was backing up more on deliveries after quick singles were denied. It does ruin close games like the last one, when one team is taking undue advantage and the other can't take any action to stop it because the so-called protectors of the "spirit of the game" will come crashing down upon them.

The only reason it was an unspoken rule was because of the huge blowback that each such dismissal inevitably causes and not many people are fine with being called a cheat and other digs being taken at them. It is a shame that so many ex-cricketers come out to castigate Deepti for taking an action after watching Dean not respecting the crease for so long.

It’s been an unspoken rule for 150 years or so because the act requires no skill other than to fool the non striker into believing that you’re actually going to bowl

Traditional attitude has been that it’s got more in common with gamesmanship/cheating than cricket

@ comparing this run out to bodyline...

And @Spark - the point is simple. The crease is the batter's home and if they leave it when ball is in play, they are liable to be dismissed. No warnings, no nonsense of any sort.

I dont think its cheating if the non-striker backs up more than they should or goes outside the crease. Its a risk they are willing to take to gain a small advantage in getting a run, that is fine. The risk IS the fact that they can be dismissed doing so. I dont see any reason to call either anything unfair or against the spirit or whatever nonsense floats for the whingers.

If we want to introduce a rule that will mean the batsmen get a free hit if a bowler literally pretends to bowl in the hopes of getting a run-out, that is fine. Heck, I am even fine if we were to not allow them to bowl again in that innings, but its very hard to prove intent and if the bowler noticed the batter taking that start earlier and tried the run-out.

Ideally, if you want to use the free hit and free ball rule that I explained earlier, I am fine with that too. What I am against is the absolute drivel and tripe being spouted about how this dismissal is "unfair" "immoral" "against the etiquette" "against the spirit" or whatever nonsense it is. That **** is just pure unadulterated drivel and has no place in an actual discussion of how to improve this rule or facet of the game.

Doesn’t work that way

Non striker can be run out via Mankad but striker cannot

The striker can literally run halfway down the pitch and the bowler can’t throw them out

So much for the crease being the batters’ home

The Mankad rule was reviewed for a reason & that reason has nothing to do with what makes sense from a cricket perspective

 

[honestbharani]

The striker can literally run halfway down the pitch and the bowler can’t throw them out

They literally can be stumped but go on crying.

 

[social]

They literally can be stumped but go on crying.

Read what I posted

The striker cannot be run out via a throw from the bowler while the non-striker can

How does that make sense?

 

[honestbharani]

Read what I posted

The striker cannot be run out via a throw from the bowler while the non-striker can

How does that make sense?

The same way the non-striker cannot be out bowled or leg before, I guess.

 

[Cruxdude]

It’s been an unspoken rule for 150 years or so because the act requires no skill other than to fool the non striker into believing that you’re actually going to bowl

Traditional attitude has been that it’s got more in common with gamesmanship/cheating than cricket

Edges to the boundaries require no skill too. But the batsman still gets 4 for it. Mankad is just punishing a player who doesn't play by the rules.

Also this was what was happening when the bowler actually did bowl.

And regarding traditional attitude, not everything that is traditional is good or correct.

 

[Cruxdude]

Edges to the boundaries require no skill too. But the batsman still gets 4 for it. Mankad is just punishing a player who doesn't play by the rules.

Also this was what was happening when the bowler actually did bowl.

And regarding traditional attitude, not everything that is traditional is good or correct.

View attachment 33047

Check out who was watching the non-striker taking advantage!!

 

[Cruxdude]

The only reason for not supporting Mankading seems to be ohh we don't do such things here. Every other excuse just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.