What's new

[Picture/Video] U19 CWC West Indies mankad Zimbabwe to go through to QF [Update post #175]

SunTzu

SunTzu

Tape Ball Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Runs
972
Must be heartbreaking for Zimbabwe. 3 runs required off the last over and the batsman is mankaded. This rule imo needs a revisit. The batsman was not looking for an unfair advantage, for that to be ruled out.

On the flip-side he should have been paid attention to where his bat was as WI are entitled to mankad. With only 3 runs to go. This will be a good lesson for them on how competitive cricket can get.

Overall poor stuff from West Indies for needing such tactics to beat Zimbabwe to get through.

View attachment 64189

Video here: https://twitter.com/sportingindex/status/694476225033674752/video/1


ICC Playing Condition Rule 42.11: The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, 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.
 
Last edited:
utter disgrace.

WI younsters need to learn from their heroes like Walsh who sacrificed a WC-Semi slot against Pakistan in 87 in a similar scenario by not running out Qadir.
 
I'm 100% certain the bowler never intended to bowl that ball.
 
Aman said:
I'm 100% certain the bowler never intended to bowl that ball.
Click to expand...

True, he just ran up to the stumps and took the bails off

And Zim batter wasnt even taking a head start, just his bat was in the air
 
They all want to be professioanals who want to make a living off this. They have every right to use any rule they use to achieve that. Zimbabwe should learn a lesson from this and move on.
 
PCP_1 said:
They all want to be professioanals who want to make a living off this. They have every right to use any rule they use to achieve that. Zimbabwe should learn a lesson from this and move on.
Click to expand...

No one is saying they broke the rules. But they did something which is against the spirit of the game

Zim batter didnt even take a head start, he is unlucky that his bat was in the air
 
I was watching this match and I'm fuming. Embarrassing. And you can tell that their coach feels a little guilty about the manner of the victory too.

There are some unwritten rules in cricket. He should've given him a warning but as [MENTION=132954]Aman[/MENTION] said, the bowler never intended to bowl that delivery. Cowards and I hope they get smashed in the quarters.
 
If it's against spirit of the game then ICC should remove this rule!

Feeling bad for Zimbos they would have won and qualified to quarters if the last over was bowled :facepalm:
 
We're playing them in the QFs?

I hope our boys get a chance to do something similar to them but instead of taking the bails off, we warn them. Show them the real way of playing cricket.
 
Anchorman said:
We're playing them in the QFs?

I hope our boys get a chance to do something similar to them but instead of taking the bails off, we warn them. Show them the real way of playing cricket.
Click to expand...

Winner of Pak/SL match tomorrow
 
CaM7ni4WQAAZkKY.jpg


Umpires must see the context before blindly applying the laws. I am not against Mankading as such but this is not even that.
 
What exactly is the 'spirit of the game' and why does it exist? Cricket is the only sport in which someone can be criticised for legitimately playing by the laws of the game.

If mankading is wrong, make it clear in the laws. As it stands, the laws state that the batsman can be run out if he's out of his crease before the bowler enters his delivery stride.

No doubt it feels harsh on Zimbabwe but the fact is that the batsman should not have been out of his crease.
 
I am sure that there is a lot of emotion running through WI U-19 but to go so far as to win this way?

This win really cheats everything. If was a WIndian I would not have felt elated and if I was a Zim fan I would not really be glad about the effort but be bitter about what happened.

At the end of the day, it was a great game of cricket but cricket ultimately lost in the end.
 
Bowler was running to do this no intention to ball...I dont like the way they won.
 
Shayan said:
What exactly is the 'spirit of the game' and why does it exist? Cricket is the only sport in which someone can be criticised for legitimately playing by the laws of the game.

If mankading is wrong, make it clear in the laws. As it stands, the laws state that the batsman can be run out if he's out of his crease before the bowler enters his delivery stride.

No doubt it feels harsh on Zimbabwe but the fact is that the batsman should not have been out of his crease.
Click to expand...

Yes the batsman was a bit clumsy, but he got run out by a few inches which means he didn't have any intention of sneaking a yard or two like some senior cricketers do. And it is nearly impossible for a 18 year old pace bowler bowling a crucial over in the 20th over to be aware of the simple fact that the non striker was out of his crease by a "centimetre".

Here it is about the intent.

Zim batsman didn't try to sneak a run

And WI bowler predetermined that he will try to mankad the batsman before he came up to bowl. Unless he is one of those people who can slow down time and is able to view from another angle because his vision was blocked by the stumps
 
SunTzu said:
Must be heartbreaking for Zimbabwe. 3 runs required off the last over and the batsman is mankaded. This rule imo needs a revisit. The batsman was not looking for an unfair advantage, for that to be ruled out.

On the flip-side he should have been paid attention to where his bat was as WI are entitles to mankad. With only 3 runs to go. This will be a good lesson for them on how competitive cricket can get.

Overall poor stuff from West Indies for needing such tactics to beat Zimbabwe to get through.
Click to expand...

Very good. Countless times the batsmen gets a free pass for cheating.

This should be done every time so batsman can learn to protect themselves and obey the rules.

The only consistent rule can be always out, and ICC should act to stop this nonsense of confirming with the captain and all that.
 
Honestly it just proves all teams would have done the same thing in that situation. Well 9 teams out of 10. And therefore new rules should be written.
 
They won the match but at expense of dignity and sportsmanship while Zimbabwe lost but they won hearts.
 
Executioner said:
Yes the batsman was a bit clumsy, but he got run out by a few inches which means he didn't have any intention of sneaking a yard or two like some senior cricketers do. And it is nearly impossible for a 18 year old pace bowler bowling a crucial over in the 20th over to be aware of the simple fact that the non striker was out of his crease by a "centimetre".

Here it is about the intent.

Zim batsman didn't try to sneak a run

And WI bowler predetermined that he will try to mankad the batsman before he came up to bowl. Unless he is one of those people who can slow down time and is able to view from another angle because his vision was blocked by the stumps
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the rules say nothing about intent.
 
They did what is allowed by the laws of the game. Nothing wrong with what the windies did.
 
Genuinely hilarious how many people are outraged by someone playing by the laws of the game.
 
Firstly, It is heartbreaking for Zim to lose this way and I feel for them.But let's take the emotion out of the game for a while and think about it pragmatically rather emotionally.

The law states that you can't leave the crease until the ball has been bowled.Now,if you do that you can be mankaded and you will be sent to the dressing room.So,why would you be so careless to wander around the crease before the ball is being bowled?Isn't that unfair to the bowler and AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME(BY TAKING A HEAD START)?

To the people who are judging the intent here(I donno how but they must have some special powers as we just can't know the intent of the other) my question to them is:

IF A BOWLER CROSSES THE CREASE BY SAY JUST 1 cm,WHY IS IT CALLED A NO BALL WHEN HE HASN'T DONE IT INTENTIONALLY?

We don't do a debate about that when a bowler is pinalised because he is being penalised for the right reason.Right?

BUT WHEN A BATSMAN DOES THE SAME THING (INTENTIONALLY OR NOT) AND HE IS PENALIZED,WHY THE HUE AND CRY?

IF WE CAN CALL A NO BALL JUST FOR ½ cm FOR A BOWLER WHY CAN'T WE PENALIZE THE BATSMAN FOR TAKING THE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE?
 
Shameful, simply a shameful act by WI. What a fall from grace comparing Courtney Walsh's action in similar situation in 1987 WC.
 
It's not a good thing, but tbh we should not blame or curse WI, rules are rules and they have followed the rules. No doubt it is against sports spirit.
 
The only one who was cheating was the Zimbabwean tailender. West Indies played within the rules and won. Zimbabwe tailender should be criticised for backing up too far and not knowing where the crease is.
To talk about spirit of cricket is a rubbish concept. If its in the rules you can do it. Why would you be criticised for doing something which is legal.
 
Its competitive cricket and at high level for these youngsters,the strong ones would develop better because of such a setback.
 
Pace90 said:
Shameful, simply a shameful act by WI. What a fall from grace comparing Courtney Walsh's action in similar situation in 1987 WC.
Click to expand...
Shameful for what. shameful is when a batsmen is halfway down the track but we don't critizes it. Many old people still talk about how JAVED Miandad was nearly halfway down the track when the bowler bowled. It's time ICC has made some corrections changes to the rules and their is nothing shameful in that if you follow them.
 
Good. Hope that this stops the batsman from unfairly taking the advantage.
Batsman needs to realize that this is stupidity and unfair game play rolled into one.
 
Eureka said:
Shameful for what. shameful is when a batsmen is halfway down the track but we don't critizes it. Many old people still talk about how JAVED Miandad was nearly halfway down the track when the bowler bowled. It's time ICC has made some corrections changes to the rules and their is nothing shameful in that if you follow them.
Click to expand...

Watch the video :) Batsman isn't wasn't going anywhere, he just didn't think to keep his bat grounded. He was mankaded with his bat in the air, not from running half way down the track.
 
Appalling.

People still remember Courtney Walsh for the 1987 World Cup when he could have Mankaded Abdul Qadir to win the game but he just warned him instead.

And they also remember Sarfarz Nawaz eight years earlier showing what kind of "man" he was by successfully appealing to have Andrew Hilditch of Australia dismissed Handled The Ball when he kindly picked it up and gave it back to the bowler.

The young West Indians are a disgrace. But what do you expect when they take the likes of Chris Gayle as a role model instead of Frank Worrell?
 
Eureka said:
Shameful for what. shameful is when a batsmen is halfway down the track but we don't critizes it. Many old people still talk about how JAVED Miandad was nearly halfway down the track when the bowler bowled. It's time ICC has made some corrections changes to the rules and their is nothing shameful in that if you follow them.
Click to expand...

What change CAN you make?

Allow the batsman to be wherever he wants? How would that solve anything?

What needs to be done is destigmatize it and instruct the umpires to give it out immediately without all this nonsense of asking the captain.
 
Junaids said:
Appalling.

People still remember Courtney Walsh for the 1987 World Cup when he could have Mankaded Abdul Qadir to win the game but he just warned him instead.

And they also remember Sarfarz Nawaz eight years earlier showing what kind of "man" he was by successfully appealing to have Andrew Hilditch of Australia dismissed Handled The Ball when he kindly picked it up and gave it back to the bowler.

The young West Indians are a disgrace. But what do you expect when they take the likes of Chris Gayle as a role model instead of Frank Worrell?
Click to expand...

Right. This was the same match (and in retaliation for which) where Sikandar Bakht was Mankaded, but presumbably white men have the spirit of the game encoded in their DNA.

In any case, why can't the batsmen just stay inside the crease instead of all this moral hazard.
 
SunTzu said:
Watch the video :) Batsman isn't wasn't going anywhere, he just didn't think to keep his bat grounded. He was mankaded with his bat in the air, not from running half way down the track.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that run outs shouldn't count if you're only a little bit out? They should only count if you're further out?
 
Junaids said:
Appalling.

People still remember Courtney Walsh for the 1987 World Cup when he could have Mankaded Abdul Qadir to win the game but he just warned him instead.

And they also remember Sarfarz Nawaz eight years earlier showing what kind of "man" he was by successfully appealing to have Andrew Hilditch of Australia dismissed Handled The Ball when he kindly picked it up and gave it back to the bowler.

The young West Indians are a disgrace. But what do you expect when they take the likes of Chris Gayle as a role model instead of Frank Worrell?
Click to expand...

What about Sarfaraz himself being mankaded by one of the Aussie bowlers at the end of Pakistan's second innings?
 
hur rizvi said:
No one is saying they broke the rules. But they did something which is against the spirit of the game

Zim batter didnt even take a head start, he is unlucky that his bat was in the air
Click to expand...

If there's a rule and you can use it for your advatnage to win the game, then do so. Rules are rules. Can't start crying if the other team has won fair and square. WI have won fair and square here.

Lesson to be learnt, keep your bat in the crease until you're allowed to take it out. You won't be run out like this again.

I played sport hard and I like to watch it played hard, not by a bunch of pansies who want to play by this "spirit of the game".
 
Junaids said:
Appalling.

People still remember Courtney Walsh for the 1987 World Cup when he could have Mankaded Abdul Qadir to win the game but he just warned him instead.

And they also remember Sarfarz Nawaz eight years earlier showing what kind of "man" he was by successfully appealing to have Andrew Hilditch of Australia dismissed Handled The Ball when he kindly picked it up and gave it back to the bowler.

The young West Indians are a disgrace. But what do you expect when they take the likes of Chris Gayle as a role model instead of Frank Worrell?
Click to expand...

Where people choose to not follow the rules in the name of this so-called 'spirit', as Walsh did, then sure, it can be remembered as a decent act.

But why on earth should it be "appalling" or "a disgrace" when a player legitimately applies the laws of the game, as Sarfraz did then and as the West Indian bowler did today?

It's crazy. Criticise the laws if you want but not the players who apply them correctly.
 
Shayan said:
Where people choose to not follow the rules in the name of this so-called 'spirit', as Walsh did, then sure, it can be remembered as a decent act.

But why on earth should it be "appalling" or "a disgrace" when a player legitimately applies the laws of the game, as Sarfraz did then and as the West Indian bowler did today?

It's crazy. Criticise the laws if you want but not the players who apply them correctly.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Someone giving to charity can be praised, but the corollary is not that you can start screaming insults at everyone who does not do so.
 
#GreenRoars said:
It's not a good thing, but tbh we should not blame or curse WI, rules are rules and they have followed the rules. No doubt it is against sports spirit.
Click to expand...

Playing by the spirit of the game isn't going to win you anything.

Playing by the rules will win you the game.

Nothing wrong with this mankad, you know the rules, you should play by them and not the spirit of the game.
 
I have no problem with it, stay in your crease and none of this happens.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Right. This was the same match (and in retaliation for which) where Sikandar Bakht was Mankaded, but presumbably white men have the spirit of the game encoded in their DNA.

In any case, why can't the batsmen just stay inside the crease instead of all this moral hazard.
Click to expand...

No, Alan Hurst was just as bad but I didn't expect anyone on this forum to remember him. (Well done BTW).

You know that you are one of my favourite posters. But we disagree a bit about whether cricket is a narrow commercial enterprise or something bigger.

I watched the likes of Ted Cruz in the American presidential primaries today, and listened to their speeches. And, condescending git that I am I thought "this guy has a high IQ, and is highly educated, but he isn't as civilised as we are".

I think those of us who grow up immersed in old British games learn many life lessons. Magnanimity in victory. Playing by not just the letter of the rules but the spirit too.

People like Majid Khan or Venkat or Garry Sobers are absolute gentlemen.

And funnily enough, you can ask people like [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] or [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] but they are probably as delighted as I am at Giles Clarke failing to become ICC Chairman. There are civilised gentlemen but there are also plenty of self-serving spivs in and around cricket.
 
SunTzu said:
Watch the video :) Batsman isn't wasn't going anywhere, he just didn't think to keep his bat grounded. He was mankaded with his bat in the air, not from running half way down the track.
Click to expand...

So,if a bowler is penalized for ½ cm no ball is that right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shayan said:
Where people choose to not follow the rules in the name of this so-called 'spirit', as Walsh did, then sure, it can be remembered as a decent act.

But why on earth should it be "appalling" or "a disgrace" when a player legitimately applies the laws of the game, as Sarfraz did then and as the West Indian bowler did today?

It's crazy. Criticise the laws if you want but not the players who apply them correctly.
Click to expand...
See my post above.

Anyone can follow the letter of the law - even an American. But cricket should also be a civilising force, and players need to learn that the spirit of the law counts too, not just the letter.
 
For all those against Mankading [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], [MENTION=135183]Pace90[/MENTION], [MENTION=139777]SunTzu[/MENTION] - In your opinion, is it fair if a bowlers mankads a runner after prior warning?

I can understand that Mankad was not really in the spirit here, but rules are rules. A quarter-final spot is the prize and you cant blame the bowler or the WI for his action. If its a test match, I might have been against it. Imagine if this happened in the final over of the WC final. Would you expect the players not to mankad the opposition?
 
Hopefully the WI camp come out and give a statement along the lines of:

We are playing to win by the actual rules and not some made up rules that aren't in the rule book for cricket. We won the game fairly and according to the official rules of the game. If you don't like the way we've played and approached the game (according to the official rules), then please go ahead and change the official rules.
 
Yes, [MENTION=134408]Sidilicious[/MENTION], that's okay. But this bowler made no effort to release the ball, it was just a calculated act of *******ry, to use a word permitted to be used in polite Australian conversation.

If I was the batsman I'd have inserted my bat into the bowler.
 
aniket1911 said:
They won the match but at expense of dignity and sportsmanship while Zimbabwe lost but they won hearts.
Click to expand...

There is no value for winning that. Ask the Bangladeshis. Besides what did they do to win hearts apart from being "cheated" on ?
 
Junaids said:
Yes, [MENTION=134408]Sidilicious[/MENTION], that's okay. But this bowler made no effort to release the ball, it was just a calculated act of *******ry, to use a word permitted to be used in polite Australian conversation.

If I was the batsman I'd have inserted my bat into the bowler.
Click to expand...

If I was the batsman I'd have inserted my bat behind the crease.
 
Nothing wrong in it. Stay behind the line if you dont want to be run out. Its a very simple rule.
 
But [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION], he wasn't even creeping forward. He was still in his starting position, he'd just lifted the bat off the ground. There was no attempt to steal a run.
 
Big Mac said:
If I was the batsman I'd have inserted my bat behind the crease.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Let's blame the guy who has done nothing wrong according to the official rules rather than other guy who made a mistake according to the official rules.
 
Unbelievable.What a sad end to a great match.Zimbabwe took it down to wire.I feel for them.

Shouldn't have happened but you can't really fault the WI players for doing it.The batsman should have taken more care.

All the commentators looked disgusted at the after match show,most of all Pommie Mbangwa.
 
Junaids said:
But [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION], he wasn't even creeping forward. He was still in his starting position, he'd just lifted the bat off the ground. There was no attempt to steal a run.
Click to expand...

So? If the batsman slog sweeps a spinner and inadvertently lifts his back foot in the air he still gets stumped does he not?

Is that an evil act that goes against all that is just and civilised?
 
Junaids said:
See my post above.

Anyone can follow the letter of the law - even an American. But cricket should also be a civilising force, and players need to learn that the spirit of the law counts too, not just the letter.
Click to expand...

Yup saw that post and agree with a lot of what you say. I certainly used to be a fan of the notion of the 'spirit of cricket' but over time I feel it's become redundant and simply gets in the way. It muddies the water and creates arguments and debates such as this one.

In my view, applying the letter of the law doesn't make you any more or less of a gentleman - so I don't see what the bowler did wrong today. From the batsman's point of view it seems unfortunate, but is it any more unfortunate than the batsman edging the ball on to his stumps?
 
Junaids said:
But [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION], he wasn't even creeping forward. He was still in his starting position, he'd just lifted the bat off the ground. There was no attempt to steal a run.
Click to expand...

So if a batsman is caught at short cover even though he was trying to play the ball along the ground, he shouldn't be given out. He never intended the ball to rise above the ground and his bat was angled towards the ground!
 
Junaids said:
But [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION], he wasn't even creeping forward. He was still in his starting position, he'd just lifted the bat off the ground. There was no attempt to steal a run.
Click to expand...

Then it's called game awareness.
 
Junaids said:
No, Alan Hurst was just as bad but I didn't expect anyone on this forum to remember him. (Well done BTW).

You know that you are one of my favourite posters. But we disagree a bit about whether cricket is a narrow commercial enterprise or something bigger.

I watched the likes of Ted Cruz in the American presidential primaries today, and listened to their speeches. And, condescending git that I am I thought "this guy has a high IQ, and is highly educated, but he isn't as civilised as we are".

I think those of us who grow up immersed in old British games learn many life lessons. Magnanimity in victory. Playing by not just the letter of the rules but the spirit too.

People like Majid Khan or Venkat or Garry Sobers are absolute gentlemen.

And funnily enough, you can ask people like [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] or [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] but they are probably as delighted as I am at Giles Clarke failing to become ICC Chairman. There are civilised gentlemen but there are also plenty of self-serving spivs in and around cricket.
Click to expand...

I actually like the old-fashioned British approach to this. If you know anything about British jurisprudence, it's why the Empire drafted such good laws; they were firm positivists and able to appreciate a distinction between what the most upstanding might do and what could be generally considered permissible. Most British laws reflect a very enlightened understanding of this distinction.

The problem here is that the ONLY problem with this is that it is in violation of convention. However, the convention itself isn't sensible or stable. Almost all other conventions in cricket require and allow the players to protect themselves. This is an unstable convention because it can (and is) being abused. So much so that young batsmen like Jos Buttler, are Taught in school to break the rule and end up being flabbergasted and indignant when that results in a dismissal.

A much better convention is the batsman just staying in and protecting his own wicket.
 
Everyone agrees that the batsman was careless - these are just kids.

But he wasn't trying to gain an unfair advantage, and I'm just shocked that the West Indies have to sink so low to beat Zimbabwe.

I'm well aware of the shameful side of British history. But it goes back to the idea of:

Football as a gentleman's game played by thugs, and rugby as a thug's game played by gentlemen.

I love cricket because it's more than just a game. And this sort of behaviour reduces it to just another game, like baseball or ice hockey or handball.

I genuinely believe that we as a global cricket community are better than that.
 
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] I also want to point out that whether or not this is within the spirit is debated. The MCC (custodian of this surely) has clarified that this is within the spirit of the game. I concur and please do read this in conjunction with what I said about what a better convention would be.
 
I look forward to bowlers recalling batsmen who were dismissed trying to hit a full toss that was intended as a yorker. Got to uphold the spirit of the game after all.
 
SunTzu said:
Bowler is not banned from bowling a no ball he merely has to re-bowl the ball. The consequences are not of the same level.
Click to expand...

But what if the bowler picks up a wicket of that ball on which his foot is only 1/2 cm outside the crease?
 
Shayan said:
So what you're saying is that run outs shouldn't count if you're only a little bit out? They should only count if you're further out?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the other poster was misinformed on thinking that the batsman was running half way down the pitch. Read his comment, then read mine.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
What change CAN you make?

Allow the batsman to be wherever he wants? How would that solve anything?

What needs to be done is destigmatize it and instruct the umpires to give it out immediately without all this nonsense of asking the captain.
Click to expand...

Eh. Mate you have to read the post I replied to. You and I are on the same page. I think the Batsman is solely responsible period. He should have known where his crease was and stayed in it.
 
Sidilicious said:
For all those against Mankading [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], [MENTION=135183]Pace90[/MENTION], [MENTION=139777]SunTzu[/MENTION] - In your opinion, is it fair if a bowlers mankads a runner after prior warning?

I can understand that Mankad was not really in the spirit here, but rules are rules. A quarter-final spot is the prize and you cant blame the bowler or the WI for his action. If its a test match, I might have been against it. Imagine if this happened in the final over of the WC final. Would you expect the players not to mankad the opposition?
Click to expand...

I'm not against mankad, but in this particular situation I feel Zimbabwe were hard done by. In most instances mankadding occurs when the batsman takes the head start. This was clearly not the case. The batsman was foolish, but I guess that's the game.

I also expected better from WI as they have not sunk as low as Zimbabwe yet in terms of cricketing skills.
 
Junaids said:
Everyone agrees that the batsman was careless - these are just kids.

But he wasn't trying to gain an unfair advantage, and I'm just shocked that the West Indies have to sink so low to beat Zimbabwe.

I'm well aware of the shameful side of British history. But it goes back to the idea of:

Football as a gentleman's game played by thugs, and rugby as a thug's game played by gentlemen.

I love cricket because it's more than just a game. And this sort of behaviour reduces it to just another game, like baseball or ice hockey or handball.

I genuinely believe that we as a global cricket community are better than that.
Click to expand...

Then what do you think about Kapil dev and i think batsman was Kirsten? They weren't kids i guess.
 
I guess, [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] and [MENTION=137677]Thivagar[/MENTION], I must be living in a fantasy world.

I imagine Younis Khan and Brendon McCullum and Adam Gilchrist as latter-day Shackleton's, behaving (on the pitch) in a positive and honourable way and inspiring young boys to behave like them instead of like Steve Waugh or other win-at-all-costs barbarians.

I think of that as a positive legacy of Empire, and goodness knows there aren't many of those.

Last week, privately-educated British men like me were inspired and saddened by the death of Henry Worsley on his trans-Antarctic trek. It reminded us of people like Captain Scott.

Captain Scott was a foolish amateur who lost the race to the South Pole and died with his men. But we cherish and value Scott and Shackleton a million times more than we would "a winner".

In my fantasy world, cricket is a civilising force for the only countries I care about. I don't care what games Americans or French people play, or what their attitudes are.

But I look at Afghanistan adopting cricket and I marvel at the leap from the Taliban to playing the gentlemen's game.
 
Junaids said:
I love cricket because it's more than just a game. And this sort of behaviour reduces it to just another game, like baseball or ice hockey or handball.

I genuinely believe that we as a global cricket community are better than that.
Click to expand...
Cricket is just another game, it;s like any other sport. So stop trying to make out like cricket above other sports.

What you genuinely believe and what others perceive to be the "spirit" of the game is not what is going to win you matches, maybe you will win stupid fans but not matches.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Precisely. Someone giving to charity can be praised, but the corollary is not that you can start screaming insults at everyone who does not do so.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Someone doesn't mankad good for him, someone doesn't he didn't cheat, he played by the rules so he shouldn't get the stick for it.
 
#GreenRoars said:
Then what do you think about Kapil dev and i think batsman was Kirsten? They weren't kids i guess.
Click to expand...

IIRC Kapil gave Kirsten a warning before he mankaded him.

Even if the Zimbo batsman was careless, it was his fault. We are talking about a QF spot. Not a sunday league game here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ball Blazer
  • Sticky
[EXCLUSIVE] "It's almost like a race to the bottom between the West Indies and Pakistan": Fazeer Mohamed
Replies
14
Views
664
JibranAnsari
JibranAnsari
Cricket Warrior
India (518/5d & 124/3) defeat West Indies (248 & 390 (f/o) by 7 wickets in second Test to complete a clean sweep in the 2-match Test series
2 3
Replies
237
Views
4K
giri26
G
BouncerGuy
Australia tour of West Indies (2025)
12 13 14
Replies
1K
Views
24K
Nikhil_cric
N
Ball Blazer
South Africa tour of Zimbabwe (2025)
2
Replies
89
Views
2K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Ball Blazer
[EXCLUSIVE] "Pakistan was always a hard tour": Carl Hooper
Replies
11
Views
802
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Back
Top