What's new

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

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...

Also, you really need to look at that last line. Chris Gayle has the most famous warning of all time, when he could have Mankaded a batsman who was miles down.
 
I really don't get the whole fuss about mankading. If a batsman is out of his crease when he shouldn't be, even if it is a fraction of an inch, he should be able to be run out without hesitation.

The game is already batsman friendly enough these days. Why should batters be able to pinch an extra few inches/feet at the non-strikers end, thus reducing the chances of them being run out at the wicketkeeper's end if they go through for a quick single?

Bowlers get penalised with a run penalty, free hit and having to rebowl the ball if they steal an inch or two when bowling. So why should the batsman be able to get away with it? Maybe if the bowler says he didn't mean to bowl a no-ball, he should be able to get away with it too, right?!

I find the whole controversy around mankading, frankly, absurd.
 
Sidilicious said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep this is what i am talking, rules are rules, they have done certain thing under rules. Yes we can say it's against game spirit, but we should not bash them curse them and also ex cricketers should hold back little.
Stuff by Morgan is little over burst. But am sure people will blame Tino.
 
Junaids said:
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.

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

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.
Click to expand...

Steve Waugh was a cricket player who played tough and by the rules, to call him a barbarian is very disrespectful and any point you make thereafter is deemed useless.

He didn't everything within the rules to win and that only enchances many people's opinions of him.

Does your private education give you a higher status in society or make your opinion more valuable than the rest of us? We are after all discussing an element of cricket, not quantum physics.

So you only care about certain countries? Is that how narrow minded you are, earlier you commented on how cricket was a global community but here you are saying you don't care about certain country's interests in sport.

Finally, lol [MENTION=2099]Cricket[/MENTION] being a gentleman's game.
 
bones said:
Steve Waugh was a cricket player who played tough and by the rules, to call him a barbarian is very disrespectful and any point you make thereafter is deemed useless.

He didn't everything within the rules to win and that only enchances many people's opinions of him.

Does your private education give you a higher status in society or make your opinion more valuable than the rest of us? We are after all discussing an element of cricket, not quantum physics.

So you only care about certain countries? Is that how narrow minded you are, earlier you commented on how cricket was a global community but here you are saying you don't care about certain country's interests in sport.

Finally, lol [MENTION=2099]Cricket[/MENTION] being a gentleman's game.
Click to expand...

You've missed my point.

I think of all the cricketing countries as civilised - even Pakistan.

As for Steve Waugh, sorry, but I don't like him. Mark Taylor and Michael Clarke were generally positive, sporting captains. Steve Waugh was a nasty, bullying, boorish oaf on the pitch.
 
Perfectly legal of course but personally i wouldn't want to win like that.
 
Junaids said:
You've missed my point.

I think of all the cricketing countries as civilised - even Pakistan.

As for Steve Waugh, sorry, but I don't like him. Mark Taylor and Michael Clarke were generally positive, sporting captains. Steve Waugh was a nasty, bullying, boorish oaf on the pitch.
Click to expand...

A scarred pom, hehe.
 
[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION], Tubby Taylor murdered us his entire career.

But it wasn't the sort of snarling, obnoxious behaviour that Steve Waugh specialised in.
 
Junaids said:
[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION], Tubby Taylor murdered us his entire career.

But it wasn't the sort of snarling, obnoxious behaviour that Steve Waugh specialised in.
Click to expand...

Yes dear, he was such a bully, should have his name erased from the records. Not from a well to do school is he now and I bet he comes from convict stock.
 
The Players were deemed to be working-class wage-earners and the Gentlemen were members of the middle and upper classes, usually products of the English public school system. Whereas the Players were paid wages by their county clubs or fees by match organisers, the Gentlemen nominally claimed expenses.
 
[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION], it's only a game. Where is the fun in being abused by your opponent? And what life lessons do kids get from watching that?
 
I don't mean Gentleman as in English amateur.

I mean gentleman in the sense of worthy team-mate or adversary, whom it is a pleasure to play with or against.

Mike Gatting and Keith Fletcher weren't amateurs, but they are fondly remembered by both team-mates and opponents.
 
Junaids said:
I don't mean Gentleman as in English amateur.

I mean gentleman in the sense of worthy team-mate or adversary, whom it is a pleasure to play with or against.

Mike Gatting and Keith Fletcher weren't amateurs, but they are fondly remembered by both team-mates and opponents.
Click to expand...

On 31 January 1963, the committee of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) agreed unanimously to abolish the concept of amateurism and all first-class cricketers became professional.
 
Junaids said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that privately educated kids are somewhat superior to the rest? Are you also suggesting that cricketers from the state schools (as it is mostly in Australia) are not the best adverts of cricket?
 
Junaids said:
[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION], it's only a game. Where is the fun in being abused by your opponent? And what life lessons do kids get from watching that?
Click to expand...

Steve Waugh was loved by the Aussie fans and respected by his opponents and team-mates and disliked by Junaids.
 
No [MENTION=134408]Sidilicious[/MENTION], I'm just explaining where MY sporting compass came from. My kids play cricket in Australia and it is sporting as well as tough.
 
how contrived it was and the fact it was to win the match just made it feel wrong. i didn't like wi's attitude
 
Pretty low behaviour but hey at this Windies team actually wants to win
 
Convict said:
Pretty low behaviour but hey at this Windies team actually wants to win
Click to expand...

Mate, this is not a sunday league game. In fact, I would be against mankading in such a manner (no warning) in a test match or a bilateral ODI. But this is the WC. Imagine being in a similar position in a WC final.

A significant number of these cricketers will turn professional, though for a few representing WI in U19 might remain their only national experience.
 
Sidilicious said:
Mate, this is not a sunday league game. In fact, I would be against mankading in such a manner (no warning) in a test match or a bilateral ODI. But this is the WC. Imagine being in a similar position in a WC final.

A significant number of these cricketers will turn professional, though for a few representing WI in U19 might remain their only national experience.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know it's not a Sunday league in which case it would be disgrace.

As it is it's gamemanship but within acceptable boundaries.
 
Junaids said:
[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION], it's only a game. Where is the fun in being abused by your opponent? And what life lessons do kids get from watching that?
Click to expand...

Kids that aren't pansies don't have problems with it.

Kids that are pansies get a good hint that mummy needs to stop coddling them or they'll never learn to cope in the real world.
 
Junaids said:
You've missed my point.

I think of all the cricketing countries as civilised - even Pakistan.

As for Steve Waugh, sorry, but I don't like him. Mark Taylor and Michael Clarke were generally positive, sporting captains. Steve Waugh was a nasty, bullying, boorish oaf on the pitch.
Click to expand...

Taylor was from Wagga Wagga, Clarke's no private school boy, Ponting and Smith didn't complete high school and Border was from one of Australia's most elite schools.

What does it matter?

Also I find your characterisation of Clarke and Waugh really weird. I have no doubts whatsoever that Clarke would have acted in exactly the same manner as Waugh if he had the team.
 
Okay with it since it was clear that was his intention from the start, you can't have batsman backing up so much these days without the risk of repercussion
 
My problem with this is that the bowler didn't even try and go into his delivery stride and probably had little intention to by once he started running in. Regular mankads like the one Sri Lanka did to Jos Buttler a couple of years back I can understand, (and the warning makes it a bit better to me personally in addition
), but chances are that if the bowler had gone ahead with his usual run up and action rather than the unsporting antics that he did then the batsman would of been gaining no advantage by the time he released the ball. Therefore I thoroughly disagree with this mankad in particular and find it extremely unsporting.
 
Nothing wrong in mankading, but he should have warned the batsman once. Cricket has become so embarrassing to watch these days.
 
If it is legal why complain? WI did the right thing. If the rule is there, team will take advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
insaaniyat said:
If it is legal why complain? WI did the right thing. If the rule is there, team will take advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Being legal doesn't make something right. Was the underarm incident viewed well in the eyes of the cricketing world? No, it's still seen as a pretty big disgrace on Australian cricket.

On the debate of legality, I'm curious to know how the 'delivery stride' is defined as all I see here is the stride in which he realises he can cheat by slowing down and failing to enter his action?
 
It's just sad that a tense match was decided by a legal technicality and not on cricketing ability. The spirit of cricket has long been dead, in the end only results matter. I also feel bad that it was Zimbabwe of all teams on the receiving end.
 
Junaids said:
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.
Click to expand...

Everybody here knows you live in a fantasy world. Lets get back to the topic, cricket is not a "gentleman's sport". It is something that he former cricketers keep saying in order to make themselves feel good. You have cricketers swear, talk smack about each others' wives, girlfriends, keepers appealing when the ball didn't hit the bat, bats men not walking when it was a clear edge, boards trying to rake all the money, boards talk smack about each other's team, former cricketers and commentators bend their back for their board and etc. Cricket is not a "gentleman's sport". There is nothing gentle about cricket.
 
Smbhayi said:
I blame Zimbabwe batsman for being careless
Click to expand...

If the bowler had carried on with his usual run up and action then the batsman would most probably have been gaining no advantage at all. It was only the bowler by slowing down and failing to enter his action therefore having the intention to cheat as soon as he started running in who is in the wrong here.
 
I believe that either remove the rule or if you are keeping the rule then this spirit of cricket discussion should not be done each time someone is out via mankad. Batsman should be aware to keep his bat inside the line before the ball is bowled. If he can not do that then he should be blamed not the bowler
 
It should be looked at like a stumping. AA batsman is not allowed to leave his crease before the ball is delivered, its as simple as that.
 
HitWicket said:
If the bowler had carried on with his usual run up and action then the batsman would most probably have been gaining no advantage at all. It was only the bowler by slowing down and failing to enter his action therefore having the intention to cheat as soon as he started running in who is in the wrong here.
Click to expand...

A) Let's put the "most probably" to one side, if he would have gained no advantage then why not stay in his crease?

B) How is it cheating when the laws explicitly state his actions are permissible?
 
Big Mac said:
A) Let's put the "most probably" to one side, if he would have gained no advantage then why not stay in his crease?

B) How is it cheating when the laws explicitly state his actions are permissible?
Click to expand...

Dictionary definition of 'a cheat' : "A person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage."

For me slowing down your run up intentionally and then failing to enter your bowling action is acting dishonestly and to do so in order to take a wicket to get your team a win is clearly getting you an advantage. He wouldn't of stayed in his crease because he wouldn't expect the bowler to carry out this 'dishonest' practice.
 
It's one thing when the batsman is running 3-4 strides down the pitch already. But the batsman here barely had his bat infront of the line. In that kind of situation, it was a huge let down for anybody watching the match.
 
HitWicket said:
Dictionary definition of 'a cheat' : "A person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage."

For me slowing down your run up intentionally and then failing to enter your bowling action is acting dishonestly and to do so in order to take a wicket to get your team a win is clearly getting you an advantage. He wouldn't of stayed in his crease because he wouldn't expect the bowler to carry out this 'dishonest' practice.
Click to expand...

Acting dishonestly in order to gain an advantage? Hmmmm, you mean like a batsman at the non-striker's end leaving his crease before the bowler had entered his delivery stride? :13:
 
What a brilliant timing for the bowler.

#StreetSmart

You do everything within a rule to win a game!

Spirit of game is called when you congratulate opposition fully when you lost! Not when you win within rules.

Spirit of cricket card is used only by ego boosting snobs!
 
Good stuff by the West Indies player. WHy should players get a head start witha run?
 
osee_bhai said:
It's one thing when the batsman is running 3-4 strides down the pitch already. But the batsman here barely had his bat infront of the line. In that kind of situation, it was a huge let down for anybody watching the match.
Click to expand...

Agreed, well said. I don't think anybody can have a problem with mankading as a dismissal when batsmen are trying to steal runs. This is a different situation, I don't believe the batsman was trying to steal a run, he was out of his ground by only a few millimetres.
 
Major said:
Good stuff by the West Indies player. WHy should players get a head start witha run?
Click to expand...

He was only an inch out of his crease, should have just warned him. Just like when a batsman is stumped when he's an inch out of his ground the bowling team always withdraws the appeal and allows him to continue his inning or when a batsman only gets a very faint nick to the keeper the bowler never appeals because it's not like the batsman got any advantage from it.

At least I presume that's what happens, got to uphold this spirit of cricket thing after all.
 
Big Mac said:
Acting dishonestly in order to gain an advantage? Hmmmm, you mean like a batsman at the non-striker's end leaving his crease before the bowler had entered his delivery stride? :13:
Click to expand...

Care to show where the bowler entered his delivery stride here (so when the back foot landed in the position it will be in his action)? As far as I can see he ran straight through the crease with no intention rather than to manipulate the batsman. Comparatively the batsman didn't appear to have the intention of gaining any advantage as it was only present once the bowler slowed down his runup (fully with the intention of cheating).
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Also, you really need to look at that last line. Chris Gayle has the most famous warning of all time, when he could have Mankaded a batsman who was miles down.
Click to expand...

9bp0q.gif


Don't rush baby
 
For those likening this to a stumping, I'd liken it more to the bowler never having the ball but the keeper having it instead. Batsman charges down the pitch to hit the ball that is apparently about to be bowled to them only to be stumped by the keeper behind him.

May sound like a silly analogy but on close inspection I don't see it as that different to this situation other than it being 'within the rules'. Intentionally manipulating what the batsman thinks is going to happen in order to get a wicket with no cricketing ability present.
 
Big Mac said:
He was only an inch out of his crease, should have just warned him. Just like when a batsman is stumped when he's an inch out of his ground the bowling team always withdraws the appeal and allows him to continue his inning or when a batsman only gets a very faint nick to the keeper the bowler never appeals because it's not like the batsman got any advantage from it.

At least I presume that's what happens, got to uphold this spirit of cricket thing after all.
Click to expand...

That inch out of the crease gives him a big advantage. Because he would reach the other end an inch earlier.

I think the warning rule is stupid, and tired of this spirit of Cricket BS. In the recent years, i have noticed that Spirit of cricket means over looking rules......
 
Major said:
That inch out of the crease gives him a big advantage. Because he would reach the other end an inch earlier.

I think the warning rule is stupid, and tired of this spirit of Cricket BS. In the recent years, i have noticed that Spirit of cricket means over looking rules......
Click to expand...

The point here being if the West Indies bowler had acted sportingly rather than having poor intentions the batsman most likely wouldn't have been an inch out his crease. It was an advantage artificially made by the bowler so he could be 'within the rules' with his cheating.
 
HitWicket said:
Care to show where the bowler entered his delivery stride here (so when the back foot landed in the position it will be in his action)? As far as I can see he ran straight through the crease with no intention rather than to manipulate the batsman. Comparatively the batsman didn't appear to have the intention of gaining any advantage as it was only present once the bowler slowed down his runup (fully with the intention of cheating).
Click to expand...

He doesn't need to enter his delivery stride.

Read the rules.

HitWicket said:
For those likening this to a stumping, I'd liken it more to the bowler never having the ball but the keeper having it instead. Batsman charges down the pitch to hit the ball that is apparently about to be bowled to them only to be stumped by the keeper behind him.

May sound like a silly analogy but on close inspection I don't see it as that different to this situation other than it being 'within the rules'. Intentionally manipulating what the batsman thinks is going to happen in order to get a wicket with no cricketing ability present.
Click to expand...

"For those of you comparing this car to a van, I'd liken it more to flying gerbil. It may sound silly but I don't see it being that different"

Because you see, in your flying gerbil scenario the umpire will have signalled dead ball long ago so it would literally NEVER happen.

You really, really, REALLY need to learn the rules of cricket before accusing other people of being cheats.
 
Thivagar said:
There is no value for winning that. Ask the Bangladeshis. Besides what did they do to win hearts apart from being "cheated" on ?
Click to expand...

Errr being graceful about it.

Let's consider two points here:-

1.)Mankading someone would have been okay if -
1.1 batsman was using unfair advantage by backing up on the crease far too early which he wasn't and all this without even warned once.
1.2 If bowler was having any intent to bowl in First place which he didn't.

2.) Many would say they are just following the rule and shouldn't be criticized but this is not following the rule but twisting the rule and it's obvious loophole to jail-break here.
 
aniket1911 said:
Errr being graceful about it.

Let's consider two points here:-

1.)Mankading someone would have been okay if -
1.1 batsman was using unfair advantage by backing up on the crease far too early which he wasn't and all this without even warned once.
1.2 If bowler was having any intent to bowl in First place which he didn't.

2.) Many would say they are just following the rule and shouldn't be criticized but this is not following the rule but twisting the rule and it's obvious loophole to jail-break here.
Click to expand...

Thank you, sums up what I've been trying to say throughout personally.
 
If the batsman was gaining no advantage then he should have stayed in his crease.

End of story.

You are taught these things when learning cricket in school, no excuses.
 
Big Mac said:
If the batsman was gaining no advantage then he should have stayed in his crease.

End of story.

You are taught these things when learning cricket in school, no excuses.
Click to expand...

Too much common sense. Some posters will not be able to process your point in their brain.
 
pakistanigoneaussie said:
Okay with it since it was clear that was his intention from the start, you can't have batsman backing up so much these days without the risk of repercussion
Click to expand...

Yes that's what I thought, if the WI were aware of this happening which they obviously were as you could tell his intentions from the off than that means they were doing it regularly and although in this instance he was only a couple inches out of his crease I'm assuming on a few occasions before that it may have been much more which WI realized and took full toll of it.
 
aniket1911 said:
Errr being graceful about it.

Let's consider two points here:-

1.)Mankading someone would have been okay if -
1.1 batsman was using unfair advantage by backing up on the crease far too early which he wasn't and all this without even warned once.
1.2 If bowler was having any intent to bowl in First place which he didn't.

2.) Many would say they are just following the rule and shouldn't be criticized but this is not following the rule but twisting the rule and it's obvious loophole to jail-break here.
Click to expand...

Cricketers don't walk when they edge the ball, keepers appeal when they know that the batsman hadn't hit it, bowlers bowl 2 bouncers to finish the over, batsmen walk in with gigantic bast in flat pitches with 60metre boundaries. Are these not "twisting the rule" ? Every sport from Ice hockey, to Tennis, to Badminton to Fencing has rules on how big their primary equipment should be, but in cricket there are no rules on how thick a bat can be apart from its length and height which is pretty stupid. No one sees this as loop holes. Rule is a rule, just stay inside the damn crease, whether a batsmen makes it to the crease or not is determined by mili seconds. The batsmen tried to get a head start and that is why he wasn't in the crease. Imagine a batsman getting stumped moaning " I didn't come down to hit the ball for six, my foot accidentally came passed the batting crease". Like Big Mac said, the runner should have stayed inside the crease, why did he need to step outside ?
 
Thivagar said:
Cricketers don't walk when they edge the ball, keepers appeal when they know that the batsman hadn't hit it, bowlers bowl 2 bouncers to finish the over, batsmen walk in with gigantic bast in flat pitches with 60metre boundaries. Are these not "twisting the rule" ? Every sport from Ice hockey, to Tennis, to Badminton to Fencing has rules on how big their primary equipment should be, but in cricket there are no rules on how thick a bat can be apart from its length and height which is pretty stupid. No one sees this as loop holes. Rule is a rule, just stay inside the damn crease, whether a batsmen makes it to the crease or not is determined by mili seconds. The batsmen tried to get a head start and that is why he wasn't in the crease. Imagine a batsman getting stumped moaning " I didn't come down to hit the ball for six, my foot accidentally came passed the batting crease". Like Big Mac said, the runner should have stayed inside the crease, why did he need to step outside ?
Click to expand...

The batsman didn't try and get a headstart. The bowler purposely slowed down to trick him into getting a headstart so he could stump him.
 
HitWicket said:
The batsman didn't try and get a headstart. The bowler purposely slowed down to trick him into getting a headstart so he could stump him.
Click to expand...

If the batsman did what he's supposed to and waited for the bowler to enter his delivery stride before moving then it would have been impossible for the bowler to trick him no matter what manner of dark arts he used.

Stay in your crease.
 
Thivagar said:
Cricketers don't walk when they edge the ball, keepers appeal when they know that the batsman hadn't hit it, bowlers bowl 2 bouncers to finish the over, batsmen walk in with gigantic bast in flat pitches with 60metre boundaries. Are these not "twisting the rule" ? Every sport from Ice hockey, to Tennis, to Badminton to Fencing has rules on how big their primary equipment should be, but in cricket there are no rules on how thick a bat can be apart from its length and height which is pretty stupid. No one sees this as loop holes. Rule is a rule, just stay inside the damn crease, whether a batsmen makes it to the crease or not is determined by mili seconds. The batsmen tried to get a head start and that is why he wasn't in the crease. Imagine a batsman getting stumped moaning " I didn't come down to hit the ball for six, my foot accidentally came passed the batting crease". Like Big Mac said, the runner should have stayed inside the crease, why did he need to step outside ?
Click to expand...

Yes, what you said is correct about other things.

It comes down to general perception about things we have in cricket.

1. Almost every keepers appeal when they know that the batsman hadn't hit it and it isn't uncommon. Hence it's alright.

2. Every batsmen walk in with gigantic bat in flat pitches with 60metre boundaries. Hence no questioning for this(although you will see someone criticising it here and there).

But in international cricket everybody finds it disgraceful and against sportsmanship to mankaded someone hence you will see everyone unsupportive of it. How many cases we have seen in cricket that a bowler could have mankad someone but he didn't and even if someone did, captain calling him back(like sehwag did).

Again nothing wrong with utilizing the law and even misusing it as there are plenty of other examples of misusing it but General perception of things takes time to adjust as we(majority) still don't find it ethical(although legal) mode for dismissing a batsman and to many it will be seen as disgraceful even if it's within the law to do so.
 
I'm sorry but this is disgraceful, the guy wasnt trying to gain an unfair advantage and was millimetres out if even out.

Yes its within the rules so I'm not gonna blame the WI, gotta do what you gotta do to win, but its a shocking way to end a great match.

Rules on this need to be clarified, as it is a team could theoretically go for a mankad every single delivery of a game without punishment.

I get both arguments tbh, Zimbo was technically out of the crease and the WI bowler had absolutely zero intention of ever bowling that delivery, but winning in this fashion just feels inherently wrong.

At the end of the day we were robbed of a great last over and cricket ultimately lost.
 
I am absolutely OK with what the bowler did !!! What right does the Non-Stricker have to get an unfair advantages of getting few inches outside the crease ??? Mind you, run outs are often decided within matter of inches as you have seen often. You can easily say the the Non-Stricker is violating the Sprit of the game ... can't you ??? Teams always exploit the unwritten rules. This should be a lesson to all Non-Strickers. There are plenty of rules to help a batsman nowadays. This one helps the fielding side ... fair enough.
 
Many people seem to be accusing the Zimbabwean batsman of being against the spirit of the game for supposedly attempting to gain an unfair advantage. I'd argue the case that he'd still be within his crease had the bowler carried out his usual run up and action rather than slowing down in order to carry this out. Fair enough you can accuse of being unaware of what was going on behind him, but I don't think him individually going against the spirit has a case.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...

Disgraceful from WI!

The kid wasn't halfway down the Pitch to gain an unfair advantage but just didn't have his Bat grounded, diabolical stuff from WI.
 
aniket1911 said:
Yes, what you said is correct about other things.

It comes down to general perception about things we have in cricket.

1. Almost every keepers appeal when they know that the batsman hadn't hit it and it isn't uncommon. Hence it's alright.

2. Every batsmen walk in with gigantic bat in flat pitches with 60metre boundaries. Hence no questioning for this(although you will see someone criticising it here and there).

But in international cricket everybody finds it disgraceful and against sportsmanship to mankaded someone hence you will see everyone unsupportive of it. How many cases we have seen in cricket that a bowler could have mankad someone but he didn't and even if someone did, captain calling him back(like sehwag did).

Again nothing wrong with utilizing the law and even misusing it as there are plenty of other examples of misusing it but General perception of things takes time to adjust as we(majority) still don't find it ethical(although legal) mode for dismissing a batsman and to many it will be seen as disgraceful even if it's within the law to do so.
Click to expand...

That is the problem, since "everyone" does it so no one cares about those other things, Mankading has been marketed as this evil thing, so everyone seem to fall for it. It is how marketing work, this is why people buy stupid Iphones, Beats by Dre and etc. It has been told to you that it is evil therefore everyone makes a big deal out if it. No one uses brain. It is not justifying to say "everyone does it ".
 
Convict said:
Taylor was from Wagga Wagga, Clarke's no private school boy, Ponting and Smith didn't complete high school and Border was from one of Australia's most elite schools.

What does it matter?

Also I find your characterisation of Clarke and Waugh really weird. I have no doubts whatsoever that Clarke would have acted in exactly the same manner as Waugh if he had the team.
Click to expand...

I've obviously misled you and various other posters by mentioning private schoolboy hero-worship in the same post as I congratulated McCullum and Gilchrist on their sportsmanship.

I obviously made my point badly.

The point is not that only "born to lead" people should lead. I'm the strongest opponent on this forum of Alastair Cook being England skipper because he went to the poshest private school.

My point is that cricket and rugby union are legacies of British public (which means private) school education in the late nineteenth century. There is a certain spirit in which they are best played.

I loved Ian Chappell's 1974-75 team trying to knock Tony Greig's head off but then having a beer with him each evening at the close of play. That's tough, it's a bit rough, but it's a great sporting contest and they are all still mates, at least the ones who are still alive are.

In contrast, I hate the "win at all costs" mentality of both Douglas Jardine in 1932-33 and of Allan Border in England in 1989, and it's interesting that the 1989 Ashes adversaries are not at all close, and indeed mainly dislike one another.

Cricket brings us together. It's why the British don't universally view Pakistanis with disdain on the basis of their religion and the awful reputation of the country. Any English cricketer of the 1970s loves it when he comes across Intikhab Alam or Zaheer Abbas or Majod Khan - they are much loved friends through sport.

If you reduce it to win at all costs, you can score a hollow victory but you never get the benefits of cricket as a social sport, which extend from weekend cricket all the way up to the Test players I listed above.

As a further example, pretty much everywhere he goes Shane Warne is greeted as an old friend. He could sledge Daryl Cullinan or Basit Ali, but rather like Kevin Pietersen he was always great socially after play and on good terms with his opponents - he'd even give them coaching advice DURING matches against them.

The same has never been true of Glenn McGrath. People feel sorry for the loss of his first wife, but he barely made a friend in the world of cricket outside his own changing rooms because he was just obnoxious to opponents, rather like my own county Lancashire's Jimmy Anderson is.

And I always think it's a bad thing when your own team likes you but your opponents don't. It tends to mean that you never got the spirit of sport.
 
Junaids is feeling nostalgic for a Britain that never existed outside the imagination of Daily Mail/Telegraph readers who miss the good old days when landlords could place signs in their windows that said "No blacks, no Irish".

The claim that rugby is a dignified, gentleman's sport seals the deal.
 
Last edited:
Big Mac said:
Junaids is feeling nostalgic for a Britain that never existed outside the imagination of Daily Mail/Telegraph readers who miss the good old days when landlords could place signs in their windows that said "No blacks, no Irish".

The claim that rugby is a dignified, gentleman's sport seals the deal.
Click to expand...

I don't know. The eye gouging that France specialise in at rugby usually makes me think "that's not cricket - the Wallabies / All Blacks / Boks wouldn't do that."
 
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...

That's not exactly true.

Soccer/Football has an unspoken rule about kicking the ball out if the opposing player is injured and the ref hasn't seen it. They could easily go and keep playing with the man advantage "legally" but they don't and it is frowned upon if they do keep playing.

In basketball, you don't run up the score in the last 24 seconds. Instead you hold the ball as it would be against the spirit of the game even though technically they could keep shooting and add to their personal point totals.

In baseball, you can't yell into someone's ear as you run the bases even though technically you can. It is frowned upon because you are purposely trying to distract them.

My point is every sport has unwritten rules and what is deemed to be "spirit of the game". WI players were allowed to do what they did, but it was incredibly poor and is the kind of thing that comes back to haunt when other teams start targeting you.
 
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