It seems like every cricket series of late has involved some sort of controversy around the term “Mankading”, with terms like “just not cricket”, “unsportsmanlike”, and even “cheating” thrown about with abandon under over overly dramatic headlines. Now, the casual cricket watching may be asking what exactly is Mankading?
What’s in a Name?
The simple explanation is that Mankading is when the non-striker (the batsman standing at the bowler’s end) begins to back up (another cricketing term that means the non-striker begins to move in preparation for taking a run) and the bowlers breaks the wicket with them out of the crease, running them out.
Mankad is named after an Indian cricketer named Vinod Mankad who did it on a tour in 1947, but it is probably not the way he would have wanted to go down in cricket history as he was a more than handy already, nor quite fair to him, seeing as the first instance was recorded in 1850!
It is technically within the Laws of Cricket. The argument for Mankad is, that by taking too many steps out their crease while the bowler is still in their delivery stride, the batsman gains an unfair advantage because they have less distance to run if a run is taken. Despite this, when it does happen it creates an incredibly heated response, both on the pitch from the opposition players, and from commentators and pundits off it.
Just Not Cricket?
Mankad will be described as contrary to the Spirit of the Game, and condemned as unsporting. Anyone who has read my columns would know I am a firm believer that there is something more to cricket than just laws. That Cricket is about the way you play the game (I think it is courteous for the bowler to give a warning if they feel the batsman is crossing the line before attempting it). It is hard not to see this as one those examples of the Spirit of the Game being some nebulous term that means whatever suits the person on the wrong end of things at the time.
As a spinner I may be biased, but, the fact is, it is the bowler who is acting within the laws of the game and the batsman who is taking advantage of pushing the bounds of breaking them. I find it ironic that Mankading attracts far more vehement condemnation than appealing for things you know you know are not out—which is called building pressure—or not walking when you know you are out—which is almost admired as getting one over the umpire and opposition. These are dishonest if not actually cheating, and seem to me to be far more egregious a violation of both the Laws, and the Spirit, of the game.
Blaming the Blameless
It also doesn’t seem fair that it is bowler who attracts so much criticism for simply exercising one of the ways of making a dismissal under the Laws, even if you take the position that it shouldn't be possible the blame should fall on the ones who write the rules. It seems a case of shooting the messenger and ignoring the sender.
As long as it remains a legal method of dismissal, and batsman continue to try and push the boundaries of backing up, bowlers should have the ability to counter that tactic and do their job—getting wickets. But, if I haven’t convinced you will leave you with the words of just a minor figure in the game—Sir Donald Bradman.
“For the life of me, I can't understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage.” Sir Donald Bradman
Wise words, indeed.