England v Sri Lanka, 1xT20 + 5xODI, 21 May - 3 June, 2014

Henry wrote:

England shouldn't be allowed to use this as a way to cover up what has been a very poor performance in this ODI series, as if the Mankad was the only reason they lost the game and the series.

Word. It'll be "Mankad" this and "spirit of cricket" that for the next few days, instead of "shit batting" this and "haven't learned a thing about playing limited overs cricket in 30 years" that.

Cook thought they were only 20 runs short with the bat. What else is there to say?

Dello wrote:

Henry wrote:

England shouldn't be allowed to use this as a way to cover up what has been a very poor performance in this ODI series, as if the Mankad was the only reason they lost the game and the series.

Word. It'll be "Mankad" this and "spirit of cricket" that for the next few days, instead of "shit batting" this and "haven't learned a thing about playing limited overs cricket in 30 years" that.

Cook thought they were only 20 runs short with the bat. What else is there to say?

SACK COOK NOW.

furriner wrote:I saw the game.  IMO, since Butler was warned about it once, so he got what was coming to him.

Can't say it bothered me in the slightest. Stupid way to get dismissed, but it's ridiculous how precious everyone gets about modes of dismissal that are written in the laws but rarely crop up - seem to remember Michael Vaughan feeling hard done by about being given out handled ball. Them's the rules, dickhead. And in the spirit of cricket, get the f*ck out.

Thought Sri Lanka argued a fair case, that Buttler had been getting a flying start all through the previous match, where he turned shit loads of ones into scrambled twos, so they decided to bring it to the umpires' attention to stop him doing it. Which he didn't.

But, of course, England take the moral high ground - just because they weren't keeping within the laws of the game doesn't give anyone else the right to punish them by enforcing the laws of the game. Classic cricketing logic.

I for the life of me can't understand why Mankadding is considered to be against the spirit of the game.

I can only put it down to batsmen running the game for so long that everybody else has developed some form of Stockholm syndrome.

It's a batsman's responsibility to be in his crease. If he thinks it worth leaving his crease that's his risk to take. Why should a batsman be able to sneak down the wicket without any consequences?

I'm just trying to imagine baseball having a convention which says you're not supposed to throw out people trying to steal bases.

Mankadding should be considered just as legitimate a dismissal as a stumping. I don't even see the need for warnings. If the striker is out of his crease he can be stumped - no wicketkeeper is forced to say, "do that again and I'll take the bails off". Just tell batsmen/captains to stop whinging and let the chips fall where they may.

One further point on warnings. I believe the convention originally arose to guard against taking advantage of an absent-minded batsman who didn't realise he wasn't in his crease.

But in today's game batsmen back up as a matter of course. And it's also possible for an absent-minded striker to be out of his crease. I've seen plenty of batsmen dismissed in this manner and the general reaction is "What careless batting. He should have been concentrating harder". The same should go for non-strikers.

Henry wrote:I'm with Sri Lanka here.

They'd warned Buttler previously, and yet like a dope, he still strolled out of his crease, without paying attention as to what was going on. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are rules that say that Sennanayake did what he was entitled to do.

England shouldn't be allowed to use this as a way to cover up what has been a very poor performance in this ODI series, as if the Mankad was the only reason they lost the game and the series.

Totally agree.
Buttler was warned - not once, but twice, once officially - but he chose to ignore the warnings - the rest is history.
Q - Is stealing a run not also considered against the "spirit of the game"?
Go figure.
As Athers quite simply pointed out yesterday during the game - "If your bat is in the crease, you cannot be given out".
Close the book and FFS move on England

Cook's "hard-done-by" attitude in continuing the exchanges with Mathews immediately after the winning run
was hit was absolutely pathetic.  
Let's not paper over the cracks with the "we woz robbed" attitude.

England were inept, clueless and terrible. 220 was never going to challenge Sri Lanka.
England's top four are NOT ODI specialists - they collect runs conservatively rather than aggressively looking
to score off every ball.
The power play is thus wasted and the subsequent crawl along inevitably leads to cramping the ODI specialists
like Morgs, Bopara, and Buttler into being over-bold - rash perhaps - almost immediately they get to the crease.

Time for a re-think.
Perhaps a specialist ODI Selector is called for rather than the four farts that currently oversee selection.

To be fair to Cook though, I think he was just flabbergasted at the start of the SL innings - he saw these two people with sticks thwacking this leather thing to areas where there were no other people to pick it up.

TBH, I was a little confused - I saw this half volley get despatched over this rope thingy. The way I see it, a half volley is there to get left to go through to the keeper. Oh, and the lollipop bouncer can hit the middle of the bat, so it seems - it doesn't have to skew off the bottom of the bat for a scampered single at the end of all that, I was with Alastair Cook: Sri Lanka = f*cking cheats.

Still, we can all agree: the Moores era has (once again) started as flaccidly as predicted.

Seems to me the chairman picked the man who'd be at least 2nd nicest to Alastair Cook, who they absolutely adore. They adore him because he's nice and his family is nice and his background is nice. Cool. Doesn't mean he merits a place. But that's that, I suppose - as long as he's happy.

If you're interested, he's averaged 30 with the bat in the last year, with a S/R in the low 70's. But don't worry because his fielding is serviceable at best. But don't worry because his captaincy is so meek that he's lost 10 out of the 18 matches he's been in charge of.

Still, he likes Waitrose, I hear. Cool. He's a role model. Kids should, by rights, look up to him.

Hass wrote:I for the life of me can't understand why Mankadding is considered to be against the spirit of the game.

I can only put it down to batsmen running the game for so long that everybody else has developed some form of Stockholm syndrome.

It's a batsman's responsibility to be in his crease. If he thinks it worth leaving his crease that's his risk to take. Why should a batsman be able to sneak down the wicket without any consequences?

I'm just trying to imagine baseball having a convention which says you're not supposed to throw out people trying to steal bases.

Mankadding should be considered just as legitimate a dismissal as a stumping. I don't even see the need for warnings. If the striker is out of his crease he can be stumped - no wicketkeeper is forced to say, "do that again and I'll take the bails off". Just tell batsmen/captains to stop whinging and let the chips fall where they may.

Excellent analogies. I was always warning creeping crabs for trying to get a head start when I played. Didn't Mankad anyone but, by fark, I was close many times.

Dello wrote:Still, we can all agree: the Moores era has (once again) started as flaccidly as predicted.

Can you use flaccid in this sense? Doesn't it imply that it might have a different state?

Brass Monkey wrote:Seems to me the chairman picked the man who'd be at least 2nd nicest to Alastair Cook, who they absolutely adore. They adore him because he's nice and his family is nice and his background is nice. Cool. Doesn't mean he merits a place. But that's that, I suppose - as long as he's happy.

If you're interested, he's averaged 30 with the bat in the last year, with a S/R in the low 70's. But don't worry because his fielding is serviceable at best. But don't worry because his captaincy is so meek that he's lost 10 out of the 18 matches he's been in charge of.

Still, he likes Waitrose, I hear. Cool. He's a role model. Kids should, by rights, look up to him.

He's making me consider not liking Waitrose.

Not really. I f*cking love Waitrose.

Hass wrote:I for the life of me can't understand why Mankadding is considered to be against the spirit of the game.

I can only put it down to batsmen running the game for so long that everybody else has developed some form of Stockholm syndrome.

It's a batsman's responsibility to be in his crease. If he thinks it worth leaving his crease that's his risk to take. Why should a batsman be able to sneak down the wicket without any consequences?

I'm just trying to imagine baseball having a convention which says you're not supposed to throw out people trying to steal bases.

Mankadding should be considered just as legitimate a dismissal as a stumping. I don't even see the need for warnings. If the striker is out of his crease he can be stumped - no wicketkeeper is forced to say, "do that again and I'll take the bails off". Just tell batsmen/captains to stop whinging and let the chips fall where they may.

Have you seen the video? His action is so slow, he holds it back deliberately with no intention whatsoever to deliver the ball, his sole intention in walking in to 'bowl' is to Mankad the batsman. And yes, Buttler is a stupid git for not watching until the bowling action has been completed before leaving the crease. It's not so much analogous to a normal stumping as it is to a stumping where the keeper takes the ball in front of the stumps, or feigns a throw to the cover fieldsman before turning to complete a stumping as the inattentive batsman takes a step outside his crease to swap some debris off the wicket.

Isn't the bowler supposed to complete his action or at least the delivery stride before attempting a mankad? Can he really just wander in, make as if to ping a javelin, and then, at the last instant, instead of flinging the thing in his delivery stride, just stop and drop it on the bails? Embee?

I'm not excusing Buttler here, and heaven knows I enjoy any England loss. If the pinger wasn't already an obvious cheating blight on the game, I wouldn't feel a shred of pity for the idiot Buttler. As for the result of the game ... who gives a toss, anyway? Agree that it would seem very silly for England fans to attribute their loss to the Mankadding.

How MCC and ICC differ
The run out of Jos Buttler, backing up after previously being warned by Sachithra Senanayake, prompted much thumb of the Laws and various playing conditions. Here is how MCC and ICC make a subtle, but crucial difference in the wording of being run out in such circumstances.
MCC Laws
Law 42.15: Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
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.
ICC ODI playing conditions
42.11 Law 42.12 Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
Law 42.15 shall be replaced by the following
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 possible.

lardbucket wrote:Have you seen the video? His action is so slow, he holds it back deliberately with no intention whatsoever to deliver the ball, his sole intention in walking in to 'bowl' is to Mankad the batsman. And yes, Buttler is a stupid git for not watching until the bowling action has been completed before leaving the crease. It's not so much analogous to a normal stumping as it is to a stumping where the keeper takes the ball in front of the stumps, or feigns a throw to the cover fieldsman before turning to complete a stumping as the inattentive batsman takes a step outside his crease to swap some debris off the wicket.

The stopping bit is his action. It's not an exception, he does it a bit like a few others. Not got anything to do with running out the batsman.

tricycle wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Have you seen the video? His action is so slow, he holds it back deliberately with no intention whatsoever to deliver the ball, his sole intention in walking in to 'bowl' is to Mankad the batsman. And yes, Buttler is a stupid git for not watching until the bowling action has been completed before leaving the crease. It's not so much analogous to a normal stumping as it is to a stumping where the keeper takes the ball in front of the stumps, or feigns a throw to the cover fieldsman before turning to complete a stumping as the inattentive batsman takes a step outside his crease to swap some debris off the wicket.

The stopping bit is his action. It's not an exception, he does it a bit like a few others. Not got anything to do with running out the batsman.

Is the stopping part not also against the spirit of the game?

Is it? Been used often in OD matches quite often, rarely in tests. Never remember it sparking an issue before.

But to be completely honest, spirit of cricket (especially in Mankading cases) has always been one of the most confusing concepts for me.

The problem with The Spirit of Cricket - important though that is, in general terms an appreciation of fairness (vs gamesmanship or worse) - is that it's generally invoked against your opposition.

I don't think the incident reflects all that greatly on the game - to me, it seems a bit like Marty puts it (the perceived action of the bowler matters, and even more, the distance of the batsman down the pitch) - but it is really fairly secondary to a poor batting procedure/procession by England. Even if Buttler might have hit 30-40 more and England had used their overs (entirely possible).

The problem is, the more you bang on about it, the more this starts to create the impression you are desperately trying to smokescreen poor batsmanship. Not by Buttler. But by the six above him.

If you want to amend the rule, campaign for that.

But don't bang on about it.

I'm not banging on about it. Let that be clear, for a bangoff.

If the bangoff does turn into an orgy, I'm up for it.

Bang on.

PeterCS wrote:The problem with The Spirit of Cricket - important though that is, in general terms an appreciation of fairness (vs gamesmanship or worse) - is that it's generally invoked against your opposition.

It's interesting to note that the captain of the opposition on the end of the original Mankad incident saw nothing wrong with it. Don Bradman defended Mankad is his book Farewell To Cricket, released about three years after the incident.

Sir Donald Bradman wrote:
An early sensation came in Australia’s innings when Brown was once more run out by Mankad, who, in the act of delivering the ball, held on to it and whipped the bails off with Brown well out of his crease. This had happened in the Indian match against Queensland, and immediately in some quarters Mankad’s sportsmanship was questioned. For the life of me I cannot understand why. 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… there was absolutely no feeling in the matter as far as we were concerned, for we considered it quite a legitimate part of the game.

.

Bradman even uses the same phrase I did "For the life of me" (not sure if this is a coincidence or something I summoned from my subconscious).

Anyway, can we get to the matter in hand - how shoite are England at white ball cricket?

Basil wrote:Anyway, can we get to the matter in hand - how shoite are England at white ball cricket?

Correction:

how shoite are England at white ball cricket?

tricycle wrote:Is it? Been used often in OD matches quite often, rarely in tests. Never remember it sparking an issue before.

But to be completely honest, spirit of cricket (especially in Mankading cases) has always been one of the most confusing concepts for me.

To me it has always been a bit of an issue. Balking is a punishable offence in a few games.

taipan wrote:

Dello wrote:

Henry wrote:

England shouldn't be allowed to use this as a way to cover up what has been a very poor performance in this ODI series, as if the Mankad was the only reason they lost the game and the series.

Word. It'll be "Mankad" this and "spirit of cricket" that for the next few days, instead of "shit batting" this and "haven't learned a thing about playing limited overs cricket in 30 years" that.

Cook thought they were only 20 runs short with the bat. What else is there to say?

SACK COOK NOW.

YaY!