Loved the video... Everything about it... The depth of research.... The ability to look at a incident without prejudice.... And to pay homage to a man who is most definitely worth remembering for other than running out over smart batsmen 😊
I think the term mankad should stay just the negativity associated with it should go away. And if you think for a while you will find it's Batriarchy which has made this dismissal negative. The batriarchist says the rule of mankading should written off but it's they often forget that it is there to prevent batters to take unfair advantage.
Nah, I think it's people like Ashwin and Deepti who made this dismissal negative, by cheating - they fake bowling to lure batters who weren't taking an unfair advantage out of their crease. If a batter is genuinely trying to steal ground then the mankad is fair game, if not then it's the bowler trying to gain an unfair advantage
If you remember the early days of Bangladesh in test cricket, you know the name Mohammad Rafique. Probably the best left handed spinner after Daniel Vettori in world cricket at that time. In the 2003 Multan test, which we nearly won before Inzi smashed a 100 with his bowlers on the other end and saved his career (Pakistan went on to win by 1 wicket), Umar Gul was repeatedly leaving the non-striker's crease but Rafique didn’t "Mankad" him. Post-match, he was asked why he didn’t do that despite the laws permitting him. He went on to say, and I am paraphrasing here, "This is the most coward law in cricket." Anyway, Bangladesh wouldn’t win their first test match for almost two years after that, and are still shite... So, yeah...
Batters are cheating by leaving the crease. Mankad is a good response. I suppose I'd warn the batsman first but . . . still. Played 44 Tests. Average 31.47 with the bat and 32 with the ball. That's really good. Every Test team would want that (are you listening Cameron?)
Exactly what I thought. By not calling it Mankad we are thinking negatively about this form of run out. Why not think of it as a celebration. One form of run out is named after Mankad. That should be cool.
In the US in the 1970's a TV comedy show called Hee Haw had a running gag (no pun intended) of a man coming into a doctor's office and saying "Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this [*gestures*]..." and the doctor replies, "Well, then? DON'T DO THAT!" And that's what I think of people who inveigh against mankading-- "If you don't want to be put out while outside the crease, then don't be outside the crease!"
You did an interesting video on the overlap of baseball and cricket. A ‘Mankad’ is in my mind analogous with a ‘balk’ in baseball, where a pitcher can commit a number of illegal motions or actions that constitute a ‘balk’. The purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. Most of these violations involve pitchers pretending to pitch when they have no intention of doing so. On the other hand baseball permits the so called ‘hidden ball trick’ which aims to deceive the base runner into leaving base and getting them tagged out. Debate!
Vinoo Mankad was considered a really good all-rounder. It's HE who made that dismissal memorable. That other fellow who was the first to do it 5 times in a row? He was so forgettable that I cannot even recollect his name as of typing this comment.
It's an interesting function of race and elitism in English cricket that even though, the first recorded 'Mankad' was done by an Englishman; it became (in)famous and whined about by poms when men/women of colour do it.
Harsh to compare him to Ashwin because not every low 30s avg batsman is equal. Stokes and Jadeja are both high averaging batsmen but only one can be relied upon to score tough away hundreds like Mankad often did. You are not going to see Ashwin or Hadlee score multiple hundreds away in Australia. Mankad’s batting was more akin to a genuinely capable but average top/middle order batsman like Botham or Stokes if a bit worse rather than a bowling all rounder farming an average at a lower batting position. Also, a lot of great all rounders have roughly 30/30 splits. If you do it with a high enough wpm and over 10+ years, that’s basically an atg career. See Botham and Kapil. Obv Mankad didn’t have the opportunity to play 100 tests back then but that was due to no fault of his own.
Hey Sir, here was the question for you by my queries mind and that is "vinoo mankad" if he is run out on all time second highest partnership in cricket history so who was the bowler that mankind him ??
2 options: 1. Leave the Mankad as the perfectly legitimate celebrated dismissal that it should be. 2. Ban the Mankad and every batsman who backs up before the ball is released is called for a deliberate short run. (The third umpire can check this every ball, when they check for front foot no balls)
Think two dynamics need to be differentiated. The Mankad where as with the original incident the batter is viewed as being outside his ground, or the batter has been going out of their ground, and the bowler executes the runout. Versus the version where the bowler bowls a dummy delivery- at least with the legs - to goad the batter out of the crease. The first is fine, maybe a warning but no real need. The second (Deepti Shaw) version I dont like at all. But I think it should be made illegal, rather than lionised players. Heck before Shaw did it it had just been clarified that that WAS legal, so Ive nothing against her doing it, just that it should never have been made legal - once a bowler does full delivery stride then the Mankad should be out the equation.
Can you clarify when you want the cut off point to be. The current law requires it to be before the arm passes the vertical in the delivery. Eg. Adam Zampa non run out.
@Andrew-zq8zl Yeah, I think the bottom half needs to be considered also. "If a bowler pulls out of their delivery stride the ball should be immediately considered dead, unless the non striking batter is out of their crease. In that case the ball only becomes dead when the batter returns to their crease or a runout is effected, whichever is first" Essentially for me if the runner is not out of the crease when the bowler pulls out of the delivery if the ball is not delivered then ball should be considered dead. The Deepti Shaw Mankad differentiates itself from others because Dean is still in her crease as Shaws foot is about to hit the ground and Shaw pulls out of the delivery before Dean even leaves the crease. There was no observation of Dean leaving her crease - she just guessed and Dean only left her crease at the moment the ball would have been bowled. So no advantage was being gained by the batter...the bowler just bowled a dummy ball and feinted the batter out of her ground. Again, that's not on Shaw or India because the icc had literally just emphasised that was legal, making it seem not just allowed but encouraged. But to me wandering out of one's crease is careless and eg Buttler deserves it when he is punished for taking an advantage. Feint Deliverers though and guessing that batter might leave the crease is a different matter. Would rather that was made a dead ball.
Even i skwsys fiund the udea thst this mskigns hus nsm as crazy. People who say its not unethical say its doiols Mankad s name Is thst not counter intuitive
If you don't want to look like an idiot on the field, don't act like an idiot on the field. I can't imagine being the 4th girl to get Mankadded in that game lmao. I'd just keep walking forever.
I'm happy with giving a warning (not necessary) but if you exploit it again, I have little sympathy. It is still several levels below bowling underarm. That was 11/10 on the shit bloke scale.
It's quite absurd when a country that secured a World Cup victory with six runs from a boundary deflection off the bat talks about the spirit of cricket.
This whining remains forever insane. Even more insane given that in my experience it never comes from New Zealanders. Who seem to have a functioning set of perspective on the incident. You seriously, seriously can't get your head aroud the notion that *accidentally benefitting from a moment of genuine luck* is different from *having an opinion about events in the game*. That Ben Stokes accidentally deflected a ball to the boundary in a game of cricket 5 years ago means that nobody in the entire nation can discuss the game, does it? Jog on. Think Mankads are fine so long as they're done because the bowler has seen the batter leave the crease. Not a fan of the dummy delivery version though. Think those two should be differentiated.
I hate anyone who Mankads, shockingly poor sportsmanship, Walsh was an incredible sportsman. Compare that to Greg Chappell, who say what you want about the Mankads, but the underarm was the worst thing that ever happened in the history of cricket
every time a soccer player drops on field presenting to be hurt((happens all the time), is that sportsmanship? no but soccer is still most popular sport. cricket need to be aggressive and rough
And the batsman backing up halfway down the pitch before the ball has been released is also "shockingly poor sportsmanship", and there should be consequences.
Bruh the underarm deprives the opposition from a fair chance to score. Mankad chastises the batter for taking an unfair advantage. Comparing potatoes to Haggis here.
".. began as a proper noun. He became a noun, and is now a verb. But he was also a legend." What a line.
' It takes a speical bowler to keep taking wickets beyond the grave! '
What a line!
Is this #JarrodKimber 's "Remember the name" moment? 😅
Loved the video... Everything about it... The depth of research.... The ability to look at a incident without prejudice.... And to pay homage to a man who is most definitely worth remembering for other than running out over smart batsmen 😊
Even by your exceptionally high standards, this is an outstanding video essay. Bravo!
Vinoo Mankad was similar to Ravindra Jadeja of current era.
Top allrounder during 40s and 50s
No. Keith Miller was far greater during that era.
It's so nice to watch and listen to nuanced commentary :)
I also like how far Jarrod casts his nets to find information.
Covert Indian also said a while back that the Mankading should be called Barkering since he did it in First Class before anyone else.
In my mind it's simple the batsmen know the rules, it should absolutely be part of the game, no warnings, just out.
Excellent. I loved it. No one sees this Angle.
Excellent work Jarrod. Loved it
Underrated channel. Keep em coming and thanks for a fabulous analysis
From the same town as Vinoo Mankad and Ravindra Jadeja.. we breed different ppl 😂
Nd both are left arm spining allrounders
wow, just wow. the insight, the detail, the presentation. marvellous stuff that.
Another well detailed video !!
Incredible video!
You're the man Jarrod. In a world of divisiveness, you shed some light. Proper cricket son!
Just fantastic work!
The ending was just so so special
I think the term mankad should stay just the negativity associated with it should go away. And if you think for a while you will find it's Batriarchy which has made this dismissal negative.
The batriarchist says the rule of mankading should written off but it's they often forget that it is there to prevent batters to take unfair advantage.
Nah, I think it's people like Ashwin and Deepti who made this dismissal negative, by cheating - they fake bowling to lure batters who weren't taking an unfair advantage out of their crease. If a batter is genuinely trying to steal ground then the mankad is fair game, if not then it's the bowler trying to gain an unfair advantage
Woah, an Englishman invented the mankad? What will we do about the spirit of the game!!!
What an excellent video, thank you Jarrod.
Really great video, and agree with you. There's no negative connotation for many people, and it's a way to remember a legend of the game!
Gonna start calling them "Tommy Bs"
Unbelievable work guys. So awesome. 🎉🎉🎉
Amazing video as usual! Great research
Excellent Essay.
Extremely well written.
Most researched channel about cricket on any platform.
If you remember the early days of Bangladesh in test cricket, you know the name Mohammad Rafique. Probably the best left handed spinner after Daniel Vettori in world cricket at that time.
In the 2003 Multan test, which we nearly won before Inzi smashed a 100 with his bowlers on the other end and saved his career (Pakistan went on to win by 1 wicket), Umar Gul was repeatedly leaving the non-striker's crease but Rafique didn’t "Mankad" him.
Post-match, he was asked why he didn’t do that despite the laws permitting him. He went on to say, and I am paraphrasing here, "This is the most coward law in cricket."
Anyway, Bangladesh wouldn’t win their first test match for almost two years after that, and are still shite... So, yeah...
Batters are cheating by leaving the crease. Mankad is a good response. I suppose I'd warn the batsman first but . . . still. Played 44 Tests. Average 31.47 with the bat and 32 with the ball. That's really good. Every Test team would want that (are you listening Cameron?)
I do agree with the first part, but I'd add that this also means bowlers are cheating if they fake bowling to lure batters out of their crease
Great vid. Always love your research
Just Wow. Keep doing the great work.
Loved the video!!
Exactly what I thought. By not calling it Mankad we are thinking negatively about this form of run out. Why not think of it as a celebration. One form of run out is named after Mankad. That should be cool.
Great work Jarrod...
Once in a while you come across a video for which you wish to give it more than one like
This good sir is one of those videos.
Regards
A fan
Wow!!
Great video. Long live Mr Mankad!
In the US in the 1970's a TV comedy show called Hee Haw had a running gag (no pun intended) of a man coming into a doctor's office and saying "Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this [*gestures*]..." and the doctor replies, "Well, then? DON'T DO THAT!" And that's what I think of people who inveigh against mankading-- "If you don't want to be put out while outside the crease, then don't be outside the crease!"
Loved this video...
List of cricket terms named after cricketers
Dil Scoop
Mankad
Natmeg
So actually it should be barkered then
You did an interesting video on the overlap of baseball and cricket. A ‘Mankad’ is in my mind analogous with a ‘balk’ in baseball, where a pitcher can commit a number of illegal motions or actions that constitute a ‘balk’. The purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. Most of these violations involve pitchers pretending to pitch when they have no intention of doing so. On the other hand baseball permits the so called ‘hidden ball trick’ which aims to deceive the base runner into leaving base and getting them tagged out. Debate!
Vinoo Mankad was considered a really good all-rounder. It's HE who made that dismissal memorable.
That other fellow who was the first to do it 5 times in a row? He was so forgettable that I cannot even recollect his name as of typing this comment.
It's an interesting function of race and elitism in English cricket that even though, the first recorded 'Mankad' was done by an Englishman; it became (in)famous and whined about by poms when men/women of colour do it.
Harsh to compare him to Ashwin because not every low 30s avg batsman is equal. Stokes and Jadeja are both high averaging batsmen but only one can be relied upon to score tough away hundreds like Mankad often did. You are not going to see Ashwin or Hadlee score multiple hundreds away in Australia.
Mankad’s batting was more akin to a genuinely capable but average top/middle order batsman like Botham or Stokes if a bit worse rather than a bowling all rounder farming an average at a lower batting position.
Also, a lot of great all rounders have roughly 30/30 splits. If you do it with a high enough wpm and over 10+ years, that’s basically an atg career. See Botham and Kapil. Obv Mankad didn’t have the opportunity to play 100 tests back then but that was due to no fault of his own.
Hey Sir, here was the question for you by my queries mind and that is "vinoo mankad" if he is run out on all time second highest partnership in cricket history so who was the bowler that mankind him ??
I'm going to switch to calling it a Barker and then give anyone who questions it a history lesson until they leave me alone.
2 options:
1. Leave the Mankad as the perfectly legitimate celebrated dismissal that it should be.
2. Ban the Mankad and every batsman who backs up before the ball is released is called for a deliberate short run. (The third umpire can check this every ball, when they check for front foot no balls)
keep taking wickets beyond the grave
"Beyond the ashes" *
Think two dynamics need to be differentiated.
The Mankad where as with the original incident the batter is viewed as being outside his ground, or the batter has been going out of their ground, and the bowler executes the runout.
Versus the version where the bowler bowls a dummy delivery- at least with the legs - to goad the batter out of the crease.
The first is fine, maybe a warning but no real need. The second (Deepti Shaw) version I dont like at all. But I think it should be made illegal, rather than lionised players. Heck before Shaw did it it had just been clarified that that WAS legal, so Ive nothing against her doing it, just that it should never have been made legal - once a bowler does full delivery stride then the Mankad should be out the equation.
Can you clarify when you want the cut off point to be. The current law requires it to be before the arm passes the vertical in the delivery. Eg. Adam Zampa non run out.
@Andrew-zq8zl Yeah, I think the bottom half needs to be considered also.
"If a bowler pulls out of their delivery stride the ball should be immediately considered dead, unless the non striking batter is out of their crease. In that case the ball only becomes dead when the batter returns to their crease or a runout is effected, whichever is first"
Essentially for me if the runner is not out of the crease when the bowler pulls out of the delivery if the ball is not delivered then ball should be considered dead.
The Deepti Shaw Mankad differentiates itself from others because Dean is still in her crease as Shaws foot is about to hit the ground and Shaw pulls out of the delivery before Dean even leaves the crease. There was no observation of Dean leaving her crease - she just guessed and Dean only left her crease at the moment the ball would have been bowled. So no advantage was being gained by the batter...the bowler just bowled a dummy ball and feinted the batter out of her ground.
Again, that's not on Shaw or India because the icc had literally just emphasised that was legal, making it seem not just allowed but encouraged.
But to me wandering out of one's crease is careless and eg Buttler deserves it when he is punished for taking an advantage. Feint Deliverers though and guessing that batter might leave the crease is a different matter. Would rather that was made a dead ball.
The one hell of a homage paid to Vinoo Mankad,,,on the side note I want the term to stay
Fantastic!
Just don't do it to:
a) English players; and
b) England.
Even i skwsys fiund the udea thst this mskigns hus nsm as crazy. People who say its not unethical say its doiols Mankad s name
Is thst not counter intuitive
love it
VINOO MANKAD Run-out IS A CHEATER TAG ASSOCIATED WITH AN INDIAN CRICKETER LEGACY
No. It’s legal. I know this because I don’t use all caps and because I read the laws.
Just fyi, he was cremated.
If you don't want to look like an idiot on the field, don't act like an idiot on the field. I can't imagine being the 4th girl to get Mankadded in that game lmao. I'd just keep walking forever.
You should be a verb too mate
I'm happy with giving a warning (not necessary) but if you exploit it again, I have little sympathy. It is still several levels below bowling underarm. That was 11/10 on the shit bloke scale.
It's quite absurd when a country that secured a World Cup victory with six runs from a boundary deflection off the bat talks about the spirit of cricket.
This whining remains forever insane.
Even more insane given that in my experience it never comes from New Zealanders. Who seem to have a functioning set of perspective on the incident.
You seriously, seriously can't get your head aroud the notion that *accidentally benefitting from a moment of genuine luck* is different from *having an opinion about events in the game*.
That Ben Stokes accidentally deflected a ball to the boundary in a game of cricket 5 years ago means that nobody in the entire nation can discuss the game, does it?
Jog on.
Think Mankads are fine so long as they're done because the bowler has seen the batter leave the crease. Not a fan of the dummy delivery version though. Think those two should be differentiated.
I hate anyone who Mankads, shockingly poor sportsmanship, Walsh was an incredible sportsman. Compare that to Greg Chappell, who say what you want about the Mankads, but the underarm was the worst thing that ever happened in the history of cricket
There is nothing unsportsmanlike about mankading. Did you even watch the video?
every time a soccer player drops on field presenting to be hurt((happens all the time), is that sportsmanship? no but soccer is still most popular sport. cricket need to be aggressive and rough
And the batsman backing up halfway down the pitch before the ball has been released is also "shockingly poor sportsmanship", and there should be consequences.
Bruh the underarm deprives the opposition from a fair chance to score. Mankad chastises the batter for taking an unfair advantage. Comparing potatoes to Haggis here.