Stop being so defensive about Mankading..

As the CB series hurtles towards the end of the league stage, the action on the field has been quite rivetting. Of the 9 games so far, one has already ended in a tie while another couple have gone to the final over in the second innings. In addition to all this, there has also been no dearth of supplementary action on the field, none more major than the attempt by Ravi Ashwin to run out the non-striker Lahiru Thirimanne for leaving his crease during the bowling action. This, of course, is more commonly known as 'Mankading' after the Indian all-rounder Vinoo Mankad who ran out Aussie Bill Brown way back in 1947-48. I do believe that we should stop using that term and just call it a run-out. Expectedly, the incident generated a lot of controversy off the field, with strong opinions on both sides of the debate i.e. were the Indians right in appealing (apparently without a prior warning) and then were they right in withdrawing the appeal later on. Here I present some thoughts regarding the incident.

First the laws. Law 42.15 on the MCC website says that 'the bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to run-out the non-striker'.  It then goes on to define the delivery stride. The laws also regard as unfair any attempt by the non-striker to gain additional time by leaving his crease before the bowler has delivered the ball. Here is where the confusion starts. I was watching the game then and Tom Moody, on air at the time, was clear that the law stated that the bowler could run-out the non-striker any time 'before delivering the ball'. I have seen this view on some other forums as well but could not find mention of this on the web-site. So is it 'before entering his delivery stride' or 'before delivering the ball' ?? Either the MCC site has not been updated correctly, or most of us are still ignorant about the laws. Nevertheless, this does not detract from my main point.

Now coming to the point about warning the batsman and the so-called 'spirit of the game'. Again the laws do not mandate that the fielding side should warn the non-striker before running him out. Hence, Ashwin was well within the rules to appeal for the run-out even if he (as Jaywardene said later) had not warned Thirimanne earlier. Now were the Indians playing the game in the right 'spirit' by asking for that run-out, ostensibly without a warning ? This brings me to the spirit of the game. Firstly, let me make it clear that I am all for the spirit of the game. I believe it is neccessary for the smooth conduct of the game, which is increasingly getting more and more competitive. We have heard the phrase quite frequently over the past couple of years whether it be Randiv's no-ball to deny Sehwag a century or in the Ian Bell incident in England last summer. But we have to be judicious as regards the situations wherein the spirit of the game should be invoked. And I am very clear that in the case of a bowler running out the non-striker for backing up too much, the spirit of the game has no place. In my opinion, it is a very clear case of a legitimate dismissal, just like a run-out or handling the ball. Let me explain why. The 'spirit of the game' should be called upon only in cases where the law is not clear on how to handle the situation that has occured or, even if the law is clear, there is enough scope of subjectivity in the opinion of the umpires (I will come to their role later). I will give an example of the second instance. A batsman has set off for a tight single and dives to get in his crease. In the process, his momentum takes the bat off the ground such that, at the instant when the bails are whipped off, the bat is within the crease but in the air (rest of his body is outside the crease). The laws clearly state that the batsman has to leave. But maybe, in such a case, there might be scope for invoking the spirit of the game. After all, the batsman had logically made his ground. Now coming to the mode of dismissal in question. I find it hard to believe that the non-striker unknowingly wanders outside the crease when the bowler is delivering the ball. After all, batsmen are taught right from the school level to watch the bowler and his hand when he is running in to bowl. Surely, it should not be too difficult for them to keep their ground till the ball has left the bowlers hand. All the batsman is trying to do by leaving his crease is to gain those couple of feet which could make all the difference between a run-out and a not-out at the other end (especially in today's  TV era where even an inch short means you take the walk back to the pavilion). In fact, I would argue that with this intention in mind, if the non-striker is leaving his ground during the delivery action, it is actually HE (and not the bowler) who is not playing it fair (as made clear by the laws). To sum it up, I do feel we have to stop being so negative about this mode of dismissal and stop treating the batsman so leniently, especially since the laws are very clear on the subject. None of the warning business should apply and keep the spirit of the game for use somewhere else. Also this warning business does not make logical sense. Should it be one warning per game ? What if, in the next game, batsman again commits the same offence. Will there be a warning then too ? Or will it be one warning every series ? or once in a career ? Who keeps track of all this ?

Finally, a word on the conduct of the on-field umpires. They did their reputation no good with the way they referred the appeal to Sehwag and co. The law states that the umpires are the sole judges of fair or unfair play. Thus, when the appeal was mde by Ashwin, they should have taken it on themselves to give the batsman out or not-out. If Ashwin had not warned Thirimanne earlier, and if they felt that the spirit of the game needed to be upheld, then they should straightaway given the batsman not-out and noted that as a warning . Or else immediately given him out, provided Ashwin was yet to complete his delivery stride while removing the bails (which could have been verified by the third umpire). By referring the matter to the fielding side, they very conveniently passed the hot iron rod to Sehwag to handle. Now imagine if the day was the 2nd of April 2011 in Mumbai (the World Cup final). And for good measure, instead of Thirimanne, it was Sangakarra or Jaywardene in the crease with Sri Lanka needing 50 off 40 balls to win. Imagine Sehwag's dilemma if the decision was his to take. He would have been crucified for being too lenient had he allowed the batsman to stay (and if SL went to win the game). He would also have been crucified if he upheld the appeal, for not playing within the 'spirit of the game'. The umpires are supposed to be neutral, it is for them to take a decision and not to shy away from taking one.

To sum up this long post in one sentence: I do not think this mode of dismissal has scope for any warning to be given and the situation is too clear for the spirit of the game to be called upon.  Finally, would like to make it clear that my view is not because the bowling team was Indian and that we lost the game. It would have remained the same irrespective of which game it is.

Thanks for sitting through a long one..

Cheers

Amit

Mission 2014..

So the test series is finally over. As the last wicket fell at the Adelaide Oval, India's tour of misery was over, atleast in the longer version of the game. For nearly half of the XI that took the field in Adelaide, it was surely their last Test innings in Australia, maybe their last innings itself. As another 0-4 whitewash became a reality (the writing was on the wall ever since that massive hammering at the SCG), the fans and media back home immediately jumped in with bazookas in hand. The usual suspects were rounded off and sentenced: the ageing seniors, captain and coach, BCCI, the selectors and, of course, that favourite whipping boy, the IPL. To condemn the last two was something I found amusing. When the squad of 17 was announced, there was near unanimity that this was the best the selectors could send Down Under. With the benefit of hindsight, to now say that Srikkanth and co. should have selected X instead of A is improper. As regards the IPL, when the majority of the batting order had already made their names before the IPL started, it beats me how the IPL could have corrupted their batting style. Indeed, India's batting star on the tour is partly an IPL product.

Anyways, now is the time to look forward and not behind. But it is important to remember the lessons of the past while planning the future. And the future is not far ahead. Starting in late 2013, India embark on possibly their most prolonged and toughest string of overseas assignments. Starting with South Africa, the Indian team move on to New Zealand, England and finally Australia in the space of 14 odd months, playing 15 Tests in all (this is excluding playing the West Indies at home). And if all this was not enough cricket, this crazy bit of scheduling finally culminates in the defence of the World Cup in Australia in 2015 (that is after a 4 Test and ODI series there). Hence the title of this post. It is for 2014 that the Indian Test team needs to prepare. And the change needs to happen at all levels. Here are my two cents on some of the things the team, the board and, finally, the fans can do:

a. Leave the seniors alone : The demand, indeed the insistence, from a section of the fans and the media, that the batting trinity call it a day immediately is sad to say the least. And I say this not because I feel that they still have more years to give to Indian cricket. Like most others, I am in agreement that the old needs to give way to the new (in fact, it has been my constant rant that Sachin, Dravid and Laxman should not have played the tests against the West Indies together, a rotation policy should have been followed). But then I also do believe that the decision to retire is theirs alone and no one else should dictate that to them. All three have been great servants of Indian cricket and they would be the last persons to be accussed of having anything else than the team's interest at heart. So, if they feel that their time is up and they are not adding value to the team, I am convinced they will be first ones to quit. I am sure they are in deep introspection now and we should patiently wait for the announcement, whenever it comes. In any case, the next Test assignment is not until September, so why fret over this issue now ?.

b. Start identifying the team for 2014: Here the role of the selectors and team management comes into focus. I believe that there should be a role identified for each of the core players in the team basically on whether he is a long-term test prospect or if he is more suited to the shorter versions of the game. And if people like Rohit Sharma, Kohli, Pujara and Rahane are identified as the core of India's test team in 2014 and beyond, it is essential that they are nurtured and yet, given good exposure before hand. For e.g. once the IPL ends in May, it might be worthwhile for these guys to undergo a county stint in England. If it means that they miss some meaningless ODIs in Sri Lanka, so be it. And it would be even better still if someone like a Dravid can travel and work with them on the county circuit. This, in addition to the very beneficial Emerging Players Tournament subsequently, will help the youngsters gain valuable exposure. The Aussies have used IPL and other visits shrewdly in getting used to Indian conditions. It is time we repay the faith.

Equally important is the role of MS Dhoni as a wicketkeeper. He has publicly announced his intentions to relook his Test feature after 2013. That would the most inopportune time, especially with such important series coming up in 2014. In case MSD plans to quit Tests, it should be sooner than later. The selectors need to have a word with him regarding this and accordingly, groom a couple of young stumpers for the job. Similarly, when it comes to bowling, there needs to be careful handling of the bowling unit. Zaheer, though he lasted very well in the 4 Tests, may not be around in 2014. And Ishant continues to baffle. For a man who has played 45 tests, he hardly looks like someone who is ready to take over as the leader of the attack. It is interesting to note the role played by Craig McDermott in shaping the current Aussie pace attack. Maybe having a bowling coach with vast test experience might be the answer. Another important aspect of the role of the bowling coach is to manage the injuries that have lately become part and parcel of a bowler's life. The same holds for the spinners as well.

These are just some of the steps that can be taken to ensure that, come 2014, India has a young and stable core of Test match players. Of course, this also needs measures to be taken at the ground-level (read our domestic structures) to ensure that we are ready even beyond 2014. In my next post, I will put down some thoughts on how, in my opinion, we need to look at the long-term.

Till then

Cheers

Amit