Zimbabwe

This category contains 6 posts

To Mankad or not to Mankad, that is the question


When Keemo Paul ran out Richard Ngarava in the final over, with the under-19  Zimbabwe side requiring three runs with a wicket in hand, he re-sparked a debate about the run-out law that allows a bowler to break the stumps if he or she finds the non-striker out of bounds.

The West Indians insisted on upholding the appeal. The umpires had no option but to declare the batsman out. The dismissal was legal.

The Zimbabweans were understandably distraught.

Their hopes of making the Under-19 World Cup quarter-final were shattered—cruelly.

Law 42.15 of the MCC Laws of Cricket pertaining to Fair and Unfair Play states:

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.”

 

From Bradman.jpg — Don Bradman — Source: http:...

Don Bradman — Source: http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/australia/content/image/161569.html (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Sir Donald Bradman had this to say about the original Mankading when India’s Vinoo Mankad ran out Australia’s Bill Brown in the second Test in 1947:

“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.”

Bryon Coverdale, in a 2013 article, is even more scathing in his indictment of the practice of backing up.

He wrote:

“The ICC’s playing condition 42.11 explicitly states that a mankad is fair. An additional clause should be added to state that an umpire must not consult the fielding captain before making his decision, unless the conversation is instigated by the captain.

Certainly a mankad is no less fair than when a striker’s straight drive rockets through the bowler’s hands and hits the stumps with the non-striker out of his ground. Of course, umpires rightly treat that as they do a regulation run-out. Just as they should with the mankad.”

Cricinfo carried a poll ‘Should the Mankad dismissal be part of the game?’ with its article covering the incident.

The results of the poll were as follows:

Yes – the batsman should not be allowed to gain ground unfairly 38.06% 21881

No – it is not within the spirit of the game 12.79% 7355

Yes – but only after the batsman has been warned once 49.14% 28250

Total votes: 57486

Coverdale’s views are consonant with the off-side rule in soccer and baseball rules about stealing bases.

In baseball, the pitcher and the catcher may try and tag out a runner who appears to be trying to steal a base by taking too big a lead-off. Unlike cricket, runners can take a head start towards the next base, but the pitcher and the catcher are within their rights to tag them out if they try to steal more than one base from a hit.  A pitcher cannot abort or ‘balk’ once he or she commits to home plate.

Runners are never warned; the rules are crystal clear.

The naysayers to the above viewpoint subscribe to the notion that cricket is a gentleman’s game.

Is it, really? That’s debatable.

If this is how Under-19 cricketers play the game nowadays, it surely isn’t.

Stephen Mangongo: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t


Stephen Mangongo is warily hunting the Bengal tigers on their home turf.

What he said:

“They are called the tigers, which is a tough animal; you mess around with a tiger, it kills you. We have to respect tigers, especially in their own forest.”

It is the battle of the minnows of Test cricket; Zimbabwe tour Bangladesh playing three Tests and five ODIs.

Although the South African nation has a winning record against the South East Asian country, their coach Stephen Mangongo is unwilling to underestimate their capabilities.

The Zimbabwean side are visiting abroad for only the third time since their return to Test cricket three years ago.

What he really meant:

 “I don’t care what the Bangladeshis are elsewhere; at home, they are a handful. Tigers at home are dangerous indeed.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“The Zimbabwean cricket squad wholeheartedly supports the WWF campaign: ‘Save Tigers Now.'”

Dale Steyn: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t


AB De Villiers

AB De Villiers (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dale Steyn at a training session at the Adelai...

Dale Steyn at a training session at the Adelaide Oval (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dale Steyn at a training session at the Adelai...

Dale Steyn at a training session at the Adelaide Oval (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dale Steyn

What he said:

“We’re definitely not predictable. You bowled two overs the other day.”

Dale Steyn contradicts himself without seemingly realizing it. The lanky pace bowler commented on his teammate A B De Villiers bowling for only the second time ever in ODIs. South Africa were playing Zimbabwe in Harare.

AB De Villiers recently came out strongly against Australian sledging terming it “personal.”

De Villiers said:

“There was lots of personal stuff and certain guys take it in a different way. I see that it’s part of the game… but they can’t expect us to be mates with them off the field then, if they get very personal.”

The South African skipper was referring to comments made during the third Test in Cape Town.

David Warner, meanwhile, apologized for accusing De Villiers of ball-tampering during the series.

Warner said:

“Obviously with myself coming out and saying the comment about AB de Villiers probably wasn’t the smartest thing, and I regret saying that.We set a standard where we want to go out there and play aggressive and hard cricket and not cross the line.

There are some times you do nudge that line a fair bit and the odd occasion you might step over that, but you do have to realize that we’re out there to win.

We do like to be aggressive and sledging is a form of the game when we’re out there.”

What Steyn really meant:

“Wasn’t that a pleasant surprise? …AB bowling two overs. I certainly didn’t expect that.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“Outliers… by Malcolm Gladwell—yeah, that’s my favorite read.”

Alan Butcher: What he said, really meant and definitely did not


What he said:

"Now I know what it means when they say you smell like a brewery."

Alan Butcher does not mind reeking of liquor when it happens in a good cause (and celebration). Zimbabwe won their one-off Test at home against Bangladesh on Aug 8,2011, their first five day game in six years.

What he really meant:

“It’s the sweet, heady taste of victory. Can’t you scent it?”

What he definitely didn’t:

“I wish they would produce perfumed alcohol. Maybe a fruity brew next time. They do use alcohol in perfumes, don’t they? Why not vice versa?”

Alan Butcher: What he said, really meant and definitely did not


What he said:

“Zimbabweans pride themselves on being hospitable. So even in this match, we keep throwing them a lifeline.”

Zimbabwean coach, Alan Butcher, throws up an innovative excuse for letting their opponents, Bangladesh, off the hook in the Test at Harare.

What he really meant:

“We do want the Bangladeshis returning for more. They’re  the only team we can beat regularly.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“We take pride in losing matches at home.”

Tatenda Taibu: What he said, really meant and definitely did not


What he said:

“Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) has just painted a house that’s about to fall.”

Zimbabwean cricketer, Tatenda Taibu, slammed the country’s cricket administration claiming that the return to Test cricket is mere eyewash and that the very edifice is crumbling. “”When you walk around and you see a house that’s painted well, you will think that house is really standing strong but if does not have a strong foundation, it will fall down one day or another.” said the wicketkeeper batsman. Zimbabwe take on Bangladesh at Harare on the 4th of August, 2011 followed by four ODIs.

What he really meant:

“Painting a creaky building just makes it a prettier ruin. It’s merely papering over the cracks—to use a better metaphor.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“I have no history or issues with the Zimbabwean cricketing setup.”

Number of readers subscribed

Read it on Apple News

Read it on Apple News

Read it on Apple News

Blog Stats

  • 96,060 hits

Stat Counter

RSS Sports, Health and Exercise

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: