To do a 'Mankad' or not? Players and pundits inconsistent on 'spirit of cricket'
Bilateral One-Day International (ODI) series and their relevance (or the lack of it), and therefore their existence, has been a point of debate for a considerable time now amongst pundits and lawmakers of the game. If ever there was a match that could highlight why such contests deserve to be scrapped, it was the fifth ODI between England and Sri Lanka. Despite being a series-deciding game, it not only drew just lukewarm response from the Edgbaston crowd, but the usual cricket-watching coteries on social media, too, seemed to be intrigued by other activities, notably the French Open clash on clay between Maria Sharapova and Garbine Muguruza.
The sombre atmosphere and insipid cricket would have turned away the few thousands watching the match, but for one incident that sparked controversy and rekindled interest, albeit for a brief moment. Suddenly, Twitter was teeming with opinions, in some cases forming cliques, on one of the oft-debated, grey areas of the sport. Having warned England’s middle-order batsman Jos Buttler twice for backing up too far, Sri Lankan spinner Sachithra Senanayake proceeded to ‘Mankad’ him when the offence was repeated a third time. Making no effort to conceal his displeasure, a fuming Buttler walked off the ground, and the Edgbaston crowd, expectedly, made its feelings known.
It wasn’t long before that hackneyed phrase — Spirit of Cricket — was floated. Former England captain Michael Vaughan wasn’t pleased that the Sri Lankan captain, Angelo Mathews, refrained from revoking the appeal.
Michael Holding, former fast-bowler-turned-commentator, was of a pragmatic view. He reiterated the fact that Senanayake’s actions were well within the laws of the game. Law 42.15 currently states the follows: “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.”
The above law is mentioned after every instance of ‘Mankading’, yet it fails to convince the informed pundits, and batsmen themselves, that it falls under fair play. Senanayake was yet to complete his delivery swing, and after a couple of clear warnings, he was entitled to dismiss Buttler. The umpire, perhaps aware of an imminent squabble, asked Mathews if his team were upholding the appeal, to which the latter replied in the affirmative.
This was Senanayake’s second tryst with controversy in as many games. After Sri Lanka’s victory over England in the fourth ODI at Lord’s he was reported for a suspect bowling action. This acted as a catalyst in evoking ire following the ‘Mankading’. Take former English off-spinner Graeme Swann’s sequence of tweets for example.
This isn’t the first time Swann has taken a dig at a Sri Lankan player for not aligning with the Spirit of Cricket.
When, during a game against Sri Lanka Board President's team in Colombo in 2012, Dilruwan Perera stood his ground after nicking James Anderson to Andrew Strauss at slip, Swann blurted a statement to the following effect: "The thing that annoyed me was that the batsman stood there knowing 100% he was out but chose to cheat. But we live in an age where cheating is accepted in our game. If you don't walk and get away with it, no one seems to say anything. I don't agree with that."
During the first leg of the back-to-back Ashes series last year, Stuart Broad refused to walk despite a meaty edge looping into the hands of a waiting slip fielder. Most English players stood by Broad’s decision at the time, and Swann insisted that Broad “should not be singled out for flak”, and that most batsmen don’t walk anyway. Weren’t Broad’s actions against the spirit of the game that Swann so passionately continues to vouch for? Isn’t Buttler’s exaggerated back up, during the fifth ODI against Sri Lanka, before the bowler’s delivery stride was complete, not against the spirit, and even the laws, of the game?
Joe Root stood his ground despite clearly gloving the ball to Kumar Sangakkara during the same match. The umpires were convinced it wasn’t out, and it took a review to overturn the decision. Why didn’t the Edgbaston crowd that booed Senanayake then boo Root for not operating in accordance with the spirit of the game? There is no law that states a batsman should not stand his ground when he knows he’s out, true, but when that is considered to be ‘understandable’, why is ‘Mankading’ viewed as a moral offence?
It’s bemusing how players switch their views on this grey area, depending on which side they find themselves on. Even Mathews isn’t totally exempt of standing by what’s right on every occasion. “He [Buttler] was taking unfair starts not only in this game but in the last game as well. So we gave him two warnings in the spirit of cricket, because I don't know how to stop a batsman from doing that continuously. So we had to go for it,” Mathews said after the game against England. But when, two years ago, during a triangular series in Australia against India, Lahiru Thirimanne backed up too far and was Mankaded by Ravichandran Ashwin after a couple of warnings, Mathews, batting at the strikers end at the time, had a word with the umpires in an attempt to stand by his partner. The appeal was eventually withdrawn by India’s then stand-in captain, Virender Sehwag.
The concept of ‘Spirit of Cricket’ would have been sturdy if players and members of the fraternity hadn’t had inconsistent views. To invoke it after every controversial act is absurd, especially if it’s inscribed as one of the laws of the game. The powers that be should make the law either white or black, perhaps by further reiterating it, but it’d augur well if the ones watching the sport scrap the cliché ‘spirit of the game’ from their discussion and watch the game like they view other competitive sports of this era.