U19 World Cup

Anybody keeping an eye on this? England going well so far

West Indies just won a game on a Mankad too - excellent scenes

I've been keeping an eye on the tournament, Olly.  Certainly a controversial dismissal to end the WI/Zim game!

Bangladesh look like one of the favourites to win.

Some of the things Dan Lawrence does with his wrists whilst batting shouldn't be allowed on TV before the watershed. Beautiful stuff.

Also Sam Curran's batting has really, really impressed me - even if he hasn't been required to play a long knock yet. Haven't seen much of him with the ball yet.

SA knocked out by Namibia, topped by the controversy of WI's win yesterday.

Nepal made it through and New Zealand didn't too

Shame these obviously talented youngsters will never get the opportunities to play for their country at the highest level due to crickets ridiculous ranking system

This is an interesting tournament, though its more or less playing roulette to try and work out which players will make it right to the top.

I had a look back at the 2008 England squad, on the basis players from them should be coming into their prime now. You have the likes of Finn, Taylor and Woakes in there who have definitely made it.

Then players such as James Harris and Sam Northeast who haven't quite kicked on as expected, though they are decent players still. I think Northeast in particular was considered the outstanding prospect in that team

England one-day captain Eoin Morgan tweeted: "Disgraceful behaviour in the U19 CWC. West Indies should be embarrassed!!"

Why is this idiot captain?

Northeast had an exceptional summer in the one day stuff last summer iirc - so still has an outside chance.

Yes duty the outrage for the mankad was awesome. Only in cricket could people get up in arms and angry at someone doing something perfectly in the laws of the game as opposed to feeling sorry for someone cheating.

Olly wrote:Northeast had an exceptional summer in the one day stuff last summer iirc - so still has an outside chance.

Yes duty the outrage for the mankad was awesome. Only in cricket could people get up in arms and angry at someone doing something perfectly in the laws of the game as opposed to feeling sorry for someone cheating.

Need to say up front I've seen this dismissal online but don't know if there was any background to it. As far as I'm aware, it came out of the blue. On that understanding, I have to say I didn't like it. I've nothing against playing the game hard; quite the opposite, as seen more than once on this forum - particularly, I guess, my championing Larwood for his ''Bodyline'' bowling.

Furthermore, if someone is deliberately cheating, they deserve all they get. This is probably where the waters become murky. I would say that in this U19 game the backing up by the batsman which apparently took him marginally outside his crease when his wicket was broken was far more a natural and expected act than an attempt to purposely cheat. That's where I think a warning should come into it. If a batsman is so dopey as to be caught outside his crease a second time, I've no sympathy. I said the same when Surrey's Kartik Mankaded a Somerset batsman after a warning a couple of years or so ago and the Cidermen went mental.

I would also say that - unlike a stumping - there's little or no skill involved by the player effecting a Mankad dismissal. In this case, it seemed simply low cunning. Do we really want to have international bowlers being encouraged to do that in order to dismiss someone?

Finally, I would emphasise that just because something is permitted by the laws of the game does not automatically mean it is right.
EG. In football, Team A kick the ball out so an injured Team B player can receive treatment. When play restarts, Team B take the throw-in and immediately attack and score. Is that ok? Most would say no but it's within the rules.

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:Northeast had an exceptional summer in the one day stuff last summer iirc - so still has an outside chance.

Yes duty the outrage for the mankad was awesome. Only in cricket could people get up in arms and angry at someone doing something perfectly in the laws of the game as opposed to feeling sorry for someone cheating.

Finally, I would emphasise that just because something is permitted by the laws of the game does not automatically mean it is right.
EG. In football, Team A kick the ball out so an injured Team B player can receive treatment. When play restarts, Team B take the throw-in and immediately attack and score. Is that ok? Most would say no but it's within the rules.

This is the key point. This dismissal fell on that side of the line for me. I only saw the highlights on Sky, so I don't know if there was a history of the Zimbabwean batsman doing it throughout the game and whether any warnings were given (although from the commentary of the incident, it didn't sound like it) but that West Indian bowler had no intention of bowling that ball - he was always looking to Mankad the batsman. I felt Jimmy Neesham summed it up best, 'A Mankad is a last resort to stop a batsman who is blatantly cheating. Not a dismissal to aim for.' And this is where I think this differs (a lot) from the Buttler dismissal, but also the Barrow incident that Guildford alludes to.

You shouldn't need to be warned, though.

The batsman at the non-striker's end is trying to steal an advantage by advancing a few inches up the crease - a distance that could make all the difference in whether or not you successfully take a hurried single or get run out; a run that could make all the difference in the final reckoning - and if you are trying to steal an advantage, then there should be possible repercussions for doing so.

The comparison to football and kicking the ball out isn't valid, in this sense. Team A, the aggrieved party in the above example, are not trying to steal an advantage in any way, unlike the batsman at the non-striker's end.

Pretty easy to avoid getting out to a mankad - don't cheat.

Just as legitimate a wicket as a bowled or LBW. And as with those dismissals, doesn't matter if it uproots all three stumps or barely blows a bail off, if it's out, it's out.

Not entirely sure why it being a last resort is a problem. It was the final over, 3 runs to win. Kinda a last resort situation for the bowling side.

Olly wrote:Pretty easy to avoid getting out to a mankad - don't cheat.

Just as legitimate a wicket as a bowled or LBW. And as with those dismissals, doesn't matter if it uproots all three stumps or barely blows a bail off, if it's out, it's out.

Not entirely sure why it being a last resort is a problem. It was the final over, 3 runs to win. Kinda a last resort situation for the bowling side.

I'm not sure that cheating by the batsman in a Mankad dismissal is always entirely clear cut. I did mention in my earlier post that the waters can become murky.

If the batsman has chosen to advance three yards down the track, I'm completely with you, Olly, and also Duty.

However, in this case from the U19 tournament, it seemed to me that the batsman was less a cheat and more a victim of the bowler being an agent provocateur. As I said before, that's not something I want to see happening  or be encouraged.

Duty - my football example was mainly to illustrate that you sometimes need to look beyond the specific wording of the rules to judge what is right.

I tend to side with guildford and JD on this one. Having seen the incident it didn't really sit comfortably with me.

I will first quantify this by saying that if the batsman had been warned, then I have no problem with it, much as I had no problem with the Buttler dismissal or the Kartik mankad mentioned by guildford. If we accept that fair warning should be given, then we MUST accept that once fair warning has been given, the mankad is fair game, because otherwise there is nothing to stop the batsman cheating with impunity. And make no mistake, if a batsman has been warned and continues to back up too far, then it is cheating, even if not deliberate.

The rest of my post deals with therefore my views IF no warning was given, and from reports this may be the case (no mention of a warning).

In this case, the batsman is barely out of his crease at all. The bat is plum on the line when the stumps are broken, so it's not even a matter of inches, maybe half-an-inch if that. It also doesn't appear that he was ready to immediately sprint down the other end, as say the case when batsmen are trying to nick a bye late on in an innings. Nor should he have been, considering this was the last pair. As such, it is hard to argue IMO that the batsman was seeking an advantage, thus cheating.

Back to guildford's football comparison. Supposing though that Team A are in a favourable position at the time, and are really only kicking the ball out to waste more time on the clock. Would it then be OK for Team B to go and score from the restart? Remember that it is meant to be up to the referee rather than the players to stop play for injury nowadays. I also recall a vast fuss being made by some Man United fans in the Community shield defeat to Chelsea a few years back. Evra was taken out off the ball by Ballack, ref waved play on while Evra was writhing in apparent agony, and Chelsea promptly went down the other end and scored, ironically the goalscorer Lampard popping up in the open space deserted by Evra. Evra then of course immediately jumped to his feet to run to the ref to remonstrate, so was it a fair move by Chelsea considering Evra was undoubtedly trying to get an advantage (Ballack booked)?

On a personal note, I have in the past warned an opposing batsman for backing up. It was the final ball of the match with them needing three to win (somehow I found myself bowling the final over, crazy scenes) and the non striker left his crease rather early*. I have also been warned, always justified, and thereafter stopped doing it. Once a bowler ran through the crease, turned and threw down the stumps as I backed up. This is of course against the laws of the game (or was at the time), so I got away with it. But I still feel the idea of not giving a batsman a warning is wrong, perhaps simply because - as it seems to me in this case - the batsman is unaware of what he is doing. Oh, and you should ask Mike about the time he was mankadded without warning in a crucial match once, though I suspect he's got most of the swearing out of his system by now

*There's a rather inglorious ending here, as I promptly bowled a big wide which the keeper fumbled, then fumbled again, as somehow the batsmen sprinted through for the winning runs. Strangely I haven't found myself bowling the last over of a match since

Thanks, MfC. I appreciate your views which are undoubtedly considered and well set out. Not because on this occasion we happen to agree! Night all.

Felt I should come on here and comment on this ethical dilemma.


As one who has "been there" : When I was about 18 I did a Mankad on an opposing batsman - nearly caused a riot among spectators : and I guess a contributing factor was some borderline ethics from the opposition earlier in the day (it was a very acrimonious game!) Anyway , we won the match. But nearly half a century later , it still stains my soul...One of those moments you'd like to have back. There really is no excuse for that sort of play.

Look : there are times when a batsman is taking diabolical liberties and it is perfectly reasonable to first warn him and then take his scalp . But it is pretty clear this wasn't one of them.
The batsman has barely moved ; his bat has dragged a centimetre over the line - as it should if he is backing up at all : you are not expecting the bowler to stop in his delivery stride !
I guarantee any fast bowler could scam a wicket like that any day of the week , if so inclined. Well , at least once And that is without the batsman trying any special "fast start" tactics. I don't think there is any moral "grey" area in this particular case.

Quite clear this was planned in advance - OK , under the pressure of a tight finish ; but still. The West Indies bowler has pulled a fast one : and I reckon it is fairly dishonourable. I think he too will regret it in time.

alfie wrote:Felt I should come on here and comment on this ethical dilemma.


As one who has "been there" :  When I was about 18 I did a Mankad on an opposing batsman - nearly caused a riot among spectators  : and I guess a contributing factor was some borderline ethics from the opposition earlier in the day (it was a very acrimonious game!) Anyway , we won the match.   But nearly half a century later , it still stains my soul...One of those moments you'd like to have back.  There really is no excuse for that sort of play.

.

Bloody cricket. I still want the earth to swallow me whole every time someone reminds me of the time I didn't walk off a thick edge four or five years ago.
I wonder if footballers ever feel similar remorse for a dive

I still regret the time I got out to the piddly little medium pacer on 95 missing out on my first hundred in adult cricket 2/3 years ago. Tried a reverse sweep

Olly wrote:I still regret the time I got out to the piddly little medium pacer on 95 missing out on my first hundred in adult cricket 2/3 years ago. Tried a reverse sweep

Olly - if we ever have a 606 Non Sequitur Award that must win it hands down.

I have no idea what that means Guildford

Did anybody see there's a guy who bowls right and left handed for Sri Lanka u19's? That's so awesome!

Olly - the term's used all the time down Woodbridge Road - I'll ask the Corporal to explain in the summer!

Why on earth do we have the concept of a crease in cricket? Borderline no-balls stay no-balls, if a batsman is bowled of such a no-ball, the bowler is not allowed to get away with a warning as far as I know. If the rules of the game mandates you to stay/ground your bat within the crease, then stay within the damn crease or get run-out. If you thus get run-out, just shut up and get lost! As simple as that.
Are we going to demand that now fielders and wicketkeepers should warn the batsman ones if he hits one in the air that you could be caught out if you do it again?

Msp - you have a strong point of view and nothing wrong with that. However, your post would have more credibility for me if you also addressed the issues raised as to why some of us here are uncomfortable with this particular dismissal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VYaCYlXUhk

Skip to 8:44 - is this dismissal contrary to the spirit of cricket? If not, how does it differ from the mankad one?

Because to me, it differs very little from the mankad dismissal, yet there was no outcry over it, and Tony Greig proclaims it as 'Ponting playing a blinder.'

Guildford, in the case of a Mankad dismissal, I don't see any room for discomfort. If the batsman was just, only just outside the crease line or even on the line, that is just tough luck, just like an on the line run-out or a no-ball. But the fact remains that he was not in his crease or didn't have the bat grounded. He was mandated to do that and he failed, doesn't matter whether it was just about or by yards. And there is absolutely no need for any warning to play according to the rules of the game. That's what I think.

Good clip, Duty.

I can understand why some would consider it sharp practice by Ponting but I'm with Greig on that dismissal.

The difference for me is that Ponting was alive to the situation that naturally (albeit unusually) arose whilst the West Indies bowler manufactured it through acting as an agent provocateur.

PS ''artificially contrived'' would be a more appropriate term than ''manufactured''.

Guildford, why would you say it was artificially contrived?

Msp - the bowler scammed the wicket as per Alfie's post. There appears to have never been any intent to bowl.

There might have been an element of planning in there, but that could well have been inspired by previous actions of the batting side. But in any which way, if you drag yourselves out of the crease line before the ball leaves the bowler's hand, not sure you have a lot to moan about.......

msp83 wrote:There might have been an element of planning in there, but that could well have been inspired by previous actions of the batting side. But in any which way, if you drag yourselves out of the crease line before the ball leaves the bowler's hand, not sure you have a lot to moan about.......

Msp - for me, Alfie's post effectively addresses this and so I can't agree.

Thing is, in pretty much any sport there are certain actions that, while within the rules of the game, are considered very much against the spirit of it.

Guildford gave a football example of giving the ball back to the opposition if they've put it out of play so an injured player can be tended to.

In fact in football, it is considered unsportsmanlike to carry on playing if an opponent is injured, whereas in rugby teams will look to exploit the numerical advantage, which is interesting IMO.

In tennis it is considered poor form to not apologise for a net chord, though admittedly this won't affect the state of play. Also, players are expected to state if a passing shot which flies long has just flicked their racquet on the way, thus conceding the point. IIRC there was a strong controversy over this in the Olympics SF in 2008 between Blake and Gonzalez, I'll see if I can dig it up.

In snooker and golf players call fouls on themselves routinely, and it is considered a terrible form of cheating not to do so, but there's no obligation in the rules/laws to the best of my knowledge, beyond a vague wording of the "spirit" of the game, which naturally is also there in cricket.

Back to cricket, if a batsman deflects a throw away from a backing up fielder, he doesn't run (albeit I used to see this one flouted at club level).

I'm disgressing slightly, but my point remains that in any sport, while the "spirit" of the game is an at times elastic concept, there are actions that are legal but are almost universally accepted as breaching these unwritten rules.

For me, the mankad with no warning falls in this category. I'll repeat that if fair warning is given, then go ahead, the batsman is either being incredibly dim, or is deliberately cheating. However, in this case I don't see how you could consider the batsman to be cheating deliberately, and if no warning was given then I cannot condone the bowler's actions.

I have now watched the footage and it is an absolute joke in my view. No attempt to bowl, the batsman out by a frame, and then to top it all off the ridiculous over the top celebrations. I hope that bunch of clowns are the next generation of Windies no hopers

Brilliant run out from Ponting in that clip. The ball isnt dead, and he hasnt hoodwinked the batsman into getting out of his crease. by comparison this was just poor form

Yeah, no comparison between the two completely different situations.

Ponting is purely reacting with his quick relexes to run out Flintoff after playing a shot and ending up out of his crease versus a deliberate, premeditated unsporting Mankad dismissal. It differs very much I'm afraid Duty.

Flintoff? he's lost some weight (and height!!)

Sorry Jones... I was distracted by the sound of Freddie's stumps rattling on the one before.
Yeah, I need my eyes checked. All you Englishmen look the same to me.... from a distance.

The Loaded Dog wrote:Sorry Jones... I was distracted by the sound of Freddie's stumps rattling on the one before.
Yeah, I need my eyes checked. All you Englishmen look the same to me.... from a distance.

GoJo was an Aussie wasn't he?

A very interesting article from Tony Cozyer on the issue. Must say I am 100 percent with Michael Atherton here.......
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/970055.html

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I've been keeping an eye on the tournament, Olly.  Certainly a controversial dismissal to end the WI/Zim game!

Bangladesh look like one of the favourites to win.  

controversial is to put a controversial mark over a legally valid dismissal termed " Mankading"

KP_f - it is the way that this particular dismissal was achieved that I found so distasteful rather than having any great objection in principle to Mankading.

For my money, you and msp are putting too much emphasis on what is legally valid. ''Disgraceful'' and ''one of the worst things I've ever seen on a cricket field'' were words used a generation earlier by the eternally wise Benaud to describe something else that was utterly wrong but within the rules of the game.

guildfordbat wrote:KP_f - it is the way that this particular dismissal was achieved that I found so distasteful rather than having any great objection in principle to Mankading.

For my money, you and msp are putting too much emphasis on what is legally valid. ''Disgraceful'' and ''one of the worst things I've ever seen on a cricket field'' were words used a generation earlier by the eternally wise Benaud to describe something else that was utterly wrong but within the rules of the game.

distasteful, spirit of cricket, gentleman's sport etc.....have no room now in my view in the game of cricket.
It's either within the rules or it's not

Well the day that happens the day that becomes the universal opinion is the day cricket becomes one step removed from becoming like that most vile of sports... football

That's the difference raf and Guildford. We have a much more subtle appreciation of sport in general. It not about right or wrong; or who has the most money to throw at a particular team or competition... bingo... instant league! To me that lacks soul and is of completely no interest to me.

No, I guess it's more about the 'beauty' of the sport itself based upon generations and generations of history and memories. Not all perfect and squeaky clean of course but the many, many highs way surpass the few lows. Some nations simply lack that competitive sporting history but are naturally desperate to own a piece of it. At any cost.

One of the reasons I can't see the Qatar WC having much soul - no history of achievement in that sport = no genuine passion or understanding of what the game is really about. Who wants to see acres of men in white packed into a modern stadium... after having bought the rights to host it? That's such a vulgar stage for an event which deserves so much better. I thought it was the people's sport? Not some private show for a privileged few who represent the antithesis of what great sporting achievement is about. (unless you're into desert polo and falconry!)

Same with the Premier League. I used to love watching games on inferior pitches every now and then... good old British football was unique. OK, apart from '66 not much world success but it was always very exciting and special to watch those matches. Nowadays it seems as though the clubs have lost (or substantially changed) their identities. The standard may be higher of course but one could be forgiven for thinking they are watching the same few foreign superstars (with some top local talent sprinkled in) over and over again, week after week, year after year.

the Qatar football WC is a good example to view perspectives....just because a nation is tiny and with no current standing or past history...doesn't mean it's people cannot have a slice of the pie....

Qatar will bring to the GCC region the charm and flavor of world cup......GCC residents are just as passionate about the game as the fans anywhere.
That they are in the heat and desert should be a reason to empathize with them and not despise.

They are trying their best to make it as comfortable as they can for everyone.

Black and north Africa and Latin America is the next frontier that Football world cup needs to penetrate more.....beyond the SA, Mexico and Brazil so far.

Every one on the planet deserves a piece of any "beautiful game" they love

India through to the finals umpteenth time......no surprise 3 sub continent teams were in semis.

the tough competitive pressure forces the sub-continent kids to mature faster which is on display in their game planning and approach at U-19 level.

WI still in the race and not surprisingly across the age groups they have a strong favour for this format

Unlike the real men's world cup where it's no surprise to see the cream rising to the top on 5 separate occasions in 5 different continents.

If only you could imagine what it's like!

So WI manage to restrict BD to a moderate 226 using 8 bowlers in the process.

and as I type they are 138-3...less than a 90 needed now.
Required RR is around 3.5...and unless there is an implosion...WI should join India in the finals...once again reaffirming their liking for the T20 format

WI make it to the finals

Let's hope it's a mankad free final!

WI won as India collapsed today to 146 but fought tooth and nail to defend it and stretch the game into the last over.

Good to see WI prevail in some form of cricket