A Tribute to Vinoo Mankad on his birth centenary               

“An all-rounder is a cricketer who is equally bad at both batting and bowling” was the observation of a cricket wit years ago. The idea was not entirely incorrect. Players who are not very proficient in either discipline are normally considered to be all-rounders.

Drawing on this issue, Sai Baba devotee Colonel Bose of Puttaparthi came to the conclusion that only a player who can be in the XI both for his batting ability as well as for his bowling skill can be regarded as a genuine all-rounder. Absolutely to the point, he was.

The erudite civil engineer, now the curator of the Parthi museum he helped to construct, relentlessly pursued the topic to assert that the genuine all-rounders were far too few. The majority were ‘bits and pieces’ players who were neither top quality batters nor outstanding bowlers. Some were of course magnificent in one of the two disciplines.

According to Col Bose’s logic, Abid Ali could well be an all-rounder for the Hyderabad team where he probably deserved a place both for his batsmanship as well as his bowling skills. But when representing India in Test matches he should be regarded as a medium pace bowler who could bat. His pace bowling was good enough to put him in the India Test XI of the 1970s but most certainly not his batting. Similarly, with Madanlal and Roger Binny among many others.

How would one rank Mohinder Amarnath and Ravi Shastri using the same logic? Shastri was an able batsman who could hold his own in any company. As a bowler, too, he may not have been a match-winner but was certainly a capable left-arm orthodox spinner in the defensive mould. During his playing career, he proved he was good enough to be in the Indian team both for his batting and bowling.

Mohinder made his Test debut as a medium pacer and captured vital wickets in the match. But he was certainly not a quality pace bowler in Test cricket. Yet, we must readily admit that he was a very intelligent bowler in one-day matches. Obviously, the nature of one-day matches is entirely different from Test matches. Hence the yardstick of evaluation differs substantially. Whereas Mohinder was an outstanding all-rounder in one-dayers, he would be considered primarily as a batter in Test cricket.

Now our vision opens up to see the contributions of Abid Ali, Madanlal and Roger Binny in an entirely different perspective. All of them were extremely effective in the one-dayers both with the bat as well as with the ball. So Col Bose’s logic stands very convincing. We can most certainly consider Abid Ali, Madanlal and Roger Binny among the prominent all-rounders in the Indian one-day teams.

Now let us turn the page back and discuss only Test cricket which after all is the actual TEST of a player. In Tests we generally rate Garfield Sobers as the ultimate all-rounder. No two opinions on that. Some of the greats who followed him were Wilfred Rhodes, Aubrey Faulkner, Learie Constantine, Vinoo Mankad, Keith Miller, Salim Durani, Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Kapil Dev in earlier eras and more recently Jacques Kallis.

Outstanding players of the all-round calibre of Frank Worrel, Trevor Bailey, Richie Benaud, Alan Davidson, Chandu Borde, Mike Procter, Clive Rice among others also delighted us with their undoubted capabilities. Worrel’s languid elegance riveted our vision to his batting elegance. Little attention was paid to his bowling which was very effective whenever required by his strong team. Trevor Bailey was a disruptive influence to the opposition but to his own team he was an asset whether bowling or batting. Benaud and Davidson were considered primarily as outstanding bowlers but the batting strength of Australia rarely required their services. Whenever called upon to bat, they responded with valour and emerged victorious.

Chandu Borde was primarily a batsman for sure. But in the early 1960s, for a while he was a very capable leg spinner who helped India to win the series against Ted Dexter’s England. But his right shoulder injury finished his leg-spinning ability for ever. His exceptional all-round skills died an embryonic death.

Procter and Clive Rice did not get the opportunity to play enough. But in the limited scope they got, they showed the cricket world what they were capable of. Both were among the very best.

The most prominent all-rounders in the annals of cricket are worth their weight in gold. In the early decades of the last century, leg spinning South African all-rounder Aubrey Faulkner and England’s Wilfred Rhodes exhibited the intrinsic value of men who could bat and bowl with the best on view.

Then arrived on the scene the lissome figure from the Caribbean, Learie Constantine. Playing for a weak West Indies team, the magnificent all-round skills of Constantine made the world sit up and take notice. The ebony-skin fast bowler hurled the ball at fearsome speed at the batman’s throat and then rattled the stumps for good measure. Disdainful of coaching-manuals, he enjoyed smashing deliveries around the ground with audacious shots.

He was the first international cricketer to hit a six off a front foot square cut!   Hardened critics rubbed their eyes in disbelief, but gradually realized that Constantine was nature’s bounty to humanity. As if this was not enough he was considered to be the best ever all-round fielder. Truly he would rank among the best ever all-rounders. What would he have done if they had ODIs and T20s in his time boggles the imagination.

Keith Miller was another who was a natural athlete. The strikingly handsome fighter pilot of 2^nd world war fame had the world at his mercy. Soft as a kitten, he would roar like a tiger when needed. Batting, bowling, fielding, captaincy, authorship you name it and he was at the helm. Playing for a very strong Australian team, he never cared to concentrate unless it was imperative. And then in a crisis the real Miller would emerge to take the opposition by the scruff of the neck.

Salim Durani was a genius in whatever he decided to do. The handsome face and the lazy grace took our breath away. Time and again as he strum on his guitar, we heard the soft mellow tune of the bail dropping from the stumps. He was an artist with Afghan blood and blue eyes. Drew inspiration from nature. Had no clue about averages and stats. Never bothered about fame and fortune. A genuine artist who lived for the moment.  Never got his due recognition. Did not even bother.

Botham, Imran, Hadlee , Kapil  and Kallis are of recent vintage. All of them have been exposed to both Tests and ODIs and performed to the highest degree of excellence. Their worth have been recorded for posterity in no uncertain manner. For all time to come these outstanding contributors to cricket would have their names embossed in gilded letters.

Now, to come to two who paraded in two different orbits altogether. Vinoo Mankad played for a weak Indian Test team who were content just to draw matches. The fielding support was pathetic generally. Hardly any worthwhile total to rely on. Too much of petty provincialism influenced the environment. Sobers belonged to a West Indies team which dominated the cricket world. Strong batting and fielding support he had, while exceptional bowlers helped him from the other end. Inter island rivalries had subsided to a substantial extent.

Superbly athletic Sobers –sinuous grace and splendid grandeur – moved and performed like a champion. Rotund Vinoo Mankad did not have the athleticism of Sobers or his elegance, but he too performed like a champion. Sobers dwarfs Mankad with the sheer magic of his statistics but Mankad beats Sobers hands down in one significant aspect. Mankad has a Test named after him, while Sobers does not.

The Lord’s Test of 1952 is hailed by cricket connoisseurs as ‘Mankad’s Test’. In 1952 India crashed to a dreadful loss to England at Leeds in the 1^st Test being 4 wickets down for 0 at the start of the 2^nd innings! The Indian selectors, in their egoistic wisdom, had dropped the world’s foremost all-rounder Vinoo Mankad from the touring team for a petty reason. In a dramatic gesture, team manager Pankaj Gupta without bothering to inform anybody invited Vinoo Mankad, then in England to play club cricket, to play the following Test at Lord’s!

 Mankad opened the innings with a whirlwind 72, came back to take 5 wickets, returned with the bat to score a magnificent 184 and then bowled 24 overs for just 35 runs in a desperate and futile effort to save the match for his country. In the history of cricket no individual has been able to replicate such an awesome all-round performance in a Test. And all this from a man from the losing team!

Today when we sit to discuss the greatness of all-rounders, the name of Vinoo Mankad appears only in the footnotes. It is unjust to say the least. We need to repent at our own folly. Every Indian cricket follower should feel proud that the greatest all-round achievement in a Test match was achieved by a man of our own genes. Mankad is certainly among the greatest of all-rounders the world has ever seen.

Unfortunately in India we do not have any time for our cricketing grandfathers. Men not fit enough to tie their shoe laces are in power and are enjoying the benefits. The great pioneers have been forgotten while the petty agents are reaping fame and fortune. This is the actual picture of Indian cricket.