Ashwin-Buttler issue
If the batter is taking an undue
advantage (euphemism for cheating), why is the bowler being blamed? This defies
logic. How can one hold the bowler responsible for playing the game according
to the laws?
If the umpire was wrong to give the
non-striker Jos Buttler out, then the umpire should have been held guilty. If
the match referee has not charged Ashwin with defacing the spirit of the game,
then how is Ashwin to be blamed?
The issue is very simple. The
non-striker in his ignorance, idiocy or cunningness was trying to over-rule the
laws. The intelligent bowler outsmarted him. Full stop. No point making a
simple issue complex.
Honestly I am not in the least
bothered about either of the players involved. Both are professionals and are
expected to know the laws as well as to abide by the ‘spirit’ of cricket.
Some former players-turned-critics,
especially those who had brought the game into disrepute by betting against
their own team and by using dust to change the condition of the ball, are now making
a desperate attempt to defend the guilty non-striker Jos Buttler by mentioning
words like ‘dozy’ and ‘brain-fade’. These are merely ways and means to show
that the white man was not trying to cheat and that the brown man was not
‘sporting’ enough. Silly notions. In this century no intelligent,
self-respecting cricket lover would fall for the trap.
My only concern is that Vinoo
Mankad’s name is being bandied about for no rhyme or reason. There is little by
way of comparison. In 1947-48 when Mankad ran-out Bill Brown, the non-striker,
he did it after cautioning him in a first-class fixture between Australian XI
and India at Sydney. Mankad again ran-out Bill Brown in an identical fashion in
the 2nd Test match at Sydney. But this time, quite rightly, he did
not feel the need to caution Brown again.
Mankad need not have warned the
Aussie batter Bill Brown even in the first instance. But he did. Just goes to
show the class and the character of the great Vinoo. He remains the finest
all-rounder India has produced. In his time – along with Keith Miller – he was
the leading all-rounder in the world.
The Aussie captain in that post-war series
was none other than Sir Donald Bradman. Far from criticizing Mankad, Sir Don in
his book Art Of Cricket went on to defend Mankad’s action of running out Brown
in no uncertain manner.
Let Sir Don take over, “…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?”
That is exactly what cricket is all
about. Play hard, but play fair. Brown was cheating and Mankad caught him
red-handed. Thanks to Sir Don, Vinoo Mankad received his unstinted support in
print. This is the spirit of cricket.
There have been many players and captains
who have allowed the opposition to take advantage of the laws to the detriment
of their own team’s interest. Magnanimous men like Gundappa Viswanath (Bob
Taylor’s caught behind) and Courtney Walsh (1987 world cup) among others, have
shown the world that cricketing chivalry is more of an exception rather than
the rule. But they all ended up on the losing side!
