What I most like about this debate is how it has evolved from being a discussion about the pro's and con's of the Mankad, to being a philosophical debate on our opinions of the 'Spirit of the Game'. As I've said, I'm not against the Mankad, but I was taught that a warning should be issued first. This has stuck with me, and I guess always will, for others it is a fairly straightforward issue of law breaking being punished. Each to their own.
The bigger issue is the Spirit of the Game, its importance to cricket and to sport in general. I play league cricket yes, but at Sunday 2s level. It is a fairly gentle mix of youth and experience, where older guys like me try to help the kids make their way in the game. So yeah, I recommend a warning first, just as I would warn a young bowler about near-overstepping, running on the pitch and even bowling full pitch above waist height. I know there are laws, but there are ways that they can be finessed at the level I play.
I also encourage players to be fair, and to comport themselves as gentlemen or ladies should. I walk, and I applaud others who walk. I may offer an apology to the bowler, or at least a rueful smile, if I nick one through or over slip for 4. If a youngster is clearly throwing, I have a chat to the captain rather than no-ball him. I speak up against sledging, aggression or bad language, I clap for opposition 50's, tons or fifers. In a similar way, I would apologise to my opponent for winning a point in tennis with a net-cord, or for making a horrible fluke in snooker.
Sport isn't war. There's nothing wrong with winning, but it has to be about playing the game too. Kids can learn a lot from sport about how to conduct themselves, and how to lose gracefully. I always thought that there's 2 types of people, those who've played team sport, and those who haven't. Personally, I think that sport as metaphor for life is something that should be understood, and supported.
Author
Topic: The Mankad - opinions? (Read 35569 times)