Once a Cheat, Always a ...

Warner camp to weigh up appeal against leadership ban.

Jon Pierik.

Melbourne Age.

Friday, 28 February 2020.

PTG 3040-15051.

As Australian player David Warner prepares to return as captain of Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Sunrisers Hyderabad, his manager has questioned whether the time has come to test whether the former national vice captain's leadership ban in Australian cricket should be revoked.  James Erskine, an agent to celebrities and sports stars, said there had been a "lynch mentality" in the immediate aftermath of the sandpaper scandal against South Africa in Cape Town in March 2018, and Warner had endured the brunt of this.

Then vice-captain Warner and skipper Steve Smith were each banned for a year from playing by Cricket Australia for bringing the game into disrepute, while "junior" batsman Cameron Bancroft was suspended for nine months.  Smith also given a two-year ban from having an official leadership role, a period that concludes at the end of next month. Warner, however, was told he could never again have a formal leadership role with the Australian side or at a domestic level in Australian cricket (PTG 2403-12166, 29 March 2018).

However, Smith, with the Rajasthan Royals, and Warner, have been deemed of good enough character to lead their respective IPL franchises this season. Warner had led the team from 2015 to 2017 before being replaced by Kane Williamson upon his suspension. The England and Wales Cricket Board announced on Wednesday that Smith is to captain the Welsh Fire franchise side in that country’s new domestic competition, The Hundred, in July-August.  

Warner's focus since his return to the Australian team has been on assimilating with teammates and scoring runs, and he has done that well, to the point he was this month voted Cricket Australia's (CA) Allan Border medallist.  At 33, there is almost certainly little chance Warner would have the opportunity to captain or deputise in an Australian side in any of the three formats, but there could be an opportunity in the Big Bash League if he chose to return to the Twenty20 competition.

Erskine said he and Warner would discuss the issue soon after Australia's home campaign finished - there are three One Day Internationals against New Zealand next month - and depending on this he would seek a meeting with CA chief executive, Kevin Roberts.  "It's a conversation David and I have to have and rehash again. We will see”, Erskine said.  "I would then have to have a conversation with Kevin and he would have to go to the CA board and then they would have to give reasons why not”.  

Warner, who opted to not appeal at the time his punishment was handed down, could also decide to now in a bid to have that stain removed so it does not follow him into retirement.  CA said it was too early to comment and would wait for Warner and Erskine to make their decision.

Erskine said the mood of the Australian public and cricket officials would have to be gauged, because there was "no point in having a big barney with Cricket Australia if you want to carry on playing Test cricket”.  Warner says he still has much to achieve in Test cricket, with Twenty20 internationals set to be the first format he cedes within the next two years.

Erskine claimed Malcolm Turnbull, the Australian Prime Minister at the time of the controversy, had contributed to the demise of Warner, whom a CA investigation said had been the mastermind of the plan to get Bancroft to artificially alter the ball in a bid to extract reverse swing. A stunned Turnbull said at the time the incident "beggars belief" and he had expressed his disappointment to then CA chairman, David Peever (PTG 2392-12123, 25 March 2018).

"The whole of the madness of what happened, happened for two reasons. One, Malcolm Turnbull, who in fairness knows bugger all about sport, jumped up and down like a pork chop and said it was a disgrace and wanted answers”, Erskine said.  "The second thing was, everyone started talking in South Africa, not knowing the reaction of what happened in Australia. I can understand how the whole thing snowballed but I don't think the results were fair and were handled particularly well. Certainly Turnbull didn't help, and I count him as a friend”.

The parameters of the mysterious CA report into the scandal conducted by former CA integrity chief Iain Roy were restricted to the events of that Test, with only Warner, Smith, Bancroft, Peter Handscomb and coach Darren Lehmann interviewed, therefore potentially curbing "the-who-knew-what" speculation and limiting the extent of punishment.  That Roy was removed by the governing body only months after without any clear explanation added to the intrigue (PTG 2470-12500, 1 June 2018).

Meanwhile, Erskine said Warner might not play at all in England's new Hundred competition, for the tournament in part clashed with Australia's slated white-ball series against Zimbabwe in northern Australia (PTG 2993-15841, 8 January 2020, and 3000-14874, 16 January 2020).  

My answer to the Mankad problem: a pre-match warning from captains.
Mike Atherton.

The Times.

Thursday, 27 FebruRY 2020.

PTG 3039-15046.

As captain of Australia, Ricky Ponting would routinely ask his opposite number whether they could come to a pre-match arrangement regarding low catches, wanting both teams to take the fielder’s word rather than relying on umpires or technology. Ponting usually went away empty-handed, as opposition captains were reluctant to play ball: the days of trust had long gone.

Ponting was on sure ground. He knew, as every broadcaster knows, that catches close to the ground are deceptive on television because of the foreshortening effects of the camera lens. What looks like a grounded catch is often anything but. With umpires sometimes badly sighted or too far from the action to make a correct judgment, Ponting wanted the players to take matters into their own hands. It was a shame that no other captain felt the same way.

The Laws of the game were not written with the 21st century in mind. They were written for a simpler, less intrusive time, and what is often forgotten is that they are designed as much for the amateur game, where no cameras pry, as the professional. That is why international matches have Playing Conditions — booklets that runs to many tens of pages — that lie side by side with the Laws.

Another complicating factor is the preamble to the Laws, known as the 'Spirit of Cricket'. Written 20 years ago, the 'Spirit of Cricket' has become one of the game’s great strengths and weaknesses. A strength because it reminds everyone that the Laws are found wanting from time to time in a game that has travelled far from its roots, and that fundamental decency and respect lie at the heart of a good contest. It is a weakness because, with that vibrant flowering, the 'Spirit of Cricket' has come to mean different things to different people.

I’ve written before about the games of night street cricket in Chennai, for example, played over shorter pitch distances because of limitations of space, where every inch of ground is fought for and where, therefore, Mankading (the running-out of a backing-up batsman at the non-striker’s end) is accepted as a fundamental part of the game.  It is often said by the supporters of the preamble to the Laws that you may not necessarily be able to easily define the 'Spirit of Cricket' but, like manure, you know when you smell it.  

Sadly, this is far from the case, as the polarised responses this week to Katherine Brunt’s non-Mankad during England’s opening T20 World Cup defeat by South Africa suggest (PTG 3036-15036, 24 February 2020).  Brunt’s generosity may or may not have had any impact on the match. We shall never know what effect a Mankad at that critical moment would have had on Brunt or the South Africans at the crease.

My sympathies, in this debate, always lie with the bowler. For some reason it is the bowler who flirts with the status of villain when contemplating a Mankad, even though it is usually the batsman stealing ground. Such is the power of the 'Spirit of Cricket', Brunt would have been very wary of the potential backlash and smear against her name, hence her decision to warn, rather than run out, the non-striker.

As the word “Mankad” suggests — the dismissal was named after the fine former India cricketer Vinoo Mankad, whose name is now more associated with dark arts than great cricketing exploits — it is not a tag that is easily forgotten. In this instance, the 'Spirit of Cricket' actually undermines the Laws and makes life more complicated for the players.

The debate is well rehearsed by now, and most people have a clear stance on Mankading (PTG 2055-10405, 21 February 2017). That said, it is not always so black and white. Whereas Brunt would have been well within her rights to dismiss the non-striker, another recent example in the Under-19 World Cup between Afghanistan and Pakistan, when the bowler looked to be actively trying to deceive the batsman, was less clear cut (PTG 3015-14939, 1 February 2020), and prompted James Anderson, the England bowler, to query the law.  The issue is certainly growing in prominence and it is surely not long before it will play a decisive factor in a key game, with all the fallout that would ensue.

While it was barely spoken about when I played, nor can I remember an example in 15 years of professional cricket, now barely a tournament goes by without this debate raging. This is partly because of the ubiquity of televised cricket and the snowball effect; partly because of the increased rewards; partly because, in T20, every run is vital, and with fielding so spectacular across the board, every inch counts too.

It was also partly because the Marylebone Cricket Club changed the Law in 2000 to allow the non-striker to leave the crease as soon as the bowler’s back foot had landed, which actually encouraged the problem of the batsman stealing ground. Three years ago, the Law was changed again thankfully, with the responsibility now clearly on the batsman to stay in his/her ground from the moment the ball is live (the start of the run-up) to the moment it is expected to be released.

It is time to put the tiresome debate to bed, though, and this is where captains have a huge role to play. Before the next match, Heather Knight, England’s captain, could do everyone a favour and take a leaf out of Ponting’s book. She should go into the opposition dressing room, engage with her opposite number and the captains should put each other’s team on notice. Give, in other words, the warning that so many observers think — wrongly — is the batsman’s due. Then they should instruct their own players not to leave the crease until the ball has left the bowler’s hand.

Such an approach would immediately make everyone aware that a Mankad is a possibility and, by doing so, it would eradicate the problem swiftly. Everyone would know they are fair game and, therefore, would stay in their ground if they had any sense at all — as they should.  At the moment, the problem flourishes in the gulf between the Law, by which a run-out at the non-striker’s end is a possibility, and the ‘Spirit', which somehow has come to frown upon that possibility. Until that confusion is put to bed, the problem will not go away.