04 April,2022 10:15 AM IST | Mumbai | Sunil Gavaskar
New Zealand’s James Neesham fails to stop a ball from going over the boundary line in an ODI against Australia at Hamilton on February 5, 2017. Pic/Getty Images
Rahul was also in his 60s, the youngest of the three brothers. He loved cricket, could talk endlessly about it and wanted to be involved with it in some way or the other. With his administrative experience with the Griffith University in Queensland, Australia, where he lived for a long time, he would have made a great sports administrator, but he just wasn't given the opportunity.
Just before he had the first episode with the heart last month, he heard that the MCC had destigmatised the run-out at bowler's end by a bowler from being unfair. "About bloody time" was his reaction from the hospital bed since that mode of dismissal was referred to by the family last name, since it was his father who had twice done it way back in 1947-48 on the first India tour of Australia. Despite the great Sir Donald Bradman, who was the captain of the Australian team then, saying there was nothing wrong with the dismissal and the non-striker should be staying in the crease till the ball was released, a lazy journo coined the dismissal âMankaded' and it stuck and just like after Watergate in 1972 everything is this gate, that gate or the other, it is nothing but lazy journalism. Hopefully, that mode of dismissal will no longer be referred to by the legends name at least by Indian news media and websites.
ALSO READ
Tim Southee to bid adieu to cricket after England's Test series
Ajaz Patel, hero of New Zealand''s clean sweep in India, dropped for England series
"The time feels right to now step away from the game": Tim Southee
Mendis and Fernando tons earn Sri Lanka comfortable win over New Zealand in 1st ODI
'Keep him away from media': Manjrekar deems Gambhir's demeanour unworthy
The advertisement triangle which the writer is referring to in this piece
There is another change in law that MCC have brought about, but haven't read any explanation as to why such a long standing law of the game has been changed. This change is about a new batter taking strike even if the two batsmen have crossed when the catch was taken. Why this has been changed is not known, at least I haven't read any reason for it but it takes away one of the tactical facets of the game. If a better batsman is at the non-striker's end when the ball goes up in the air, the strategy would be for him to cross the striker before the catch is completed so he can then face the next delivery. In a tight situation this can be the difference between winning and losing so there's got to be awareness when the ball goes up in the air. Sadly now, no matter what, it's the new batsman who will take strike and if he is a lower order batsman not so accomplished with the bat, then his team has less chances of winning the game. The excitement, the anxiety, the slow motion replays to see if the batsmen had crossed before the catch was taken is all gone out of the window now with this new change of law. Was it necessary? How does it enhance the game? How does it impact the game? These are questions that will be asked especially every time the game is turning out to be a tight finish.
The late Rahul Mankad
The one change in playing conditions that should be seriously considered especially in white ball cricket is the sixer being given when the ball hits the boundary rope on the full. With boundaries being brought in substantially, a six should be given only if the ball has landed beyond the rope or the advertising triangle than if it hits it on the full. Yes, if a fielder steps on the rope while taking a catch it should still be a six, but otherwise it should be a six only if the ball has landed over the rope. The bowlers are usually on a hiding in white ball cricket, so this little tweak will level it for them just a bit though they would still like the boundaries to be longer for sure.
Any changes to the law or playing conditions should be practical and those that enhance this great game of ours. Don't you think so?
Professional Management Group