PlanetCricket
Bot
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
Article by AngryAngy -
Vinoo Mankad is rather unfortunate in being India’s second greatest all-rounder and yet only remembered for being a dirty cheating scoundrel… that is, if he’s remembered at all. And in truth, he wasn’t that either. Cricket has known some right pricks who wouldn’t warn you about the dangers of smoking much less the stumps they were about to knock over. Cricket has known great players who were womanisers and ne’er-do-wells off the field, though to be fair, this seldom detracts from a tale. Maybe that’s where Mankad went wrong. Yet, all-time Indian XIs are remiss to exclude Mankad.
A bowler wily enough to rip up the opposition, a batsman stoic enough to make 200. A 30 year cricketer, perhaps India’s first great player. He who demolished England to gain India’s first victory against them. Years later he produced a fine all-round performance, scoring 72 and 184, while bowling 97 overs for 5 wickets, defiant as England won the match. For this feat, his name is one of the few that sits on both the batting and bowling honors boards at Lords.
If any criticism is to be made, one might suggest that he was not so useful at the beginning of a series; however India has since made this an important part of their cricket culture. In bowling, he was an archetypal subcontinental spinner. He bowl his left arm orthodox brisk and accurate, both in action and out of the hand, developing turn without wasting time in the air. His change-up was to bowl a quicker one. As England recently found against Pakistan, a good spinner does well to hurry the batsman and Mankad did it in every way he could. Like many spinners, he wasn’t always a wicket-taker. In concession, he played with a lot of chaps who weren’t Ekki Solkar and such was his importance to the side, they sometimes had to play him injured. Furthermore, most 1950s batsmen were nothing if not protective of their wickets, but he was that wonderful thing, indomitable.
At bat, he was occasionally remarkable. He relied on concentration and a good defence, but to make runs he wielded an array of attacking strokes that one comes to associate with gifted all-rounders. When he was on, he was really on. He literally batted at every position from 1 to 11 and did the opening-batsman-bowling-superman thing well before Watson made it cool. His 415 run opening stand with Pankaj Roy stood as a world record for over 50 years. It’s still the best effort by Indians and the 11th best overall, baffling as it is that two batsmen averaging 30 could rival all the more modern ones that average 50, though Sehwag and Dravid did once get very close.
In fact, when told of how close they came, Sehwag exclaimed “who is Vinoo Mankad?” But of course we (or the rest of us, at any rate) know Mankad donates his name to the act of the bowler running out the non-striker in his delivery stride. The great irony is that when Mankad originally warned Bill Brown, it was ambitiously hailed as one of the most sporting acts seen at the SCG. This was in a tour game versus an Australian XI. The first time, he called Brown back into his crease. The second time he ran him out. What transpired late on day 2 of the Test match was the third incident and though history remembers Bill Brown fondly as an ‘unwitting victim’, he had been made well aware of what he was doing. Mankad wore much criticism from the press and no doubt the public, though some of the lasting material actually defends him.
Perhaps public opinion was influenced by the very genuine character of Brown. He was after all, an invincible and he fought the war in the Pacific, while missing out on what might have been his cricketing peak. Of course, such a genuine character could only admit his own fault in the event and made humorous self-deprecating references to it thereafter. This wit and attitude held him in the highest esteem among generations of cricketers. Steve Waugh regarded Bill Brown to be the embodiment of Australian cricket and integral to Waugh’s mythos of the Baggy Green.
The simple truth is that Mankad didn’t make Mankading bad. It was previously too bad for anyone to bother and years later, it was rubbed out of the laws for no great reason. If anything, by offering a warning, he made it legitimate.? Alas, in doing so, he created something that was far bigger than himself.
More...
Vinoo Mankad is rather unfortunate in being India’s second greatest all-rounder and yet only remembered for being a dirty cheating scoundrel… that is, if he’s remembered at all. And in truth, he wasn’t that either. Cricket has known some right pricks who wouldn’t warn you about the dangers of smoking much less the stumps they were about to knock over. Cricket has known great players who were womanisers and ne’er-do-wells off the field, though to be fair, this seldom detracts from a tale. Maybe that’s where Mankad went wrong. Yet, all-time Indian XIs are remiss to exclude Mankad.
A bowler wily enough to rip up the opposition, a batsman stoic enough to make 200. A 30 year cricketer, perhaps India’s first great player. He who demolished England to gain India’s first victory against them. Years later he produced a fine all-round performance, scoring 72 and 184, while bowling 97 overs for 5 wickets, defiant as England won the match. For this feat, his name is one of the few that sits on both the batting and bowling honors boards at Lords.
If any criticism is to be made, one might suggest that he was not so useful at the beginning of a series; however India has since made this an important part of their cricket culture. In bowling, he was an archetypal subcontinental spinner. He bowl his left arm orthodox brisk and accurate, both in action and out of the hand, developing turn without wasting time in the air. His change-up was to bowl a quicker one. As England recently found against Pakistan, a good spinner does well to hurry the batsman and Mankad did it in every way he could. Like many spinners, he wasn’t always a wicket-taker. In concession, he played with a lot of chaps who weren’t Ekki Solkar and such was his importance to the side, they sometimes had to play him injured. Furthermore, most 1950s batsmen were nothing if not protective of their wickets, but he was that wonderful thing, indomitable.
At bat, he was occasionally remarkable. He relied on concentration and a good defence, but to make runs he wielded an array of attacking strokes that one comes to associate with gifted all-rounders. When he was on, he was really on. He literally batted at every position from 1 to 11 and did the opening-batsman-bowling-superman thing well before Watson made it cool. His 415 run opening stand with Pankaj Roy stood as a world record for over 50 years. It’s still the best effort by Indians and the 11th best overall, baffling as it is that two batsmen averaging 30 could rival all the more modern ones that average 50, though Sehwag and Dravid did once get very close.
In fact, when told of how close they came, Sehwag exclaimed “who is Vinoo Mankad?” But of course we (or the rest of us, at any rate) know Mankad donates his name to the act of the bowler running out the non-striker in his delivery stride. The great irony is that when Mankad originally warned Bill Brown, it was ambitiously hailed as one of the most sporting acts seen at the SCG. This was in a tour game versus an Australian XI. The first time, he called Brown back into his crease. The second time he ran him out. What transpired late on day 2 of the Test match was the third incident and though history remembers Bill Brown fondly as an ‘unwitting victim’, he had been made well aware of what he was doing. Mankad wore much criticism from the press and no doubt the public, though some of the lasting material actually defends him.
Perhaps public opinion was influenced by the very genuine character of Brown. He was after all, an invincible and he fought the war in the Pacific, while missing out on what might have been his cricketing peak. Of course, such a genuine character could only admit his own fault in the event and made humorous self-deprecating references to it thereafter. This wit and attitude held him in the highest esteem among generations of cricketers. Steve Waugh regarded Bill Brown to be the embodiment of Australian cricket and integral to Waugh’s mythos of the Baggy Green.
The simple truth is that Mankad didn’t make Mankading bad. It was previously too bad for anyone to bother and years later, it was rubbed out of the laws for no great reason. If anything, by offering a warning, he made it legitimate.? Alas, in doing so, he created something that was far bigger than himself.
More...
It must have taken a good deal of searching for this article.
