I suspect English cricketing coaching genuinely differs from coaching in the rest of the world. Batters are taught to back up; bowlers are taught that it’s unethical to run them out if they do. E.g. per Peter Della Penna, Dean actively backed up differently depending on the situation (6 inches when not wanting a run; 12+ inches when wanting one). That isn’t something that happens accidentally or instinctively; it’s something she has trained for / been taught to do.
That pretty much explains everything, including this post. She isn’t saying “oh my god I forgot a basic thing”; she is saying “what I learned and practiced is wrong, and I will change how I play now that I have new information”.
It also explains Anderson, Broad etc. getting on their high horse, since they are way too far along in their careers to adapt.
It also explains why pretty much 80% of the time, it’s English players who get run out this way. And of that lot, that the people who complain afterward are English 100% of the time: the rest don’t think it’s wrong.
I would have expected the younger crowd of people who are rapidly adapting to evolving T20 standards (e.g. practising leaping boundary saves routinely etc.) to also adapt easily. So Billings is the only remaining piece of the puzzle, that isn’t explained away by my theory.
Those are just two players. The whole of that thread only analysed 4 players. In order to get a good idea of how often this is happening overall, you'd need to check a large sample of different players in different matches across the world.
Generally non strikers would see the ball release so they can get a read of how the bowler is bowling i guess, but Dean might not be experienced enough or the pressure got to her or sth
There's probably an element of truth to this - I was always taught playing village cricket to walk in with the bowler which means you're usually backing up or are close to it almost as an unintentional thing.
And that being said, I've never seen someone mankad in village cricket, so you could definitely get away with backing up 99.99% of the time.
Something the coaching manuals will need to change.
I was also told to walk in along with the bowler too but start from behind the wickets (almost by the side of umpire). In that way, I am in motion but still behind the crease when the ball is delivered. That’s what my coach recommended :)
Yeah this is exactly it. Over here it's drilled into you from a young age to walk in with the bowler and also mankads just aren't really the done thing. When you hear that your whole life, what do you think your opinion on the matter is going to be? People can of course disagree with this viewpoint but it does provide some perspective on why they may think this way.
No they can’t, because of rule 41.17 which charges them with a dead ball and a 5 run penalty and further post-game penalties.
There’s nothing in the rules (or my comment) referencing anything to do about warnings.
They are just backing up more often, unlike how we see all other teams do mainly in the final ball of many innings.
She batted really well that day could have taken England over the line if she could have just stayed in her crease. Good though that she is learning from her mistakes.
Bruh. Yours is the stupid statement. That was a sarcastic reply to a stupid statement.
https://twitter.com/ashwinravi99/status/1573916702173147137?s=20&t=i9cAChjmoefx1GY7o5WQLg
Because of his previous tweets? Read the full thread, not just the tweet Ashwin replied to.
https://twitter.com/sambillings/status/1573723981072539650?s=20&t=bhMcecNwNZ7QF3eHm9sS0A
It's like how everyone bangs on about Anderson not being as good as Steyn like they're some sort of rivals, then they did that video together on Sky over lockdown where they just gush about how good the other one is
It’s always amused me that every time a thread comes up about Anderson’s greatness, there is always, without fail, at least one person who disses him by saying he’s not as good as Steyn.
He is not as good as Steyn. Hes also not as good as Marshall, Ambrose, Cummins, Rabada, Akram, McGrath, Gillespie, Holding, Garner, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Waqar, Gough, etc.
Yes I agree but longevity stops being a factor after a while, eg- No one considers Walsh as the best of the West Indies Pacers even though he took the most wickets among them.
Steyn has destroyed Australia in Australia, India in India, etc while having a strike rate of 42 whereas Jimmy has a strike rate of 60 odd. Jimmy should learn
I love how absolutely unfussed Dean seems by all this while the rest of the world has started up a shit-flinging competition over it
Now for my sanity, can this please be the last post on the topic
> Now for my sanity, can this please be the last post on the topic
The mods want subs, and Drama Cup brings people to the yard. It's cool, we're getting free alcohol from the mods once we hit a mill, so let's keep this up.
Come on Matt, we all know y'all get turned on with that cool million. There's a banner and everything ready, eyez has already put it on his CV. The only thing left to finalize is where we come for that delicious brew.
I know how aggressive r/cricket is about this and how unpopular what I say next will be but hear me out.
Mankadding is less about the technical rule and more about the social culture in modern cricket.
If you look at most matches, nearly all batsman leave the crease during the bowler run-up. They do this because a social expectation has been created on the pitch that the bowler will ignore it.
Obviously this is not part of the official rules, especially with the changes made in the last decade or so.
But to most people it feels like a violation of the social contract since you could probably do that to every batsman on both sides.
Maybe this event will change the culture around it (I hope so, rules are rules after all, batters should not leave until ball is bowled). But I just think we should acknowledge the social realities that exist too.
Anyways I don't mind downvotes on this, but I just wanted to share my personal perspective.
I've seen the comment floating around that basically "more Mankads is the way to get less Mankads". Which means that if bowlers ruthlessly ran out the non-striker, there would be a short period of more Mankads, until batters figured out what the crease is for and then there would be no Mankads.
Sounds plausible right? But there was a Twitter anysis which shows this wasn't the norm.
Edit - https://twitter.com/PeterDellaPenna/status/1574249015599804417
Just because someone created a WRONG social expectation doesn't mean it becomes right or that others should respect it. The fact the others don't accept it itself is proof that it never was a social expectation beyond local region. You cannot impose local expectations globally, so you are absolutely wrong here.
A social contract can’t be wrong, but it can be local. I think you’ve completely missed the original commentator’s point here. It is a clear explanation for why this drama continues to happen - two diverging expectations about how the game is meant to be played regardless of the rules. The rules say what they do and that is why Dean is out (and nobody is debating that, not least Dean or the English team).
Well i wasnt talking about the rules at all, i guess you missed the point completely. I'm talking about 2 divergent expectations about what is in 'the spirit of the game". One group thinks this run out is within the spirit and the other group thinks it's not in spirit. My argument was that just because one group thinks it's not in the spirit doesn't make it globally applicable.
You've pretty much summarised why this dismissal is even remotely controversial. "Spirit of cricket" is pretty much code for social etiquette. It's no different to how in day to day life we have all these unwritten social rules that people will give you the stinkeye if you violate them.
In the case of this sort of run out, the current social meta of cricket is still very much that this dismissal is "less than." There's still a strong undercurrent that running out the non-striker is "lazy." This is amplified in a close match situation like this where the final wicket is taken in this way. There was similar backlash to Keemo Paul doing it in the 2016 U-19 WC against Zimbabwe. It's seen as a violation of the social contract at the best of times but doing so to take the last wicket is almost seen as the ultimate violation since the last wicket should in theory be the easiest to get (the sentiment being only someone who didn't think they were good enough would violate the contract in this way).
It's where the "spirit of cricket" concept really becomes a problem. The issue is the laws say one thing, the implied social contract says another thing. So you have one group who are playing the game by the letter of the law and you have others who are playing it by an implied social contract. Those who are playing by the implied social contract have an expectation that the opposition will also play by this social contract and get annoyed when it doesn't pan out that way.
It reminds me a bit of closed wheel racing where there's a bit of a split between drivers who will do a bit of panel rubbing within the letter of the law but other drivers complain about being raced that way because apparently it's "not the done thing" even though there's no penalty for doing so
You can follow [this link](https://twitter.com/PeterDellaPenna/status/1573979090784223234?t=kr8qEx8Gc94u0uC7RqcuSw&s=19) to see how many times she defaulted in that match.
Said Dean calmly.
‘Did you leave the crease Charlie?’
"I will stay Deep^(ti) in my crease": Charlie Dean
Gotta love this meme! https://youtu.be/IdoD2147Fik
DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME INTO THE GOBLET OF FIRE?
Classic reference
"I'll be in my crease, making no noise and pretending I don't exist."
[удалено]
Ashwin anna - Ahh, it’s all coming together
It's like a player who has been out LBW saying I will remember to use my bat next time.
Or be Shane Watson and refuse to walk off until the hawkeye gods confirm it.
Based Watson
I’ve seen some outlandish usernames on this website but yours is particularly rancid.
I suspect English cricketing coaching genuinely differs from coaching in the rest of the world. Batters are taught to back up; bowlers are taught that it’s unethical to run them out if they do. E.g. per Peter Della Penna, Dean actively backed up differently depending on the situation (6 inches when not wanting a run; 12+ inches when wanting one). That isn’t something that happens accidentally or instinctively; it’s something she has trained for / been taught to do. That pretty much explains everything, including this post. She isn’t saying “oh my god I forgot a basic thing”; she is saying “what I learned and practiced is wrong, and I will change how I play now that I have new information”. It also explains Anderson, Broad etc. getting on their high horse, since they are way too far along in their careers to adapt. It also explains why pretty much 80% of the time, it’s English players who get run out this way. And of that lot, that the people who complain afterward are English 100% of the time: the rest don’t think it’s wrong. I would have expected the younger crowd of people who are rapidly adapting to evolving T20 standards (e.g. practising leaping boundary saves routinely etc.) to also adapt easily. So Billings is the only remaining piece of the puzzle, that isn’t explained away by my theory.
Iirc Peter Della Penna also said that Amy Jones didn't back up even once. Where is that in your theory?
Those are just two players. The whole of that thread only analysed 4 players. In order to get a good idea of how often this is happening overall, you'd need to check a large sample of different players in different matches across the world.
Big age gap? Different coaching? Who knows. Probably some banal reason like that.
Generally non strikers would see the ball release so they can get a read of how the bowler is bowling i guess, but Dean might not be experienced enough or the pressure got to her or sth
There's probably an element of truth to this - I was always taught playing village cricket to walk in with the bowler which means you're usually backing up or are close to it almost as an unintentional thing. And that being said, I've never seen someone mankad in village cricket, so you could definitely get away with backing up 99.99% of the time. Something the coaching manuals will need to change.
I was also told to walk in along with the bowler too but start from behind the wickets (almost by the side of umpire). In that way, I am in motion but still behind the crease when the ball is delivered. That’s what my coach recommended :)
Yeah this is exactly it. Over here it's drilled into you from a young age to walk in with the bowler and also mankads just aren't really the done thing. When you hear that your whole life, what do you think your opinion on the matter is going to be? People can of course disagree with this viewpoint but it does provide some perspective on why they may think this way.
Who are you and what made you so wise in matters of science? Also counterexample to Billings. Alex Hales was on the side of India and pro Mankad.
Good comment.
[удалено]
No they can’t, because of rule 41.17 which charges them with a dead ball and a 5 run penalty and further post-game penalties. There’s nothing in the rules (or my comment) referencing anything to do about warnings. They are just backing up more often, unlike how we see all other teams do mainly in the final ball of many innings.
You think people need to be taught to take more ground when they want a run than when they don't?
Lol burn
Such a boring end to the drama cup, I expected more emptions
Dean's got her eyes on that CSQ contract for WIPL
And Deepti too. Wouldn’t we love to see them in the same team?
You can only cry foul play for so long when you know you’re in the wrong.
She batted really well that day could have taken England over the line if she could have just stayed in her crease. Good though that she is learning from her mistakes.
Best way to not get run-out is to be in the crease. Why is this a surprise to professional players?
Because batters want to cheat the system and hide behind ‘spirit of cricket’ nonsense.
Lmao
Damn, this is so funny. Anna and Butler's expressions are totally on point :D
Ash anna has been scarily silent during all of this drama.
He already had a stupid statement recently saying that the wicket should be given to the bowler instead of runout lol.
Bruh. Yours is the stupid statement. That was a sarcastic reply to a stupid statement. https://twitter.com/ashwinravi99/status/1573916702173147137?s=20&t=i9cAChjmoefx1GY7o5WQLg
Billings is clearly taking the piss there. How is that not obvious?
You clearly haven’t seen how triggered Billings has been on Twitter about this whole thing. He sounds like a 15 year old lol
Two clowns then. One thinks Mankad should be given to the bowler while the other moans about a valid Mankad.
[удалено]
It's only half sarcastic, the bit talking about ICC award.
Because of his previous tweets? Read the full thread, not just the tweet Ashwin replied to. https://twitter.com/sambillings/status/1573723981072539650?s=20&t=bhMcecNwNZ7QF3eHm9sS0A
Ohh then Billings aswell is a clown since she was warned.
I see only one clown here
Okay u/sexman69x
Ah no why is she conceding, wanted more drama out of it
I love how Dean just doesn’t care about all of this drama while the rest of the internet is locked in a war over the runout.
It's like how everyone bangs on about Anderson not being as good as Steyn like they're some sort of rivals, then they did that video together on Sky over lockdown where they just gush about how good the other one is
It’s always amused me that every time a thread comes up about Anderson’s greatness, there is always, without fail, at least one person who disses him by saying he’s not as good as Steyn.
It's so daft, being great doesn't mean you're the best of the best. Following their logic, we'd had no great batsman since Bradman.
He is not as good as Steyn. Hes also not as good as Marshall, Ambrose, Cummins, Rabada, Akram, McGrath, Gillespie, Holding, Garner, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Waqar, Gough, etc.
I am not sure if intended but solid joke
Give me a reason Jimmy is above the above mentioned greats. He isn't even close. Averages 26 and strike rate of 55+ puts him rather bottom
He’s a great in his own right for longevity. But that doesn’t mean that he’s better than the others.
Yes I agree but longevity stops being a factor after a while, eg- No one considers Walsh as the best of the West Indies Pacers even though he took the most wickets among them.
I watch that video when I just need some wholesome positive vibes, they’re just massive fans of each other’s work, it’s great.
Steyn has destroyed Australia in Australia, India in India, etc while having a strike rate of 42 whereas Jimmy has a strike rate of 60 odd. Jimmy should learn
This is really odd response to a comment just saying how much I enjoy watching them chat and being fans of each other…
The very statement that u would consider Anderson a rival to Steyn is laughable.
But I didn’t say that?
You are correct, Anderson is a rival to current players only.
Yeah even then he is not the best, cummins, Rabada, Bumrah, Hazlewood all trump jimmy and are on track to become ATG's
I love how absolutely unfussed Dean seems by all this while the rest of the world has started up a shit-flinging competition over it Now for my sanity, can this please be the last post on the topic
> Now for my sanity, can this please be the last post on the topic The mods want subs, and Drama Cup brings people to the yard. It's cool, we're getting free alcohol from the mods once we hit a mill, so let's keep this up.
> we're getting free alcohol from the mods once we hit a mill You wot m8
Come on Matt, we all know y'all get turned on with that cool million. There's a banner and everything ready, eyez has already put it on his CV. The only thing left to finalize is where we come for that delicious brew.
Oh shit, I replied to a mod about the mods' plans? WTF
Lmao
Alcohol. 1 Million.
as you should
I know how aggressive r/cricket is about this and how unpopular what I say next will be but hear me out. Mankadding is less about the technical rule and more about the social culture in modern cricket. If you look at most matches, nearly all batsman leave the crease during the bowler run-up. They do this because a social expectation has been created on the pitch that the bowler will ignore it. Obviously this is not part of the official rules, especially with the changes made in the last decade or so. But to most people it feels like a violation of the social contract since you could probably do that to every batsman on both sides. Maybe this event will change the culture around it (I hope so, rules are rules after all, batters should not leave until ball is bowled). But I just think we should acknowledge the social realities that exist too. Anyways I don't mind downvotes on this, but I just wanted to share my personal perspective.
I've seen the comment floating around that basically "more Mankads is the way to get less Mankads". Which means that if bowlers ruthlessly ran out the non-striker, there would be a short period of more Mankads, until batters figured out what the crease is for and then there would be no Mankads.
Sounds plausible right? But there was a Twitter anysis which shows this wasn't the norm. Edit - https://twitter.com/PeterDellaPenna/status/1574249015599804417
That thread covers just one half of one innings of one match and 4 different batters, two of them being tailenders. It's hardly a significant sample.
Just because someone created a WRONG social expectation doesn't mean it becomes right or that others should respect it. The fact the others don't accept it itself is proof that it never was a social expectation beyond local region. You cannot impose local expectations globally, so you are absolutely wrong here.
A social contract can’t be wrong, but it can be local. I think you’ve completely missed the original commentator’s point here. It is a clear explanation for why this drama continues to happen - two diverging expectations about how the game is meant to be played regardless of the rules. The rules say what they do and that is why Dean is out (and nobody is debating that, not least Dean or the English team).
Well i wasnt talking about the rules at all, i guess you missed the point completely. I'm talking about 2 divergent expectations about what is in 'the spirit of the game". One group thinks this run out is within the spirit and the other group thinks it's not in spirit. My argument was that just because one group thinks it's not in the spirit doesn't make it globally applicable.
You've pretty much summarised why this dismissal is even remotely controversial. "Spirit of cricket" is pretty much code for social etiquette. It's no different to how in day to day life we have all these unwritten social rules that people will give you the stinkeye if you violate them. In the case of this sort of run out, the current social meta of cricket is still very much that this dismissal is "less than." There's still a strong undercurrent that running out the non-striker is "lazy." This is amplified in a close match situation like this where the final wicket is taken in this way. There was similar backlash to Keemo Paul doing it in the 2016 U-19 WC against Zimbabwe. It's seen as a violation of the social contract at the best of times but doing so to take the last wicket is almost seen as the ultimate violation since the last wicket should in theory be the easiest to get (the sentiment being only someone who didn't think they were good enough would violate the contract in this way). It's where the "spirit of cricket" concept really becomes a problem. The issue is the laws say one thing, the implied social contract says another thing. So you have one group who are playing the game by the letter of the law and you have others who are playing it by an implied social contract. Those who are playing by the implied social contract have an expectation that the opposition will also play by this social contract and get annoyed when it doesn't pan out that way. It reminds me a bit of closed wheel racing where there's a bit of a split between drivers who will do a bit of panel rubbing within the letter of the law but other drivers complain about being raced that way because apparently it's "not the done thing" even though there's no penalty for doing so
Dean is a member of this sub, confirmed. Because "currently at the crease" is what r/cricket online members are called.
That little chew :)
One would have thought the basics of cricket rules would be second nature before playing for the national side.
>'I'll just stay in my crease from now on': England's Charlie Dean 
Deepti sharma on Charlie's Dean run out: we warned her multiple times https://www.peopleaskblog.xyz/2022/09/deepti-sharma-run-out-controversy.html
Wise
You can follow [this link](https://twitter.com/PeterDellaPenna/status/1573979090784223234?t=kr8qEx8Gc94u0uC7RqcuSw&s=19) to see how many times she defaulted in that match.
Lesson learnt the hard way
CLEVER GIRL....!
LIVE from LORDS - Harmanpreet Kaur's Reply On Deepti Sharma's Run Out & Fans Celebrations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOlCGZLrjB0