Jos Buttler's shabby 'Mankad' run out will lead to sparks flying when England face Sri Lanka in first Test at Lord's

  • Buttler run out backing up, which sparked controversy at Edgbaston
  • Incident could lead to bad blood between England and Sri Lanka in Tests
  • Buttler incident different to Grant Elliott run out in 2008 or Ian Bell being called back by India in 2011
  • Each incident must be judged on its own merit - no problem with Stuart Broad's non-walk at Trent Bridge in Ashes
  • Sri Lanka feel there's a conspiracy against Sachithra Senanayake

By Paul Newman

Published: 17:08 EST, 4 June 2014 | Updated: 17:08 EST, 4 June 2014


Cricket’s moral code is mazy at the best of times but it has rarely appeared more complex than in the mixed reaction to the controversial and unusual ‘Mankading’ of Jos Buttler by Sri Lanka at Edgbaston.

Opinions among pundits and the public seem evenly divided on whether Sachithra Senanayake was within his rights to run Buttler out backing up and, more pertinently, whether Angelo Mathews should have withdrawn the appeal.

Your gut instinct as a cricket lover to any ‘spirit of the game’ issue is as good a means as any of deciding your viewpoint. My mind was made up as soon as Michael Gough raised his finger in the deciding one-day international. It was just wrong. It felt that way then and it still does now after much contemplation.

'Mankad': Jos Buttler (right) is run out backing up by Sachithra Senanayake, sparking a storm of controversy

'Mankad': Jos Buttler (right) is run out backing up by Sachithra Senanayake, sparking a storm of controversy

Flashpoint: England captain Alastair Cook (left) lectures Sri Lanka skipper Angelo Mathews (second right) as Ian Bell (right) and James Tredwell also get involved at Edgbaston

Flashpoint: England captain Alastair Cook (left) lectures Sri Lanka skipper Angelo Mathews (second right) as Ian Bell (right) and James Tredwell also get involved at Edgbaston

 

More...

 

This is not a case of simply backing England and I am fully aware that Sri Lanka had warned Buttler and broke no laws or regulations. But ‘Mankading’ feels different from any issue of non-walking or other  run-out controversies.

For instance, I strongly criticised England for not calling Grant Elliott back when he was run out at The Oval in 2008 after colliding with Ryan Sidebottom. There was just no way they could justify that piece of poor sportsmanship.

I also felt that India had no need to call Ian Bell back at Trent Bridge three years ago because he had been dozy in the extreme in wandering off for tea when it was unclear that the ball had crossed the boundary and was dead.

Yet I had no issue with Stuart Broad’s non-walk in last year’s Ashes and feel that selective walking, as we have seen from some big figures in the game’s history who have shamefully claimed the moral high ground, is a bigger offence.

Leading question: Cook and Mathews had words at the end following the Sri Lankan skipper's decision not to call Buttler back following the controversial 'Mankad'

Leading question: Cook and Mathews had words at the end following the Sri Lankan skipper's decision not to call Buttler back following the controversial 'Mankad'

Confusing? Well, yes, but each incident has to be treated on its merits. So why is this one so bad? In his  distinctive way, Graeme Swann hit the nail on the head when he tweeted: ‘I did a Mankad on Marc Snell against Middlesex Under 11s. It was given out but my dad told me he wished I was adopted, he was so disgusted.’

The reaction of Swann Snr is one that will resonate with  any coach or schoolteacher in charge of a youth game.  Parents: what would you say if your kid ‘Mankaded’ someone in their next game and then said, ‘It’s OK, I saw it on TV in  England’s match?’ I hope you would put them up for adoption as Swann almost was, because it is unedifying and shabby.

The biggest irony, of course, is that India withdrew a Mankad appeal in a one-day international two years ago. Who were the opponents? Sri Lanka. Who was at the crease? Angelo Mathews. Yet that did nothing to influence the Sri Lankan captain, even though he was surrounded by senior  players when Gough asked him if he wanted to withdraw the appeal.

You've got to go: Umpire Michael Gough (left) gives Buttler out after his run out by Senanayake (right)

You've got to go: Umpire Michael Gough (left) gives Buttler out after his run out by Senanayake (right)

What is clear is that the incident has added spice to the Test series. Alastair Cook said Sri Lanka had crossed a line and that there would be a hangover at next week’s first Test at Lord’s, but it was the press  conference which followed Cook’s on Tuesday night that was most illuminating.

The highly respected and experienced Mahela Jayawardene bristled on behalf of his captain, his team and, significantly, his bowler Senanayake. The key to this issue is that Sri Lanka feel wronged over the reporting of Senanayake for a suspect bowling action and that, I believe, led them to running out Buttler in the way they did.

The inference is that they suspect an English conspiracy against  Senanayake and there was implied criticism of umpire Ian Gould from Sri Lanka team manager Michael de Zoysa, who was alongside Jayawardene at Edgbaston. Clearly, two simmering teams will head to Lord’s next week.

Against the spirit of the game: Grant Elliott (left) should have been called by by England following his run out after this collision with Ryan Sidebottom in 2008

Against the spirit of the game: Grant Elliott (left) should have been called by by England following his run out after this collision with Ryan Sidebottom in 2008

Final word

England may have lost only 3-2 against the world’s most consistently successful limited-overs team but much of their batting was old-fashioned and formulaic, while a lot of the seam bowling lacked discipline and penetration.

While England laboured at Edgbaston, Alex Hales was smashing 18 fours and six sixes in his 167 for Notts at Hove. He really does need to be included in a one-paced England 50-over top four before another World Cup comes and goes with a minimal English contribution.

Hales force: Notts opener Alex Hales hit 18 fours and six sixes in his 167 against Sussex in the Championship

Hales force: Notts opener Alex Hales hit 18 fours and six sixes in his 167 against Sussex in the Championship

 

More...

Comments (16)

Share what you think

 View all

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

Broad should have walked last year and he didn't- that is NOT CRICKET.

1
19
 Click to rate

Ignorance of the Law is not a defence. Remember it is easier to be critical than to be correct. Cook, Moorse, & co. must grow up. Gamini Jayaweera

1
21
 Click to rate

What other sport allows you to position yourself beyond the start line?

1
19
 Click to rate

Sorry but I am with the bowler on this. The batsman was not backing up he was sneaking down and taking an unfair advantage.

2
22
 Click to rate

Cook was correct when he said a line was crossed. The cricketing world calls that line the batting crease, and it was Butler/Cook who crossed it

2
27
 Click to rate

Soon not Mankading will have joined walking and runners as part of Cricket's quaint past to be chuckled at by commentators.

2
0
 Click to rate

Paul Newman's logic has me baffled here, it most certainly was not a "shabby" run out!,can he explain why it is in the laws of cricket but can not be used. Buttler was taking advantage ,however small and he paid the price. This stealing a few feet or more has crept in to the game more and more over the years and perhaps this will help to curtail it. As I have already said in comments regarding this issue, when I was learning the game many years ago I was told by a very well respected coach at the time to keep my bat grounded behind the crease until bowler had delivered the ball. Which is now when the bowler is in his delivery stride.

1
19
 Click to rate

As I understand and saw, the bowler could have ran Buttler out earlier in the ober, but instead he complained to Buttler and the umpire and Buttler still carried on doing the same thing. People keep saying that what the bowler and Matthews did was "not cricket". But then again no body is complaining about what Buttler was doing- starting a un before the bowls were released-is that "not cricket". Everuyone is blaming th bowler and Matthews but nobody is criticising Buttler.

3
60
 Click to rate

The batter at the other end on strike is obligated to remain behind his crease at all times if his wicket is in danger of being put down by the ball in play, so much so, that going "gardening" up the pitch often requires a nod or an signal to do so, as does a request to pick the ball up and hand it to the fielders. So why on earth is the same not true of the other end?

2
32
 Click to rate

It is true. That is why he was run out.

2
19
 Click to rate

hubert: So why the hue and cry and people shouting the odds about the spirit of the game? Batsmen must be in their ground at all times whilst the ball is in play or deemed "live" A batsman on strike can take a guard 12 inches down the pitch but is forever aware that he is in danger of his wicket being put down by the field at any time unless the ball is dead.

1
25
 Click to rate

Butler having been warned twice was either stupid or was relying on the "spirit of cricket" that he wouldn't be run out while taking an unfair advantage getting a two yard head start. Blind man would had Hales playing for England, the Moore/Cook era off to a jittery start.

3
52
 Click to rate

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now