If ever whingeing was a designated sport, the English would have been its unparalleled masters. In fact, the Brits might have been forcibly inducted into the whingeing Hall of Fame just to put an end to their sustained participation. For proffering and lamenting over prosaic and petty excuses, is British sports’ perpetual nonpareil.

Hence it came as no surprise when an entire nation worked itself up into a frenzied outrage following the Indian women’s cricket team’s thrilling win at Lords that culminated into a 3-0 series winning thrashing of the hosts. The finish to the game however was decried to have occurred under circumstances controversial. With 17 runs required by England to spoil Jhulan Goswami’s swansong, and with a 21-year-old Charlie Dean exhibiting maturity that belied both age and experience, spinner Deepti Sharma stunned the home supporters by running Dean out at the non-striker’s end[1]. The otherwise composed and confident batter had backed a long way even before the delivery was bowled. Tears, incredulous expressions and derisive chants of “cheats” later, the actual outpouring of scorn began.

Former and current English cricketers, not exactly paragons of noblesse oblige themselves, took to social media to heap contempt on Deepti Sharma and the Indian cricket team. Cricketing “Pundits” expressed grave disappointment about the mode of dismissal and lamented that Deepti Sharma’s act of supposed indiscretion did not sit well with them.

This allegation encapsulates in stark detail the double standards that are more or less emblematic of English cricket. The most used – and abused, to the extent that it has become a cliché – phrase “the spirit of cricket” once again reared its convenient head. This term has been made so malleable to fit English opinions and suit English conveniences that its very relevance is as suspect and as unreliable, as the English weather.

Some of the accusations made by the past and present English cricketers transcended the asinine. A current fast bowler who after edging a ball from Australia’s Ashton Agar straight into the hands of Michael Clarke at slip stood his ground in a rock-solid manner and expressed his displeasure at Charlie Dean’s run out[2]. When appropriately reminded of his own shenanigans, the bowler alleged that a batsman was entitled to stand his ground till such time the umpire made his decision. I am in complete concurrence with this claim. However this also “sits uncomfortably with me” since this is in complete discord with the “spirit of the game”. The cricketer also added for good measure that 99% of the batsmen didn’t walk after nicking deliveries. So, do 99 wrongs make a right?

Now coming to the actual mode of dismissal itself. Popularly and inappropriately termed “Mankaded” (after the legendary Indian all-rounder Vinoo Mankad who is credited with employing this mode of dismissal for the first time), a non-striker who is backing up too far before the bowler delivers the ball is liable to be dismissed if the bowler instead of delivering the ball at the end of his/her delivery stride knocks the bails off at his/her end thereby leaving the non-striker stranded.

Usually, the transgressing non-striker is warned by the fielding side/bowler not to persist with the act of premature backing up. Understandably this mode of dismissal cleaved the cricketing world in terms of its feasibility and acceptability and there could be found advocates on both sides of the divide. The ICC recently attempted to set the records straight by legitimizing this mode of dismissal and making it a plain vanilla “run-out”. No more ‘Mankaded’. A reproduction of the revised ICC Laws regarding this mode of dismissal reads, “The playing conditions follow the laws in moving this method of effecting a run out from the ‘Unfair Play’ section to the ‘Run-Out’ section. Running out a non-striker for backing up too much will now be considered as a regular run-out”.

Crystal clear for anyone reading the rule, unless the reader happens to be an inexplicably infuriated Brit. When the mode of dismissal has been shifted from the realm of the unfair to the remit of the accepted, where is the need for a bowler to warn the non-striker? Now, one of the allegations against Deepti Sharma, her skipper Harmanpreet Kaur, and the Indian team is that the Indian team did not warn Charlie Dean even once before dismissing her.

To get into arguments on whether Deepti Sharma issued a warning to Charlie Dean or not, would be tantamount to wading into thickets of irrelevance. Does Murali warn a batsman that the next ball escaping his fingers would be a Doosra? Or does Brian Lara issue a warning to the bowler about his intent to send the next delivery sailing over long on? But just for the record, Peter Della Pena of Cricinfo helpfully informs his readers that Charlie Dean backed up  a whopping 72 times (yes you read that right) in the same game before she was run-out[3]. Have those ranting and raving souls bothered to calculate the number of ‘unfair’ runs that the home team might have collected as a result of such a brazen backing up?

A former English wicketkeeper made a ludicrous assertion that even though the mode of dismissal is perfectly valid as per the laws of cricket, taking recourse to it was in his opinion, totally unfair. This gentleman would do well to recollect the bizarre rules of the game (necessitated by rain), which in the 1992 edition of the World Cup facilitated England’s entry into the finals when their opponents, South Africa miserably failed to score just 22 runs off 1 magnanimous delivery[4]. But that outcome sat exceedingly and extraordinarily well with the English. It was a totally different matter altogether that Inzamam took the bones off the English bowling in the finals.

Kris Srikkanth got out in his debut Test, against England in Bombay in 1981, when on 13, he innocuously padded a ball to Joh Emburey at gully and inadvertently went off ‘gardening’. Emburey threw down the stumps and Srikkanth was given out[5]. India's captain, Sunil Gavaskar, dropped his bat in disgust at the non-striker's end. Whether it was exasperation at his partner’s act of indiscretion or at Emburey’s doing could not be deciphered at that moment. But the fact of the matter is that this dismissal did nothing to either imperil, impact or invalidate an Englishman’s notion of ‘the spirit of the game’. A classic case of ‘do unto others what you wouldn’t expect others to do unto you’.

This is not the first time that England has employed the weapon of selective outrage to either justify or cover up a loss. This would certainly not be the last time either. There would be collective and almost coordinated meltdowns having no method behind their madness. The most appropriate thing for Deepti Sharma and India to do would be to shut out the noise and focus on the positive signals. It is time to bask in the resplendent glory of a 3-0 thrashing meted out to England. And for all those in the crowd who engaged in a despicable chant of “India are cheaters”, dear ladies and gentlemen, you would do well to note that people living in glass houses should undress only in the basement.  

References

1. Deepti Sharma's run out of Charlie Dean perfectly legal, but still leaves opinions divided (mid-day.com)
2. Stuart Broad backs his decision not to walk in the Ashes | Stuart Broad | The Guardian
3. 'We had warned her' - Deepti Sharma on the Charlie Dean dismissal | ESPN.com.au
4. World Cup: When bizarre rain rule resulted in South Africa needing 21 runs off one ball vs England | Sports News,The Indian Express
5. Men oddly out (espncricinfo.com)

Image source: Sky Sports