The only reason for including Vinoo Mankad's act among the 'ungentlemanly' one's could be ignorance. How is it ungentlemanly to warn the runner to not push his luck, and do the manly thing and give him his just desserts when he simply refuses to play the game in a fair manner?

Yet you choose to include the 2005 Ashes among the instances exemplifying the spirit of the game. Try telling that to Ricky Ponting after he trundles off the ground, run out by a fielding substitute brought into the field for the sole purpose of allowing the English bowlers mid game massages, while Duncan Fletcher smirks at the him in an oh so gentlemanly manner.

I do not believe walking implies gentlemanliness as seems to be implied here. If one were to go by this index you might have to consider the sum total of all such instances in a players career and we all know of the controversies which result. Merely putting up good decent behavior is all that is important in my opinion. After all the human error process has to be given time to statistically reach similar number of correct or incorrect decisions. I think a professional players job is to win matches for his team and must do everything within the rules and ethical bounds to achieve that.

Two points. First putting Mankad in the same category as Lillie-Miandad is idiotic. On that incident, here's Don Bradman: "For the life of me, I can't understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the nonstriker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the nonstriker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage." Need more be said?

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with not walking. What would be wrong is walking selectively. You know, the type who won't walk if he's on zero but will walk if he's on a hundred. On this, the most ethical attitude that I know is that of the former SAf great Eddie Barlow who said (to Dickie Bird) that while he would never walk, he also would never complain if he got a wrong decision.

Mr Grant Harrison's mention of Vinoo Mankad as associated with an act of cricketing ungraciousness is both a show of ignorance and calumnious to a fine man now departed who cannot therefore defend his own memory. Make him aware that in a match for India vs an Australian XI prior to the First Test of 1947, Mankad twice warned Bill Brown for backing up out of his crease before the ball had been delivered, and only then ran him out when he repeated the offense. Brown transgressed in the same fashion in the Brisbane Test immediately thereafter, when Mankad again ran him out; Brown and Bradman both corroborated these incidents and bore Mankad no ill will. The myth of Mankad as a bad sport, even a cheat, has been created and disseminated by the squealing Australian press and public, who claim to play hard themselves but cannot accept that their opponents might equally respond. Perhaps in 1947 there was even a sense of racism, that a "black" Indian should so deal with a white Aussie.

Ponting! HA. HA. HA.

Ponting and fair... Blah thats the biggest joke I've heard in a long time... Have you already forgotten the catch fiasco that lead to Ganguly's dismissal in the India-Australia series? Vinoo must be turning in his grave right now...

Thanks for all the comments. Good to get some feedback. In defence, my intention was to refer to general episodes that did more to damage cricket's gentlemanly status than augment it. Whether or not Mankad himself was ungentlemanly is beside the point. Indeed, his willingness to warn Brown is nothing if not sporting. The reference then still stands to reason – here is an episode (the run out and the consequent row) in the history of cricket that did little to demonstrate the game’s allegedly gentlemanly status. Admittedly, Mankad was perhaps an unwise example to get the point across.

Too bad you chose to include the great GENTLMAN Vinoo Mankad in this article - betrays your inorance and willingness to go with the whinging Aussies. Besides what do gentlemen and your notion of "sporting gestures" have to do with professional sport when there's millions of dollars on the line.

If what Mankad did is wrong, the hitherto weste world dominant MCC/ICC would not have included it as another mode of dismissal. The very fact that it has been been added as a new mode of dismissal needs to be accepted and obeyed.
Please accept the rules and just remove it,lest it should show this article writer's shallowness and regardlessness for authority.

Vinoo Mankad was a bad sport for running Brown out after having (twice) warned him for backing up too early? And Ricky Ponting - the great boor of present-day cricket who should never have been allowed within ten feet of the captaincy of a national side - is actually a better sport? Good God. Read up before you write this rubbish, Mr. Harrison.

On the subject of non-strikers being run out, I seem to remember Kapil Dev doing for Peter Kirsten in an angry ODI encounter a few years ago. He warned Kirsten a few times prior to this, I think, but it was still seen as worse than if he'd shot him in the face. Funny how the batsman gets a lot of support even when he's not batting, while the bowler gets villified. Interesting to see if batsmen who are embarrassed by tv replay referrals start walking more. Here's hoping...!

As soon as I saw the references to Vinoo Mankad's "lack of sporstmanship" and the Ashes 2005 getting the awards for most sporting cricket series of all times, I went back to the author's name and confirmed my suspicions. It is unfortunate that Mankad is still being abused unfairly of something where Brown himself has clarified that he was the one who acted unfairly by backing up too much (and not by accident). In fact, the term "Mankaded" itself is a creation of the types who fantasize a membership at MCC (not Malgudi Cricket Club).
The rest of the article isn't necessarily true either. Some modern batsmen wait for the umpire's signal even after hitting the ball to 2nd slip (or cover) and then expect the opposition to take their word for bumped catches. If the whole point of this article was to say that batsmen, out of fear for being exposed, will start walking, I think such incidents disprove the claim.

Good article, though i'm probably the only one (i'm not indian) who didn't mind the fact that you included Mankad in your article :D

Grant, in all fairness, mentioning Ponting in the same article that makes use of the word "gentleman" makes me wonder how much cricket you have really watched over the last ten or so years! Get real or much rather write about politics!

Mr.Harrison's inflammatory comments against Vinoo Mankad without really going into the details of the incident again showcases the views of a naive writer. I will forgive him and so will the legions of fans of dear Vinoo. My questionn though is posed to Cricinfo staff, even if you argue saying that everyone has a right to free will, misappropriation and twisting of the facts is not my cup of tea and neither it is for a bunch of other readers.

As for walking, No one walks in the modern game. Perhaps once or twice but that's it. And the only moment of cricket's spirit in 2005 was Lee being consoled by Flintoff. The whole 2005 series was marred with sledging and grumbling by Ponting over nature breaks, fielding breaks etc etc and England was only to happy to mess with Australia more.

I agree too that calling Mankad unsporting is ridiculous. Then all fast bowlers who bounce out nos. 10 and 11 are equally unsporting. Then someone can also say that a bowler should first warn a batsman if he is able to see all the 3 stumps and then bowl the batsman out only if the warning is not heeded. Fielders who take spectacular catches are also unsporting then. They are supposed to warn batsmen that next time they hit the ball in the air they will be caught!!! I mean how ridiculous can people get? It is well within the rules to run a batsman out in the fashion and Vinoo Mankad used it to his favor. In the 87 world cup Walsh was presented a medallion for showing sportsman spirit (he didint run out Salim Jaffer), a move which cost the West Indies a place in the semi final and probably even the cup (since you would expect the Windies team of 87 to sweep through India in the semifinal and may be even Aussies in the final). Sportsman spirit my foot.

While the inclusion of Mankad in the author's list of unsporting cricketers rankles, it should not take away from the main point that is being made. With so much being said against the referral system, this is a point in its support that is usually missed. Fear of ridicule does sometimes keep people honest, and cricketers are people too.

using Ponting and 'gentlemanly' in the same sentence shows how much you know about this game. Using Mankand as an example of ungentlemany behavior further showcases your ignorance(I am not going to explain as it has been done by previous comments).Even though Aussies were at the top during most of the 90s and 2000s, no one respected them because of their ungentlemanly behavior. You seem very pro-australian for an Englishman, I cant imagine why.England and India got the worst of Aussies bad behavior.

Its an utter boggling thing that the great Vinoo Mankand is mentioned in a thing of shambles. Dear author, please note that it is completely under the rules of the game that a bowler can run-out the batsmen for backing up way too fair. And coming about the warning, Mankand did issue a warning by running out Brown in a tour match in the same manner.

And talking about walking, walking is a good way for sporting your sportmanship but not walking is not unsportsman like because there can be many instances where the same batsmen could be given wrongly out, its more like even-ning out everything.

To Arvind:
"I think a professional players job is to win matches for his team and must do everything within the rules and ethical bounds to achieve that." If that is what you seriously believe that perhaps you would much prefer watching English Football where players lower themselves to whatever depths to get the slightest advantage. cricket is a sport which separates itself from the rest by its "gentlemanliness" and the act of walking, a supreme act of graciousness in defeat, is the highest form of cricket. The greatest batsmen in the world should consider themselves lucky to be given the chance to walk!

At the time of Ponting's rant in 2005 the sub was on for a genuinely injured Simon Jones. From memory, Lillee started the trend of bowlers nipping off for a quick shower in 1981.
I prefer the Eddie Barlow method. Umpires are there to umpire, so let them. Walking is undermining their authority just as much as staying. Doesn't matter if I think I hit it or not, the umpires decision is all that matters.

There is the symmetry argument - if a batsman can walk and save the umpire the trouble, it should also be ok when he's convinced he's not out, to stand his ground and indicate, for example, an inside edge onto the pad. Eddie Barlow's is a symmetry argument, albeit of a different form, and completely fair to both the umpires and the opposition. Can-batsmen-pretty-please-start-walking-again helps the game not one whit - it contributes to an overall instability in the decision-making process during the game.

WALKING - when a batsman is out (mostly nicking the ball or runout) they just walk even BEFORE the umpire raises his finger.
so how on earth in ponting's case can u say that he walked ?? cos' clearly the umpire gave him out. referals r just on trial basis which the likes of ponting ar'nt really smart enough.-- remember he dos'nt know the difference between a bump ball or a catch, he could'nt manage 80-90 overs in a single inspite of being a captain for many yrs-- so mr.smart here did "walk" here inspite of being not out?? I think that is against the spirit of the game. if he did have referals left he should have used them 'n prevented the umpire from making a grave mistake.
if he believes in upholding the umpires 'n not question them, he should 'nt be using them while bowling or batting either.

Come on now, Naval Patel, give it a rest... We all know Vinoo was not a "black" Indian, and probably described himself as "wheatish complexioned" :) Indians making a big deal about color is sort of the pot calling the kettle black.. Neither fair nor lovely!

An interesting conjecture but one that risks conflating technology or even access to technology, with the referral system. For example, I think it's fair to say that Ponting has proven himself to be thick skinned and inured to near-universal outrage on numerous occasions. Had the desire to "save face" on camera guided his hand, Ponting wouldn't have tied Steve Waugh Test win record in 2008 simply because cameras and stump microphones have existed for the entire duration of his captaincy. However it is entirely plausible that allowing only a finite number of referrals influenced Ponting's "cost-benefit analysis" style calculations in South Africa. jogesh99's brief but evocative post, "Ponting! HA. HA. HA." captures mine and perhaps Ponting's feelings on the subject. I am convinced that he proposed the honor system in calling catches because it enabled him to legitimately and tactically 'compete' even in that arena.

Others have commented on how it is incorrect to include V. Mankad in this list for legitimately running the non-striker out and I agree with those comments.
Of course Harrison neglects to mention captain Gundappa Vishwanath's gentlemanly recalling of Bob Taylor after Taylor was given out in the India-England Jubilee Test in Bombay.
Perhaps Harrison should have said something about the "gentlemanly" act of sledging practised by Ponting and his colleagues.

The notion of gentleman cricketers went out with the demise of the amatuer. Unfortunately all you have done is given the more partisan supporters a forum where they can wail about past injustices or what they have blindly percieved about certain players, which is a shame because it is an interesting article. I do agree that using Mankad as an example was quite wrong, perhaps that incident in the Ranji Trophy in the early 90's when player attacked each other with stumps would have been more appropriate.

All it takes is one throw away comment and on the comes the anti-Australian sentiment that many fans prefer to let simmer rather than forget.

I agree that the Mankad comment is not in the correct line of the article. Mankad gave fair warnings to Brown and Brown paid the penalty. In general cricket the Mankad is frowned upon, but it is traditional to give the opposing batsman a warning and let the umpire know. Charlie Griffith did it to Ian Redpath in Adelaide without the warning and got the kind of reaction there once reserved for Douglas Jardine.

The Barlow method is probably the method the majority of cricketers use. You can't whinge about a poor LBW call if you prefer to wait for the umpire's decision rather than walk.

What is with the pure hatred I see from you 'fans'? That's not needed in such a great sport as cricket.

Dear Cricinfo,
Please stop encouraging no-vices to write articles on cricket and its events. Perhaps, after all these comments I dont think I have need to point out the complete ignorance of the writer on this game.
Please stop writing these kind of articles which are completely clueless and utter non-sense.

Thank you.

You see what you did wrong there Grant?
You mention India and Australia in the same article! This you can not do for simple reasons. The Inbox (soon to be renamed the Border-Gavaskar Arena of Death) is for Indians and Australians to abuse each other. Indians just want to whinge about Sydney/racism and how good they are (without ever being the #1 side, that's the racism part they complain about), and Australians just want to whinge about why the Indians are whingeing and say "**** off".
But take heart, there are some genuinely unbiased readers who enjoy this section and were not in the least offended by your mentioning of "The Mankad".
Dear Vivek, "novice". One word, "novice". And I truly doubt the ignorance of the writer just because Indian fans are offended. But again, this is (or will be) "The Border-Gavaskar Arena of Death".

Amazing. Hardly any comments address the issue under discussion. Most have decided to get upset about an incidental mention of Mankad. As if he needs all of you to defend him. Bah! If you don’t let your emotions scramble your thinking, you might notice the writer actually makes an interesting point. And no, Danny Lotter / Chris, he is not saying Ponting IS a gentleman. The argument is hypothetical. Is the point too subtle to grasp? I’m not even sure the writer is advocating walking. Grant – are you a walker?

Jimmy. Define "genuinely unbiased". Do you mean some people here are pretending to be unbiased? What kind of bias are you referring to anyway: racial or national? Racial bias is an ugly thing, but national bias? Why, it is a prerequisite for international sport to exist. And if that's the case, why should people bother to feign unbiasedness, which, in case your planning to Google it, is a legitimate word. Jimmy, is it "genuinely unbiased" to write: "Indians just want to whinge about Sydney/racism...and Australians just want to whinge about why the Indians are whingeing and say '**** off'." To me that sentence doesn't even resemble sham unbiased. And since you are dishing out free English lessons to non-native speakers on a cricket blog here's something genuinely unbiased for you to chew on: "Oh Jimmy, that sentence of yours had a compound infinitive." Ridiculous.

I didnt have time to read all the comments but a few did stand out to me - Ponting and fair whoever said that was probably smoking something at the time and it was not cigarettes. Oh sorry there is somebody else named Ricky Ponting in Australia, sorry about that

You people need to chillax. So the author was a bit casual in including Mankad in his examples but what happened was a bona fide controversy, however you feel about it. Just because he's Indian, doesn't mean we need to walk on eggshells. Nice article though, hope to see more.