Cricinfo no longer use "batsman", "chinaman" or "Mankading"

[big_e]

Why we're replacing 'batsman' with 'batter'

Every little bit helps in the movement towards gender neutrality

www.espncricinfo.com

Tradition is the biggest enforcer of subconscious biases, and the role of language here is profound. Language is a carrier of beliefs, values, cultural and political ideologies, and it reflects the perceived social order. Breaking deep-set biases is a long and arduous process, but efforts must be continuous. Every small step is significant.

Over the last few months we at ESPNcricinfo have taken a few. We abolished the use of "chinaman" as a term to describe left-arm wristpin bowling. It was a word that had been rendered innocuous, at least to the cricket world, by decades of use. There are suggestions the term was known in Yorkshire cricket down the years, but it is almost certain that it entered the international lexicon after the Old Trafford Test of 1933 between England and West Indies, when Ellis Achong, a left-arm spinner of Chinese origin, got the England batsman Walter Robins stumped off a wristspin delivery. Walking back, Robins is supposed to have said, "Fancy getting out to a bloody Chinaman."

It can be argued - and it used to be - that the term was not meant to be derogatory, and in fact, there are accounts of Achong himself using it with relish, but it took Andrew Wu, a cricket writer with the Sydney Morning Herald to call out its obviously racist nature. "Chinaman" isn't like "Englishman", "Dutchman" or "Frenchman". Just as "Paki" isn't like "Aussie" and "Kiwi". These are slurs used to denigrate certain ethnic communities.

For us, "left-arm wristspin" is the perfect way to describe what Kuldeep Yadav bowls.

Similarly "mankading". That mode of dismissal was named after Vinoo Mankad, one of Indian cricket's early greats, who ran out Bill Brown, the Australian opener, who was backing up a little too frequently during the Sydney Test on India's tour of Australia in 1947-48. Mankad used a recourse created specifically to stop batsmen from taking unfair advantage, and Don Bradman, who captained that Australia team, later described Mankad's action as "scrupulously fair". Yet Mankad was pilloried for "acting against the spirit of the game", and that dismissal has forever been considered somewhat underhanded, despite being legal. It has forever riled Mankad's family that the name of an illustrious cricketer should be seen in this light. To make a point, Sunil Gavaskar has taken to calling the dismissal "Browned".

"Run-out backing up" might sound pedantic, but "mankading" stands banished from writing on ESPNcricinfo.

It can be argued that "batsman" isn't in the same league because it's not overtly offensive, and when applied to male cricketers it is accurate and can't be described as discriminatory. It can be further argued that using "batswoman" for female cricketers is perfectly palatable, and that it doesn't tamper with the game's basic vernacular.

But the problem lies in the sovereignty of one term over another. The discrimination is in the manner the word "batsman" appropriates our very concept of batting and all the associated imagery that goes with it. Those who bat are batsmen, unless specified otherwise. The craft of batting is batsmanship. Cricket, of course, is a gentleman's game, and its Mecca, the Marylebone Cricket Club finally allowed women membership in 1998.

Words are not just about what they literally mean but about what they imply as well. A job title or a role that requires a feminine suffix when performed by women marks an assumption of male primacy. Which is why there has been a global shift towards terms that are not gender-specific: "flight attendant" over "steward" and "stewardess", "police officer" over "policeman" and "policewoman", "actor" and "author" over "actress" and "authoress", and "chairperson" or simply "chair" in place of "chairman". "Batsman" is an exception in cricket among other main playing roles. "Bowler", "fielder" and "wicketkeeper" are all gender-neutral.

Gender equality as an ideal is an objective that we will struggle for generations to achieve, but gender neutrality in language is easily achievable. We are aware there is a lot more for us to do content-wise in this regard, and a few more terms to address, but why not hit an easy ball over the ropes first?

When we discussed this among ourselves a few weeks ago, the question was, what took us so long?

So "batter" it is for us then. We switched to "Player of the Match" in scorecards years ago, but we will make that usage universal across the site now.

It will take us a while to rewire completely, for the term to be updated across all areas of the site, but we will get there. It's never too late to do the right thing.

Sambit Bal is editor-in-chief of ESPNcricinfo @sambitbal

 

[GROTTO]

lol.

Tell that to the Betting companies, that still use the terms Batsman and Man of the Match.

 

[Power Raid]

the big issues

 

[Cleavy]

is "french cut" still ok?

 

[Hamingja]

is "french cut" still ok?

"Chinaman" isn't like "Englishman", "Dutchman" or "Frenchman". Just as "Paki" isn't like "Aussie" and "Kiwi". These are slurs used to denigrate certain ethnic communities.

It's still ok to denigrate the French.

Watch out if Manu raises a concern surrounding the term though.

 

[Ogrebait]

I'm on board with all of those and the reasons why. However, "run-out backing up" doesn't accurately describe what was referred to as "mankading" and 'run-out backing up before the bowler had delivered the ball' hardly rolls off the tongue. Happy to hear other suggestions (aside from "Browned").

 

[Richard Pryor]

Don't let this distract you from the fact CricketArchive is unjustly locked behind a paywall despite the fact it was built by volunteers contributing statistics:

https://cricketarchive.com/subscribe

#FreetheArchive

 

[Sammo360]

What about "12th man" and "third man"? What do we call that now?

 

[big_e]

What about "12th man" and "third man"? What do we call that now?

Twelfth man is a bit of an outdated concept now as most teams have plenty of substitute fielders to choose from.

Women have been referring to third for some time. No reason why men couldn't do the same.

 

[Borisdog]

I think it's long overdue that any huperson facing the bowling of another huperson is called a batter.

I've always been so offended by the gender specific terminology of the horrid sexism in the game.

 

[Teen Wolf]

What about "12th man" and "third man"? What do we call that now?

How about... whatever the hell we want.

Cricinfo also writes the score with runs before wickets, doesn't mean you have to.

 

[jle101]

The first two are understandable but I don't get why Mankading needed to be cancelled.

 

[big_e]

The first two are understandable but I don't get why Mankading needed to be cancelled.

Attachment of an Indian name to an act considered unsportsmanlike by many (most?) in the cricket world.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Attachment of an Indian name to an act considered unsportsmanlike by many (most?) in the cricket world.

I think public perception, rather than the name, is what needs to be changed. I've never understood what makes mankading running out a batsman batter while backing up before the bowler has delivered the ball so unsportsmanlike - is it that much different to a stumping? The backing up batter is deliberately leaving the crease to gain an advantage; often a batter gets stumped without even intending to leave their crease.

Also, what about when a batter gets run out at the bowler's end after the bowler gets a fingernail on a straight drive before it hits the stumps. In the interest of sportsmanship, should the fielding side not withdraw their appeal since the batter was only trying to back up? Is being out of your crease while backing up a batter's right or not?

I think it should be viewed the same as stealing bases in baseball - you're free to try it, but the fielding side shouldn't have to let you. Seeing Bravo a metre down the pitch as the ball was bowled the other day was ridiculous.

 

[scaryness]

I can't tell any more if saying that the suffix "-man" doesn't implicate gender is progressive or regressive.

It's always just meant human to me.

 

[JackFlash]

What about "12th man" and "third man"? What do we call that now?

There goes the "fine leg"....

 

[Kapow!!!]

I think public perception, rather than the name, is what needs to be changed. I've never understood what makes mankading running out a batsman batter while backing up before the bowler has delivered the ball so unsportsmanlike - is it that much different to a stumping? The backing up batter is deliberately leaving the crease to gain an advantage; often a batter gets stumped without even intending to leave their crease.

Also, what about when a batter gets run out at the bowler's end after the bowler gets a fingernail on a straight drive before it hits the stumps. In the interest of sportsmanship, should the fielding side not withdraw their appeal since the batter was only trying to back up? Is being out of your crease while backing up a batter's right or not?

I think it should be viewed the same as stealing bases in baseball - you're free to try it, but the fielding side shouldn't have to let you. Seeing Bravo a metre down the pitch as the ball was bowled the other day was ridiculous.

Could not agree with this any more

 

[Ogrebait]

I think public perception, rather than the name, is what needs to be changed.

I think changing the name will aid in changing that perception. For whatever reason, the term "mankading" has a negative connotation.

 

[JackFlash]

It's all insane!

 

[big_e]

There goes the "fine leg"....

Women have legs, too, you know. But this guy might get offended:

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I'M OFFENDED

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I think public perception, rather than the name, is what needs to be changed. I've never understood what makes mankading running out a batsman batter while backing up before the bowler has delivered the ball so unsportsmanlike - is it that much different to a stumping? The backing up batter is deliberately leaving the crease to gain an advantage; often a batter gets stumped without even intending to leave their crease.

Also, what about when a batter gets run out at the bowler's end after the bowler gets a fingernail on a straight drive before it hits the stumps. In the interest of sportsmanship, should the fielding side not withdraw their appeal since the batter was only trying to back up? Is being out of your crease while backing up a batter's right or not?

I think it should be viewed the same as stealing bases in baseball - you're free to try it, but the fielding side shouldn't have to let you. Seeing Bravo a metre down the pitch as the ball was bowled the other day was ridiculous.

I think the nature of backing up has probably changed dramatically since it first occurred.

The likelihood is the non-striker wasn't trying to get an advantage, whereas now non-strikers are almost ready to come back for the second by the time it hits the keepers gloves.

As such - personally - i have no issue with mankadding at all.

 

[freddy mercury]

Lol * off.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I think public perception, rather than the name, is what needs to be changed. I've never understood what makes mankading running out a batsman batter while backing up before the bowler has delivered the ball so unsportsmanlike - is it that much different to a stumping? The backing up batter is deliberately leaving the crease to gain an advantage; often a batter gets stumped without even intending to leave their crease.

Also, what about when a batter gets run out at the bowler's end after the bowler gets a fingernail on a straight drive before it hits the stumps. In the interest of sportsmanship, should the fielding side not withdraw their appeal since the batter was only trying to back up? Is being out of your crease while backing up a batter's right or not?

I think it should be viewed the same as stealing bases in baseball - you're free to try it, but the fielding side shouldn't have to let you. Seeing Bravo a metre down the pitch as the ball was bowled the other day was ridiculous.

Something I'm still angry about is when Cook whined about Mankading when in some tournie I think Buttler (?) was mankaded after being warned twice about backing up by Sri Lanka. The Poms were straight up cheating and still had the gumption to complain as though they were hard done by.

 

[Electronic_Renaissance]

Something I'm still angry about is when Cook whined about Mankading when in some tournie I think Buttler (?) was mankaded after being warned twice about backing up by Sri Lanka. The Poms were straight up cheating and still had the gumption to complain as though they were hard done by.

I have never understood the problem with mankading. It's within the laws. If a batsman (sorry, batter), wants to steal a few metres they run the risk of getting mankaded (sorry, run out backing up). It is a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage.

Compare it to a run out where a batsman (s**t, again, sorry batter) slips over. They didn't deliberately slip over and no-one has a problem with them getting run out due to this.

Also, has a left arm wrist spin bowler ever had a problem with being called a Chinaman?

Oh, it has to work both ways. I want the Ladies Stand at the SCG changed to a gender neutral term.