Bill Lawry would have done this when he was captain.
Even without the milestone 200, some captains make the opposition take to the field for an over or 2 in the first session before declaring, just to annoy them.
Was it Bill Lawry that declared when one of his batsman was a handful of runs from making his century and then Australia went on to lose or draw the test match anyway?
I think team first, milestones second but you would want to be fairly confident that the decision to declare is going to bring you a victory or you are seriously going to demoralize the batsman. I wonder if that batsman was given a message to hurry up cause captain Bill is going to pull you in soon
Adam Zampa is a full blown tool, but he shouldn't be given the opportunity to try and mankad someone.
In games with a video umpire, all deliveries where the batter backing up is out of their crease it should be called a run short. So there's no benefit in cheating the system.
or the batsman could just stay in his crease... they know the rules. You learn when your a kid to keep your bat in the crease and not start walking out of it until the bowler is just about to release the ball. If you arn't to be given out (cause its a dog act by the bowler) then why stay in your crease at all?
I mean how far down the pitch should the non striker be given a head start?
Imagine if the batting team needed 1 run to win a game and the non striker is half way up the pitch to steal the run, what is the bowler suppose to do and those runs go against the bowlers stats.
I think the rule is in place for a good reason, not Zampas fault he was given an opportunity to enforce it and that the non striker tried to exploit some sort of mythical gentlemens agreement and expect Zampa to just be a good bloke. T20 is a circus but it's still a professional game with things at stake
It's a good rule, it really shouldn't be controversial at all
I recall Starc having some firm words with the non striker about it in the MCG test but what might have sorted the issue out for Starc quicker was taking the non strikers bails off as the verbal warnings seemed to take a while to sink into the non strikers head
I actually don't mind the non striker trying to get a head start on the run but he shouldn't be given a pass on doing it and should be fair game with no stigma or negativity towards bowler or batter for getting the bails clipped off by the bowler (i.e. a legitimate tactic for both sides). Let the non striker weigh up the risk and reward and if the bowler is good enough to spot it and react. Thinking a bit about stealing bases in baseball
Ofcourse we don't want a situation where we get alot of dead balls cause the bowler is obsessing about the mankad and not actually throwing deliveries down the pitch but if the non striker knows he could be throwing his wicket away it might stop them walking out of their crease as much.
If the bowler comes up with too many dead balls where he stops before bowling but doesn't run out the non striker then maybe start calling them no balls
The facing batsman can charge down the pitch before or as the ball is being bowled as far as he wants out of his crease and can start taking a run, heck he doesn't even need to hit the ball. We see this in one day games by tail enders or when a single is needed desperately to retain strike into the next over for example
The risk ofcourse is that you get stumped by the wicket keeper or if you cross with the non striker then he is run out. Should be same case down the non strikers end, actually it already is because there is a rule in place.