The problem with switch-hitting - Beware of another backlash from bowlers : Ian Chappell

[Feed]

It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to operate and then allow batsmen to change their mode of striking after the ball is in play . More... It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to operate and then not subject batsmen to the same rule June 22, 2008 Left isn't right: shots like this one, which Kevin Pietersen played last week, need to be dealt with by a change in the law © Getty Images Kevin Pietersen was right when he said following the first ODI against New Zealand, "The reverse-sweep has been part of the game for however long." Mike Gatting's futile attempt in the 1987 World Cup final springs readily to mind, but I recall the innovative Javed Miandad was the first to employ the shot. However, Pietersen was wrong, and for more reasons than just the obvious contradiction, when he went on to say: "That is a new shot played today and people should be saying it's a new way to go." He's wrong for the reason I put forward on total-cricket.com in May 2001. "While on the subject of legislation there's another case looming where the players are well ahead of the administrators. This happened with Bodyline and the underarm delivery. Whether or not you agree with Douglas Jardine ordering his bowlers to pitch short to a packed on-side field, or Greg Chappell who asked his younger brother to imitate Sir Francis Drake, no one can accuse them of operating outside the laws. If the administrators didn't want Bodyline bowling or underarm deliveries, they should've thought of it before the event and legislated accordingly, rather than castigate the instigators after the event. The same will happen with the reverse sweep if the administrators don't act swiftly to clarify the situation. It is unfair to ask the bowlers to nominate beforehand the way they are going to operate (over or round, left or right arm) and then allow batsmen to change their mode of striking after the ball is in play. I have no problem with a batsman who cleverly uses his wrists to upset the field placings by reverse sweeping. However, I can't accept that a batsman is allowed to change the order of his hands and/or feet after the bowler commences his run-up, as this in effect makes him the opposite type of player to the one who took strike. By this method a right-hander becomes left (or vice versa) after the bowler commences his run-up and renders the field placings obsolete. This is taking an unfair advantage, while a batsman sticking with the first method is pitting his skill (evenly) against that of the bowler. If that isn't reason enough to change the law, then administrators should ponder what would happen in a Test if a batsman decides to change mode with his team needing one run to win and only a ball remaining. If three slips and a gully are in position, in theory the batsman would be turning those fielders into four men behind square leg and would have a legitimate claim for a no-ball under the current legislation. It couldn't happen? Well, I'll bet that's what the administrators were thinking before 1932-33 and prior to 1980-81 when first Jardine and then Greg Chappell jolted them out of their smugness." If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler originally intended. How can it be fair when a captain has placed the field for a specific set of circumstances and then the batsman, without warning the fielding side, renders them obsolete by completely changing his stance? If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman. Maintaining an even balance between bat and ball is crucial in ensuring the game of cricket remains a fair contest. The administrators are already pushing the envelope by reducing the boundary dimensions at a time when bats are constantly improving; if they are not careful, cricket will become a game of entertainment rather than an entertaining game. Throughout history bowlers have never been shy about fighting back when they feel they are pushed beyond the limit. They have resorted to chucking, Bodyline, and bowling underarm to even up the contest, and if this anomaly isn't corrected, then I wouldn't blame them for indulging in methods like those to make their protest.

[dial_100]

I am not aware of any rule while holding a bat. I think batsman can hold any hand up. Same thing goes with, which leg he takes on the front first. I think, bowlers has freedom to vary the line and length. He can also change steps and speed as well. What else could anyone ask? I think this rule seems fair enough. If we want cricket to be more competitive, then we should allow fielding side to keep 12 fielders but only 11 to bat. I think with that we can cut down # of runs scored in ODIs.

[MalikBrother]

Miandad was the first to employ that shot? Impressive. Reverse sweep should be banned. I don't see how it's not fair to bowler. Younis has also used reverse sweep the most in Final match against India. If batmen are allowed to use reverse sweep without permission needed from umpire, then bowlers should be allowed with no question asked.

[chanakya]

Allow for the reverse sweep, But than treat both sides as off side for the bowler for the delivery.

[King Tendulkar]

Whats the big deal. The great gavaskar batted left handed for a whole hour once.

[flamy]

Whats the big deal. The great gavaskar batted left handed for a whole hour once.

:omg::omg::omg: :hatsoff: When? Vids?

[MalikBrother]

:omg::omg::omg: :hatsoff: When? Vids?

I wonder too. :nervous:

[Lurker]

It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to operate and then allow batsmen to change their mode of striking after the ball is in play .

That line of argument is quite weird and I seem to hear it from every other expert these days. The other day Michael Holding was saying the same thing - let the bowlers change their bowling arm as well. However how does that even make sense?? Is it possible for a Murali to approach the wicket and then switch to left arm bowling?? The left arm run-up stride is completely different to right hand run-up. And even if the bowler did manage to get his action correct he also has to get his control right or else it is going to be a wide or a noball of whatever. This argument is plain cr@p. You want to give respite to bowlers? Well bring back no no-ball rule. Lets see Brett Lee knock KP's head off.Get the boundary where they used to be and not inside the line and do away with Powerplay and all that jazz. xxx

[King Tendulkar]

In a FC match he batted for 1 hour to combat a spinner left handed. A lot of up roar at the time about it. He was angered earlier in the match cos his brother in law earlier in the match refused to walk!

[sandtest]

Restrict the number of such shots by allowing only one or maximum two (including reverse sweep) per over. This will even the "bowler's at disadvantage" debate for this issue. Advocating for bowlers to be allowed to change their bowling arm midway will not address the core issue of "bowlers at disadvantage", since no bowler will be able to exert precision control over his bowling if he bowls with the arm which he is not used to.

[Yuvraj4Captaincy]

Swicth hitting should be banned for sure or the batsmen must advise the umpire who then will advise the bowling team that the batsmen will switch hands. Otherwise, I find it unfair to the bowling and the fielding team cuz it throws the field placement down the toilet.

[flamy]

Which is why bowler must switch between over and around...

[King Tendulkar]

Why is everyone panicking. Any good bowler would lick his lips at batters switching over. KP got away with it this time. Other times he will gift his wicket away trying this. He tried a big switch over at the WC and got out doing this in a crunch match which england lost and then so got knocked out. He was slaughtered for playing that shot as he gifted his wicket away. He will gift his wicket again doing this!

[kablooee87]

So what happens when a batsman attempts this shot, the ball bounces outside (what was originally) his leg stump and hits the pad. Can he be given LBW?

[ludhianvi]

So what happens when a batsman attempts this shot' date=' the ball bounces outside (what was originally) his leg stump and hits the pad. Can he be given LBW?[/quote'] That really is the main point here. I have heard commentators say that it can/should be given LBW. From what I have seen, a couple of the umpires did not give a wide when the batsman switched sides. But there should be a clear rule on this issue and ICC should release the verdict on this new scenario if it hasnt already. Quite a few of the cricket laws are very vague that these can be interpreted in many ways. There should be a strict ruling on these matters.