- Regulars
- |
- Highlights
- |
- Opinion
- |
- Reviews
- |
- All Time XI
All Time XI 
Australia England New Zealand - |
- Archives
- |
- Page 2
Feeds
| Archives
|
The problem with switch-hitting
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
 |
|
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.
Feeds: Ian Chappell
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Top
Widely regarded as the best Australian captain of the last 50 years, Ian
Chappell moulded a team in his image: tough, positive, and fearless. Even
though Chappell sometimes risked defeat playing for a win, Australia did not lose a Test series under him between 1971 and 1975. He was an aggressive batsman himself, always ready to hook a bouncer and unafraid to use his feet against the spinners. In 1977 he played a lead role in the defection of a number of Australian players to Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket, which did not endear him to the administrators, who he regarded with contempt in any case. After retirement, he made an easy switch to television, where he has come to be known as a trenchant and fiercely independent voice.
News : Pietersen switch-hit given all-clear
News : Pietersen defends switch-hitting
'SA look mortal in one-dayers'
Switch Hit Show: A full preview of the South Africa-England ODIs, a look back at Australia's series win and a chat with Mike Procter
Rob Steen: There's been plenty to moan about in the 2000s, but the cricket itself has been mostly exciting
Sixes for all, and strike-rates over 100
The List: Innings in which every batsman hit it out of the park and scored at a run a ball or better
Ask Steven: Big scores on the losing side, best Test bowling figures by leggies and slow left-armers, and out first ball in Twenty20
Wanted: more aggression from England
Different Strokes: Looking ahead to the South Africa ODIs
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
Who is the best footballer in Europe?
Debate now on the new ESPN Soccernet Castrol Rankings Blog
Cricshop.com UK's leading online Cricket Store
Visit now
Formula 1 news & live race coverage
on www.f1-live.com
I don't know why there is a hue and cry about the swish shot now when this shot has been in existence for so long. Way back in the eighties, I remember Srikanth trying to imitate the reverse sweep of Mike Gatting who was sweeping away to glory just about every ball frustrating the Indian spinners. Srikanth never mastered the reverse sweep, however, in one particular match while making an effort to reverse sweep he ended up sweeping like a traditional left handed batsman. It did not make news than but Mike Gattings reverse sweep was definitely the talk of the town.
Posted by DrAlbin on (June 24 2008, 16:31 PM GMT)"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."?!?!!! Well done to Phil, DavidNorman99 & all others who have picked up on the fact that the oldest Chappel's example is nonsense in the light of Laws 36.3 & 24.4. Maybe the passionate, but illogical, argument has its roots in the fact that the current champion switch-hitter is a Pom (of Jaapie stock, on top of that!)!
Posted by Nashili on (June 24 2008, 13:12 PM GMT)Let the batsmen bat however they want without restrictions. Bowlers operate under bowling rules. Change them if U must. a FAST BOWLER CAN BOWL SLOW AND A SLOW BOWLER CAN BOWL FAST. Is this a disadvantage to the batsman? NO. Let players improvise as they must in today's game. If a reght handed batsman becomes a left handed batsman in the pursuit of a shot, treat him as such. The umpires know what to do. Nashili
Posted by Aussie_in_US on (June 24 2008, 13:07 PM GMT)If a player backs away to the leg side to smash the ball over cover, and the ball is bowled outside off and away from the batsman (or down leg at him), it is not a wide because it was the batsman backing away that made it seem "wide". Therefore shouldn't the movement of the batsman switch hitting negate the ball being called a wide? If I was the umpire I would not call it a wide if the bowler continued to bowl outside the original offside and the batsman couldn't hit it
Posted by DavidNorman99 on (June 24 2008, 12:21 PM GMT)It is understandable that people are getting confused about how to determine the Leg Side and Off Side in this situation, as you have to look in two completely separate places in the laws of cricket to get the answer... The laws state: "36.3. Off side of wicket The off side of the striker's wicket shall be determined by the striker's stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery." "24.4. Ball ceases to be dead The ball ceases to be dead - that is, it comes into play - when the bowler starts his run up or, if he has no run up, his bowling action." So the off side is determined when the bowler starts his run up. If the batsman changes side after that, it does not affect which is the off side. Hence all the concerns that are being expressed about it becoming a noball due to fielders behind square on the leg side, and about how to judge where the ball pitched for the purposes of LBW, are already covered in the laws of the game.
Posted by caeg on (June 24 2008, 11:12 AM GMT)A simple solution from the bowlers perspective is to pull out of the delivery ... simply do not bowl the ball if the batsman switches ... If you are uncomfortable with it as a bowler, simply pull out!!!
Posted by IlMagnifico on (June 23 2008, 21:54 PM GMT)If you want to switch hit, do away with the no-LBW-if-pitched-outside-leg rule (which is a stupid rule to begin with, a well-bowled ball pitching outside leg can and will hit the stumps if not for the willow-wieler's obstructing body parts). Or take away the one-bouncer-only rule to put some fear of God into the batsmen. Let's see how many show their chutzpah and flair after that.
Posted by crpcarrot on (June 23 2008, 16:19 PM GMT)I think of the people who are posting comments are mixing up the reverse sweem where u dont reverse your stance with the one KP played, where he reverses his feet postion too. IIRC when other playes played it it was usually a turning of the bat in the hands while the feet postions stayed the same. another point to consider if a batsman switches his stance mid delivery how does that affect the LBW with balls pitching outside leg stump??
Posted by Phil. on (June 23 2008, 15:44 PM GMT)According to fraz123 : "Very well written by Chappel, clear and concise. I wonder why people like him cant make a place in the Cricket governing body." Perhaps they feel he should know the Laws of the game. As I posted earlier (but was not approved apparently) his analysis is based on an incorrect statement of the Laws (36 & 41 in this case).
Posted by Dustin on (June 23 2008, 13:23 PM GMT)I don't see what the problem is. If a batsmen is allowed to switch then the bowler should be allowed to over step the popping crease, straighten his arm through the delivery and the rule regarding the height of a beamer eradicated...this all carefully ensuring that KP gets a cherry in the middle of his precocious head. Now that's entertainment folks and I would definitely pay to watch!!!!