The Switch Debate
The biggest debate around the cricket world this week has revolved around Kevin Pietersen's Switch-Hit.
Before I go on with my 10 paisas, I would like to point out to this news piece that dates back to over 5 years ago.
Shortly after winning the World Cup in 2003, Australia's coach John Buchanan came out with a future development plan of sorts for cricket's future in Australia.
As the article states the key objective was to "think about how the game is played and how we can play it differently".
John Buchanan's response to the "playing it differently" was "develop ambidextrous players who can field, bat - and possible even bowl - right and left-handed".
John Buchanan went on to say that by the next World Cup, which was held last year, Australia would have players who would be able to use both sides of their body.
He described Ian Harvey as one who can throw with both hands, and Adam Gilchrist as one who can hit the ball left handed as well as he does right handed.
Before going on, I want to ask my 1st question.
Why didn't the ICC or the MCC or anyone else question the legality of ambidextrous players who could bat and / or bowl either right handed or left handed?
Was it because no one thought that would ever happen?
We didn't see that skill on display at last year's World Cup, but we did see it during the 1st ODI between England and New Zealand when Kevin Pietersen switched his grip, switched his stance, and hit Styris for 6. Not once but twice. (Link above).
But that isn't the first time Pietersen has played that shot. This clip shows Pietersen doing exactly the same to Muralitharan in a test match played in 2006.
Pietersen switched his stance, stood like a left hander and played a reverse slog sweep and sent the ball over the ropes for 6.
And the picture on the right shows that Pietersen has played that shot in matches before the 1st ODI between England and New Zealand.
Why didn't anyone question its legality then?
Was it because it was a reverse sweep and not a shot hit over the bowler's head?
Even before Pietersen, I distinctly remember one Jonty Rhodes do exactly the same. He played the reverse sweep different than most batsmen.
While the reverse sweep was largely played by turning the bat in the hand and sweeping the ball the other way without a change in stance or grip, Jonty Rhodes used to change his grip and stance, in effect becoming a left hander, and then play the sweep.
I couldn't find clips to prove that, but I do remember some commentators questioning if that was allowed.
Why didn't anyone check the legality back then?
Is the hue and cry, which has thankfully been cleared by the MCC, all because Pietersen sent the ball sailing over mid off, or was it mid on, rather than sweep it?
Whatever the answer to the above questions, all it does is goes to show that one day the ICC might be concerned over an issue that has been totally ignored in the past.
In either case, as Sledgehammer points out in his last post, thankfully common sense has prevailed and the MCC have termed the switch-hit legal. Even though I feel there was no need to check for its legality since it has been played for some time now.
What needed checking or revising were other rules that go flushing down the drain if a batsman deploys the switch-hit.
Rule 1: Bowlers switching hand of delivery
That article in which John Buchanan talks about ambidexrous players concludes with "You've got to inform the umpire or they might see it as cheating. If you told the umpire and the batter knew, that's be fine".
That refers to the bowlers switching their hands before the delivery.
This is the first rule that I believe needs to be looked at and ammended or added or whatever it is the MCC does.
The rule in my view should imply that a bowler needs to declare the side of the wicket he is going to bowl from (i.e. over or around) but he doesn't need to declare which hand he is going to deliver from.
It's simple really, if the batsmen can switch from right to left or vice-versa, the bowlers can too.
Rule 2: The Wide Ball
A ball delivered down leg is a wide even if it misses the batsman or the stumps by an inch. This is fine, though what happens to deliveries bowled on the off-side, which becomes the leg side when a batsman switches?
Surely they should not be wide.
But then deliveries bowled down leg side, which becomes the off-side when a batsman switches, should also not be wide.
Rule 3: LBW
A ball that pitches outside the line of leg stump rules out the LBW. But then what about the ball that pitches outside the line of leg stump, which becomes the off stump when he batsman switches?
That should not rule out the LBW.
And the ball that pitches outside the line of off-stump, which becomes the leg stump when the batsman switches, should also not rule out the LBW.
The batsmen have a lot of things going their way in ODI cricket, and its high time the rule makers do something for the bowlers.
Som, who openly criticizes the use of the switch-hit and considers the plight of the bowlers, may not be as against it if these rules were implemented.
Nor would the others who think its unfair.
Before I go on with my 10 paisas, I would like to point out to this news piece that dates back to over 5 years ago.Shortly after winning the World Cup in 2003, Australia's coach John Buchanan came out with a future development plan of sorts for cricket's future in Australia.
As the article states the key objective was to "think about how the game is played and how we can play it differently".
John Buchanan's response to the "playing it differently" was "develop ambidextrous players who can field, bat - and possible even bowl - right and left-handed".
John Buchanan went on to say that by the next World Cup, which was held last year, Australia would have players who would be able to use both sides of their body.
He described Ian Harvey as one who can throw with both hands, and Adam Gilchrist as one who can hit the ball left handed as well as he does right handed.
Before going on, I want to ask my 1st question.
Why didn't the ICC or the MCC or anyone else question the legality of ambidextrous players who could bat and / or bowl either right handed or left handed?
Was it because no one thought that would ever happen?
We didn't see that skill on display at last year's World Cup, but we did see it during the 1st ODI between England and New Zealand when Kevin Pietersen switched his grip, switched his stance, and hit Styris for 6. Not once but twice. (Link above).
But that isn't the first time Pietersen has played that shot. This clip shows Pietersen doing exactly the same to Muralitharan in a test match played in 2006.Pietersen switched his stance, stood like a left hander and played a reverse slog sweep and sent the ball over the ropes for 6.
And the picture on the right shows that Pietersen has played that shot in matches before the 1st ODI between England and New Zealand.
Why didn't anyone question its legality then?
Was it because it was a reverse sweep and not a shot hit over the bowler's head?
Even before Pietersen, I distinctly remember one Jonty Rhodes do exactly the same. He played the reverse sweep different than most batsmen.
While the reverse sweep was largely played by turning the bat in the hand and sweeping the ball the other way without a change in stance or grip, Jonty Rhodes used to change his grip and stance, in effect becoming a left hander, and then play the sweep.
I couldn't find clips to prove that, but I do remember some commentators questioning if that was allowed.
Why didn't anyone check the legality back then?
Is the hue and cry, which has thankfully been cleared by the MCC, all because Pietersen sent the ball sailing over mid off, or was it mid on, rather than sweep it?
Whatever the answer to the above questions, all it does is goes to show that one day the ICC might be concerned over an issue that has been totally ignored in the past.
In either case, as Sledgehammer points out in his last post, thankfully common sense has prevailed and the MCC have termed the switch-hit legal. Even though I feel there was no need to check for its legality since it has been played for some time now.
What needed checking or revising were other rules that go flushing down the drain if a batsman deploys the switch-hit.
Rule 1: Bowlers switching hand of delivery
That article in which John Buchanan talks about ambidexrous players concludes with "You've got to inform the umpire or they might see it as cheating. If you told the umpire and the batter knew, that's be fine".
That refers to the bowlers switching their hands before the delivery.
This is the first rule that I believe needs to be looked at and ammended or added or whatever it is the MCC does.
The rule in my view should imply that a bowler needs to declare the side of the wicket he is going to bowl from (i.e. over or around) but he doesn't need to declare which hand he is going to deliver from.
It's simple really, if the batsmen can switch from right to left or vice-versa, the bowlers can too.
Rule 2: The Wide Ball
A ball delivered down leg is a wide even if it misses the batsman or the stumps by an inch. This is fine, though what happens to deliveries bowled on the off-side, which becomes the leg side when a batsman switches?
Surely they should not be wide.
But then deliveries bowled down leg side, which becomes the off-side when a batsman switches, should also not be wide.
Rule 3: LBW
A ball that pitches outside the line of leg stump rules out the LBW. But then what about the ball that pitches outside the line of leg stump, which becomes the off stump when he batsman switches?
That should not rule out the LBW.
And the ball that pitches outside the line of off-stump, which becomes the leg stump when the batsman switches, should also not rule out the LBW.
The batsmen have a lot of things going their way in ODI cricket, and its high time the rule makers do something for the bowlers.
Som, who openly criticizes the use of the switch-hit and considers the plight of the bowlers, may not be as against it if these rules were implemented.
Nor would the others who think its unfair.
.jpg)
