Cricket without boundaries
The future of Indian cricket
Switch-hitting: Revolution or unfair tactics?
Email 
Print
England batsman Kevin Pietersen’s “switch-hit” may quickly climb the entertainment charts, but the revolutionary shot raises tricky questions for umpires and bowlers.
Unlike the reverse-sweep, where the batsman does not change his original grip, Pietersen twice changed his stance and grip to that of a left-hander as the ball was being delivered, hammering New Zealand’s Scott Styris for six each time in a one-day game.
Former England captain Michael Atherton was among those who felt the tactic was unfair to the bowler. The International Cricket Council (ICC) rushed to the Marylebone Cricket Club, custodians of the game’s laws, asking them to review the shot.
Although MCC said the tactic was legal, the debate is likely to be fuelled when more batsmen try to emulate Pietersen.
Batsmen have often innovated to give themselves an edge over bowlers, particularly to take advantage of field restrictions in the limited overs game.
The reverse-sweep, which entered the game in the 80s, was scoffed at by purists but batsmen embraced it, quickly realising the run-scoring opportunities it provided.
The upper cut, over the slip cordon, and the “shovel shot”, the scoop over the batsman’s shoulder, soon followed. But unlike these shots, the switch-hit can confuse umpires, particularly while deciding leg before decisions.
It could shake up the basis on which lbw decisions are made, judging deliveries which pitch outside the line of the leg stump, and in ruling leg-side wides.
Renowned English umpire Dickie Bird suggests that the idea of leg-side should be taken out of the equation if the batsman changes his original stance.
Former Australia captain Ian Chappell opposes switch-hitting.
“It is unfair to ask the bowlers to nominate beforehand the way they are going to operate (over or round the wicket, left or right arm) and then allow batsmen to change their mode of striking after the ball is in play,” he wrote in his column.
“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?”
It’s fine to try out ways to spice up the game, but in the end cricket will only be interesting if it is an even battle between bat and ball.
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
The Wall
Well, i don’t know what’s not fair about it. not every batsmen is going to use it every shot. and the reason they are lets say right handed, is becuase its their stronger side. so when they switch-hit, its a shift to their weaker side. that should balance out the tactic anyways !
Sanjay, my sympathies much like your’s are with the bowling fraternity. But as cricket is becoming more and more batsman oriented, such innovations are bound to happen. Every new thing we see is for the batsmen moslty be it even 20-20 even. If you compare hte two, the batsmen have become aggressive and more aggressive classy players have been replaced by strikers, poor Dravids of yore now. While the bowlers have become meeker and meeker, where are the Holdings and Ambroses (pls don’t say Shoaib Akhtar – he is more of an off field phenomena even the singing Lee), bowler’s careers are getting shorter and shorter, all injuries sadly happen to these poor chaps only. I truly fear that there will come a time, when instead of bowlers we will be using bowling machines, at least constistency will be maintained..of course switch-hits will go on to spawn a science of their own..
Kudos Sanjay, for the wonderful piece. It’s certainly thought-provoking. However, cricket is not a purist’s delight anymore, be it tests or one-dayers. While Kevin’s ability to ’switch’ to a deadly effect is amazing, I must say innovations have been leaving the bowling tribe in a state of disadvantage and disarray by the day. Despite the game becoming more and more unfairly loaded in favor of the bat, fact remains that fans are loving it. Let’s accept that!
Batsmen have always been able to score runs any way they can once they use the bat to do so. If they step across the wicket and pull from outside off to midwicket(Viv Richards), fall on their backs while hooking (Rohan Kanhai) or use the top hand only to edge it for six – that’s allowed. So absolutely nothing wrong with a batsman stepping across his wicket and changing grip. It’s a risky shot. (R)Evolutionary. Brilliantly executed by Kevin Pietersen.
What this exposes is the artificial approach to judging lbws – if the (original) purpose of that is to decide whether the ball would have hit the wicket, then why dogmatically say that a ball landing outside leg cannot hit the wicket. It most certainly can. And, if we think that too much leeway will lead to umpire-error, then put a system in place to transparently penalize umpires – not corruptly protect pals like was done for Darrell Hair (reappointed to the ICC Elite Panel after being found to have brought the game into disrepute).
P.S. I believe the current lbw rules were brought in to buffer England and Australia against the West Indies pace attack of times past, and particularly limit the effectiveness of Malcolm Marshall around the wicket.
I think just like the bowler, the batsmen has to decide from which side he is hitting. If a batsmen is allowed to switch hit, then we shoud also allow the bowler to switch his bowling line (from over the wicket to around the wicket and viseversa) without any notice……..
Kevin Pietersen has ran out of his shots. Imagine the bowling side setting the fielding based on a batsman. Suddenly he switches it leaves them with too much disadvantage. right now the fielders can move a few y ars to the front and cannot move sideways. I think they should be allowed to change field positions even while bowler is on the run up to the crease. lets see how big kev reacts to it.