Minutes before I began writing this post, I read on Cricinfo that the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the custodians of cricket’s laws, have given a nod of approval to Kevin Peterson’s switch-hit shots. Peterson had earlier defended his strokes in his typically bombastic style. He nonchalantly brushed aside the critics’ concerns by saying that the reverse sweep had long been a part of the game. Well, I don’t second your opinion, Kevin, of likening your switch-hit shots to reverse sweeps.
In a reverse sweep, as shown in the top-left picture featuring Dhoni, the batsman doesn’t change his hands i.e. the grip i.e. the way he holds the bat. In many cases, the batter doesn’t even alter his stance (the positioning of the feet) much. What Peterson did the other day against New Zealand was to alter his grip as well as the stance before the ball was delivered (depicted in the top-right picture). Quite clearly, this is no reverse sweep, certainly not the one that Peterson clamoured to have existed for years.
A more crucial point to ponder is that while hammering those massive switch-hit sixes, the English batting spearhead effectively became a left hander without intimating the bowling side which had set the field keeping in mind a right-hand player. This, to me, is simply not fair. As many ex-players have suggested, this is analogous to the bowler changing his bowling arm or bowling side without letting the batsman know. So, if the bowlers aint permitted to do that, why should the batsmen? The MCC quite rightly says that the percentages are usually with the bowler when a batter attempts this kinda high-risk shots, but what they are overseeing is that this recommendation will let ambidextrous players take unfair advantage of the field placings, and thus, the bowling side’s tactics. Imagine a captain meticulously and intelligently designing the best field for his bowler, only to see the batsman switching his batting style and picking out easy gaps. It takes out the mental aspect of the game to a degree. The current guidelines grant a batsman, who is skillful with both his hands, a greater chance to succeed than others. I am dead against it.
Addendum [taken from my last comment]: If you okay switching batsmen, why not allow rotating fielders, and bowlers who can hurl from either side and either arm. Why should the batsman be permitted to blow the tactics of the bowler and the captain, and not vice versa?
Filed under: Cricket | Tagged: Kevin Peterson, MCC, reverse sweep, switch hitting
A good batsman normally sees the ball from the point of its delivery (when it leaves the bowlers hand) which normally takes around 400-800 milli seconds to reach the bat. A bowler meanwhile has full luxary to change his bowl before these 400-800 ms. He can role his finger to bowl a slower’ne or give it a thrust and bowl it short for a bouncer.
It is to be noted that all these shots have to be pre-meditated. It would require atleast 1 second for KP to change his stance, hold on the bat, spot his position and hit.
Now KP can play this pre-meditated fluke once or twice. But a good bowler can spot his trick and make an omlette out of his balls with his .5 seconds advantage.
Should KP be banned. Comm’on is he can risk his balls and still manage a beauty of a shot, he does not needs to be chastised…
@divx: Certainly, KP shouldn’t be banned, nor should any other batsman who attempts in the future until the laws of the game forbid the shot. Besides, I quite like the audacity and thrill that KP brings to cricket. But, this is not individuals, it’s about rules.
You are right about the observation that it takes extraordinary skills to execute those shots without getting out. But, why should that uncommon batting quality be allowed to ridicule a tactically smart bowling side? Think about it. I painstakingly set a strong on side, blocking all the favouring hitting zones of the right hand batsman on strike, and all he has to do it is to switch and slog into the vacant midwicket (cover if he had stayed a right hander). To me, that’s cheap runs!
Moreover, if this shot stays, don’t be surprised if people train hard and master this shot (I remember John Buchanan talking once about how ambidexterity is one of next leaps for cricket). Then, the argument that the odds are aways with the bowler may also struggle to hold.
Michael Holding said :
“They(Bowlers) do not provide a warning of the type of delivery that they will bowl (for example, an off-cutter or a slower ball). It therefore concludes that the batsman should have the opportunity – should they wish – of executing the ’switch-hit’ stroke.”
Taking it a little further .. when an off-spinner can bowl a leg-spinner and call it a doosra .. a right hander can switch over and call it a doosra :D .
You said :
“Think about it. I painstakingly set a strong on side, blocking all the favouring hitting zones of the right hand batsman on strike, and all he has to do it is to switch and slog into the vacant midwicket (cover if he had stayed a right hander). To me, that’s cheap runs! ”
From the batsman’s perspective .. imagine the same when he expects a “fast” ball from a fast bowler (Am not taking of the umpteen variations in a fast ball) .. and all he gets is a “slow” / “off spin” ball from say someone like shoaib akhtar .. isnt that cheap balls/wickets then :) … Remember as micheal holding (a bowler ;) ) .. said .. if bowler can bowl watever they want and escape scot-free .. then batsman can do that too :D.
The variety adds to the beauty of the game .. :)
I also dont think so yaar. Imagine someone like shoaib akhtar bowling and you dont know which arm he is going to bowl from. that would be disaster.
Batsman are disadvantage in cricket, because one mistake and they have to walk back to pavillion, whereas bowlers dont have anything like that. So I guess it is fair :)
@HalleY: I am totally with you on the importance of variety. But, that can’t be stretched to a point where it affects the balance between bat and ball. In the name of variety, would you allow metal bats which weigh light but spank the ball big? (As a matter of fact, Dennis Lillee had unsuccessfully tried an Aluminum bat).
You misread what Holding opined on this :). Here is the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jun/18/1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront, and here is an excerpt from it:
The former West Indies fast bowler Michael Holding says batsmen should inform the umpire before changing hands, in the same way that bowlers are required to say which arm they are going to use. But the statement from Lord’s continued: “MCC acknowledges that while bowlers must inform umpires and batsmen of their mode of delivery, they do not provide a warning of the type of delivery that they will bowl (for example, an off-cutter or a slower ball). It therefore concludes that the batsmen should have the opportunity – should they wish – of executing the ’switch-hit’ stroke.”
You mentioned how bowers are allowed to bowl various types of deliveries. But, aren’t the batsmen allowed a long list of strokes? If you had to stay with this analogy, just like the bowler informs the batsman apriory about which side (over or round the wicket) and which arm he will employ for his upcoming delivery, the batsman must specify whether he is left-handed or right-handed for the upcoming stroke. Only fair!
@Goli: Don’t forget that the playing conditions are increasingly being laid out to suit batsmen :). Plus, in the miniature version of cricket, You can statistically afford to lose 1 wicket every two overs. Not too bad, is it? :)
That was a good catch .. some friend IMed to me and i did what is called convenient reading :) ..
Sorry for that !
But i still dont get it .. if muralitharan can bowl a leg spinning ball .. There is nothing unfair in peiterson reverse sweeping in which ever way he wants … that as i see it .. and moreover bowlers have different actions .. sohail tanvir … paul adams etc being extreme examples .. they already have enough ways to confuse the batsman .. and batsman found one way .. and hell breaks loose ..
And they call this a batsman’s game .. Grrr …
Oh and continuing … Metal ball etc is taking it to the extreme … this is an improvisation done by the batsman… the player .. and not some bat manufacturer …
If you look at the way cricket has evolved .. there are many such out of the note-book improvisations …
the marillier scoop .. the paddle scoop being the more recent ones ..
I still think there is Nothing unfair about it ….
It’s being called a batsman’s game because of the stringent rules on wides, no-balls (esp., now with free hits), flat wickets and the emergence of power plays.
I don’t at all think the batsmen are running out of options to score. The run-rates are soaring higher than ever. besides, there already exists room for batting innovation as can be seen with shots like the “proper” reverse sweep, the pedal shot over fine-leg/the keeper, etc. The batsman can attempt anything under the sun, all we are asking him is to tell us which handed player he is :).
The batsman chooses his shot based on the field settings and the bowling arm/side. Now, envision floating fielders and a bowler whose bowling arm and side you are not certain about :).
If the batsman is given the advantage of planning his moves based on the bowler’s pre-disclosed specifications, shouldn’t he oblige with the same?
i wonder what will be ur take on the ‘doosra’ ball of spinners (murali and harbhajan and all). an off spinner is suppose to bowl off break, but all of a sudden he bowls a leg break for which a batsman is not prepared. what is ur take on that. or for that matter a pace bowler bowling a slow ball.
i wud prefer looking at it as the bowlers trying to outwit the batsmen and the other way round. and whoever does that first either gets a wicket or hits a boundary.
Well, Harsh, my take on the ‘doosara’ or ‘a slower one’ is that it’s vital for making the game a treat to watch. What needs to be noted here is that the bower doesn’t tell you whether he is bowling an off spinner next or a doosara [just the same way the batsman doesn't inform the bowler whether the stroke coming up next is a hook shot or a tap over the slips]. If you expect all his deliveries to be offies, it’s simply an incorrect presumption on your part. What the bowler does tell you is if he is right handed or left handed, and he is made to stick to that by the laws. Then, why not the batsman? Beyond that, he can shape up to play a pedal shot to fine leg and change it at the last moment to a late cut to third man – I got no issues.
On the matter of using wits, when a leg spinner sets up a batter with three leggies and then slips in a googly to bowl him through the gate, I find that fascinating, not just in terms of the cricketing skills, but also in how one player out thought another. In the batting arena, you try to throw off a bowler by moving around the crease, charging him, changing your shots late, and so on. As far as switch-hitting is concerned, it takes enormous skill, but in terms wit (or cricketing intelligence), it offers little as all you are doing is to find an easy way to beat a well-set field by turning your back on the word you gave to the bowler and his captain about which handed player you are.
If you okay switching batsmen, why not allow rotating fielders, and bowlers who can hurl from either side and either arm. Why should the batsman be permitted to blow the tactics of the bowler and the captain, and not vice versa?
I agree.. that was not reverse sweep at all.. it was as if he was using his ambidextrous skills…
Do you know why sweep shot was invented?
In olden days days they used mats instead of the current clay pitch. When the ball used to be bowled on the rough in the leg side, it used to take a huge turn and get into the legs. They invented sweep shot to counter that. Till today it is recommended as the best shot against the turn….
Also when the bowlers apply saliva to one side of the bowl, it makes one side of the ball heavy, causing it to spin from the air viscosity. Now do you call this unfair advantage or just a part of the game.
Just look at the videos of KP’s 2 sixes. Should there have been a Kumble/Mc Grath bowling those 2 balls instead, they could have just banged it short damaging KP’s head. There was no way KP could have taken evasive action while he changes his stance.
All these things are recorded and people would soon find solutions to counter it. Regarding field placement….Aah you seem to forget the beauty of Laxman/Azhar turning an offside ball to leg by a simple role of their wrists, or Misbah/McCullum moving towards off, to hit a six towards the back of the stumps, or Sachin standing 1 feet away from leg stump inviting Warne to ball on the stumps before hitting it for a six :)
This in ingenuity, as long as it does not violate the basic fundamentals of the game, I personally think this is Ok. Of course I feel bowlers should be allowed to change their hands too. As a matter of fact if I remember correctly, this guy, Paul Adams (who used to bowl like a frog) used to cover the ball completely, until the last milli-second putting doubts into the mind of the batsmen [apart from his body twist :)]
@divx: Sorry, your last comment got taken in as a spam and hence, the delay in approving it.
Please see the discussion above. There has never been an issue with people using their skills to defeat the field placings. In fact, that’s precisely what I want to see. That’s why I don’t endorse the unfair, easy way of beating the field – to play as a lefty, having pretended to be right-handed. That’s neither skill nor wits until you balance the equation and provide similar flexibilities to the bowler. Moreover, in my view, cricket would better served without jumping batsmen, rotating fielders and ambidextrous bowlers who can zip in from either side of the wicket.
Time you talked about this new kid, Ajantha Mendis… what’s your take on him…. very neat action for sure !
Haven’t watched him much. But, from what I have read, he sounds like a really exciting twirler to watch. I really felt downcast about spin bowling when Warnie quit. I still feel so; but a little less, now that Mendis has come along.
@neat action: Tell that to Murali :)