PDA

View Full Version : Should ICC ban the switch handed reverse slog sweep?


Ishtylish cricketer
June 16, 2008, 05:57 PM
England batsman Kevin Pietersen is in the limelight yet again. This time for cricketing reason. The "reverse slog sweep" he played left handed in the first ODI against Newzeland has drawn a lot of criticism. Many want this shot to be banned because it's unfair for the bowler and fielding captain who set up fielding knowing the "handedness" of the batsman and the same switching of hand for a bowler is not allowed. Bowlers argue that rules should be the same for all involved meaning if a bowler cannot enjoy the freedom of changing hand and side without telling the umpire, batsman should not have that liberty either. The balance between bat and ball becomes tainted otherwise. If a batsman changes both the stance and the grip to play a shot ie. reverse slog sweep after/about when the ball is delivered the batsman has a huge advantage as he can hit in the side which has less fielders and shorter in distance. When asked KP said he this shot should not be banned because he feels it is well within the rules and it had been played for a long time. Daniel Vettori said he doesn't mind it so long as the umpires are more flexible with the "wide" zone, and the lbw.
I thought that stroke of Pietersen was a hall mark of a genius and an index of measurement for his talent. I really wonder what Scott Styris thought of that shot?
What do you guys think? Should this version of sweep be banned?

MohammedC
June 16, 2008, 06:24 PM
No they should not.
They should allow the bowlers to switch to make it even contest for both batsmen and bowlers If they feel it is unfair to bowler because they are not allowed to switch when they bowl.

Yameen
June 16, 2008, 06:37 PM
I think this should not be allowed at all..Firstly its unfair on the opposition and 2ndly if it is allowed, allowing bowlers to switch hands as well would just be ridiculus and would add a whole new dimension to the game of mind games n ultra stupidity in my opinion and things should just remain be as be since invention of cricket.

Gowza
June 16, 2008, 07:24 PM
is it any less fair than say facing a bowler like mendis who bowls leggys and offys whenever he pleases? shouldn't batsmen be able to know what type of style of bowling they're facing each ball? you could introduce them as "mystery" spinners/bowlers but then if they do that then batsman should be introduced as mystery batsmen and be able to change hands and/or stance whenever they want.

also the reverse sweep has it's advantages as a fielding side as well. unless the batsman practices it hours on end in the nets they're not that use to making contact with the ball in that manner, plus they have to change hands in the first place which takes time away from the batsman. the fielding team probably has more chance of getting a batsman out when they play the reverse sweep than when they don't.

the current rules on reverse sweep don't bother me, but the shot really isn't played that often so banning it wouldn't make too much of a difference i don't think.

MohammedC
June 16, 2008, 07:39 PM
Well spotted Gowza.
I cant see why the big fuss bowler (styris) clearly saw pieterson changed his stance and bowled on his leg stump (of stump when KP switched) and gave him enough room to hit the ball out of the park. He should have stick to his original off stump line and if KP missed umpire would not call it wide.

Gowza
June 16, 2008, 11:36 PM
also what about batsmen who walk across their crease? that's changing their stance and plenty of players do that. changing of the grip i can certainly see as being an issue but you can always bring up the point that bowlers are allowed to change their grip on the ball so why shouldn't batsmen be able to change their grip?

bowlers have just as many things if not more that they can do to trick/unnerve the batsmen e.g. bowling from a different angle, different pace, different grip, different style.

not that i'm necessarily saying they shouldn't ban this but i think there's more to think about than just saying it's unfair to change from right to left handed for batsmen when bowlers can't. there are plenty of things bowlers can do that you could say are unfair, same as batsmen. i mean is it really fair that batsmen can walk out of their crease to hit the ball but bowlers have to bowl from the line? not really but that's just part of the game (same as the things i mentioned above about bowlers).

Ishtylish cricketer
June 16, 2008, 11:51 PM
What about the wide issue? If a righty turns lefty what's wide and what's not wide or legal? If the bowler picks up the batsman switching hands and decides to bowl a delivery well wide off the pads of the turned left hander who normally bats right handed, would that be called a wide? What's wide in that situation?

BANFAN
June 17, 2008, 12:37 AM
Why should it be banned? Why do people want too much controlled a game? Innovations and improvisations are the pleasure of every game, why u want to make a real game look like a computer game?

The fielding team captain has the flexibility to place his fielders for that. And let the bowlers look for improvizations to make the shot risky.

Tintin
June 17, 2008, 02:45 AM
What about the wide issue? If a righty turns lefty what's wide and what's not wide or legal? If the bowler picks up the batsman switching hands and decides to bowl a delivery well wide off the pads of the turned left hander who normally bats right handed, would that be called a wide? What's wide in that situation?

Even now wide takes into account the position of the batsman when the ball reaches him. A ball a foot outside the leg-stump is normally a wide, but if the batsman had backed up two feet outside the leg, the umpire wouldn't call it. The adjustment of the wide calls for the altered stance should just be an extension of it.

Second thoughts - Not that simple. A proper ball outside the off stump should not be called a wide just because the batsman turned around and became a left-hander at the right time ! Perhaps, it should be called a wide only if it wide in the batsman's normal as well as new stance ?

thebest
June 17, 2008, 08:08 AM
It is a trivial issue. Why they did not ban googly, dusra or famed reverse swing. Batsmen always faced dilema facing these types of balls as those deceived the batsmen as balls direction is complete opposite of the general directon of the type of bowlers. If so called Guardians want a fair contest of bat and ball, let the power play reduced to 10 overs or flexible powerplay. But I would prefer six bouncers should be allowed. If you are good enough batsman you could hook or pull; if you are just a pretender you would be caught

Tigers_eye
June 17, 2008, 11:36 AM
The only issue I have is the change of ruling in calling wide. In the middle of the bowlers stride if the batsman swtiches position to get an advantage of leg side fielding gaps to off side fielding gaps then wides shouldn't be called if the ball goes by the (new) leg side (original off side). The Captain of the fielding team has to make that call on how to set fielding on players who can switch sides.

Kabir
June 17, 2008, 11:44 AM
If a batsman is capable of doing something, some get happy...and some, as you can see, call for the batsman to be stopped from playing to his potential.

What a joke!

Anway, I agree with Mijan bhai here.

Sovik
June 17, 2008, 03:06 PM
I never seen any player apart from Pietersen playing this shot and hitting sixes. it would have been really stupid if ICC banned it

Ishtylish cricketer
June 17, 2008, 08:00 PM
What about lbw? What's outside off and outside leg?

Tehsin
June 17, 2008, 09:56 PM
Is this serious ? If it is, than ICC has simply too much time in their hands.

As for the poll: No ban for Kevin. Yes 'ban' for all the Bangladeshi pretenders (they look awkward and mostly manage to get out playing any sort of reverse sweep). :)

BANFAN
June 18, 2008, 12:04 AM
What about lbw? What's outside off and outside leg?

LBW, Wide etc everything is in relation to BM's original stance !

Ishtylish cricketer
June 19, 2008, 06:57 AM
I want to see someone bowl a bouncer when the batsman's trying to switch grip and bat the ball out of the park. It may still go for 4, but I would like to see how KP would deal with it?

BANFAN
June 19, 2008, 08:52 AM
I want to see someone bowl a bouncer when the batsman's trying to switch grip and bat the ball out of the park. It may still go for 4, but I would like to see how KP would deal with it?

:lol:

Specially if that is well directed around the chest !!

Surfer
June 21, 2008, 02:06 AM
Even now wide takes into account the position of the batsman when the ball reaches him. A ball a foot outside the leg-stump is normally a wide, but if the batsman had backed up two feet outside the leg, the umpire wouldn't call it. The adjustment of the wide calls for the altered stance should just be an extension of it.

Second thoughts - Not that simple. A proper ball outside the off stump should not be called a wide just because the batsman turned around and became a left-hander at the right time ! Perhaps, it should be called a wide only if it wide in the batsman's normal as well as new stance ?

I believe in a case like this, the batsman should not get the benefit of leg side wide at all. The moment you change hand, irrespective of which side the ball is bowled, it should be called a wide only if it goes past the wide mark. Since the batsman is playing around, there should be something at stake as well.

I do not see any reason why the shot should not be allowed. Improvisations/innovations are always welcome.

Sohel
June 21, 2008, 06:53 AM
Some of my friends at TRIKON are duly concerned about all this switch-hitting phobia.

BANFAN
June 22, 2008, 03:07 PM
Ian Chappel is a strong advocate for banning switch. Here is his detailed reasoning for that: The problem with switch-hitting (http://content-pak.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/355643.html)

It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to operate and then not subject batsmen to the same rule

But I agree with the above, the bowlers could be given the freedom to change hands. Why not ?

Sovik
June 22, 2008, 03:12 PM
Ian Chappel is a strong advocate for banning switch. Here is his detailed reasoning for that: The problem with switch-hitting (http://content-pak.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/355643.html)



But I agree with the above, the bowlers could be given the freedom to change hands. Why not ?

Why don't they give the bowlers permission to switch arm and maintain the line and length

JonBain
July 10, 2008, 04:49 PM
The bowler has the right to abort his runup if he feels put off by what the batsman is doing.

as someone who bats left or right handed,
and bowls left or right handed

i feel its unfair to penalise innovation.
my strength is bowling tho (6/13)
and i would have no problem getting hit for six like that

it would make me smile to see it happen off my bowling

Beamer
July 11, 2008, 10:05 AM
Some of my friends at TRIKON are duly concerned about all this switch-hitting phobia.

:lol::lol::lol: ha ha nice one..

I would like to see a bowler charging in, then right before delivery, if he has the ability to do so, switch delivery hand.

JonBain
July 11, 2008, 02:31 PM
I would like to see a bowler charging in, then right before delivery, if he has the ability to do so, switch delivery hand.

yes you have to decide before you run up which hand you are going to bowl with, and the style should make it obvious which hand you are going to use.

when i bowl with my wrong hand its only gentle right arm spinners or stock medium pace. nothing half as scary as my left hand lightning strikes

it only works once in a game. after that they know what you are up to.

JonBain
July 11, 2008, 02:45 PM
i just read chappels comments, and the problem is that there is no clear line between switch hitting and reverse hitting.

what if the batter decides to stand facing the bowler face on, in neither left or right hand position? (only against a spinner could this maybe work)

and its much easier for the bowler to abort his run up than for the batsman to walk away for a dead ball, so its fair for both.

surely you cannot force a batsmen to use a particular style of batting? how do you clearly decide this? i do not recall anything in the rules about how a batter must stand. that would open the game up to far more problems.

that reverse six has been the most talked about shot in cricket. most non-cricketers say cricket is boring. all these innovations only add excitement to the game.

i'd rather hear what greg chappel has to say.
i bet he disagrees with his bro.

sbsash
July 11, 2008, 03:51 PM
they shouldn't.

JonBain
July 12, 2008, 02:10 PM
they shouldn't.

shouldn't
ban it ... is what i hope you mean

auntu
July 16, 2008, 02:47 AM
Ban!..... its the impact of T20. u cannot avoid