The Reverse Sweep

[Richard]

Nope. I haven't batted in a net for 2 years (one of the reasons I'm so awful), barely face a spinner in the middle, and can't remember the last time I picked-up a bat in a backyard-style situation. Probably about 10 years ago.

 

[DCC_legend]

Love it an love watching it being played. Have started perfecting it in the nets and ill probably try it when i get the chance in a match. So far this season ive played 7 matches and had to bat twice!

 

[roseboy64]

Not really too fussed about seeing people play it and have played it a few times myself, when I used to play cricket. Haven't played in years but maybe I'll pick it up again. Still young enough to see if I can do something. Given the current state of WI cricket I'd definnitely be in with just one good season of FC cricket if I make it there.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Dire shot. Hate it really.

But anyone who says they haven't tried it is either lying or plays no cricket of any form, IMO.

I'd be one. I do play (infrequently) at a low level (North Cambs Div 3C), but I'm of such limited ability I've always been worried I'd end up wearing the ball. As a consequence I've never even tried it in the nets.

I don't have a tremendous problem with the shot if deployed judiciously, but as often as not, it seems to be played for the sake of it when there were better options. A by-product, I suppose, of the predetermined nature of the shot.

 

[Simon]

I disagree. The essence of batting in indoor is to be able to get the ball square consistently. If a bowler is bowling a tight line around off-stump, it might be preferable to reverse sweep, rather than trying to hit across the line to leg, or play an awkward inside-out shot to off. The batsman might have a weakness playing off his pads, or something like that. It's a shot that enables a batsman to get balls square of the wicket that normally wouldn't be hit there.

(Of course, they could just try a conventional sweep)

actually the ideal line in indoor cricket is leg stump, theres only one shot the batsman can play to a ball bowled at his box and thats why you have a leg side fielder and a leg guard, if you can bowl there more often than not then you'll take wickets...

 

[Goughy]

I play the shot regularly for 4 basic reasons.

My reverse sweep is more of a traditional one where my legs do not swap and I just reverse the blade and dont try to hit too hard but redirect the ball.

a) Its a very high percentage shot that I have never got out to. Its also something I practice in the nets. Far more high percentage than the orthodox sweep which Ive got out to playing many times (though it has scored me a lot of runs)

b) It enables me to score around the ground and pick places where there are no fielders. ie it opens up scoring opportunities.

c) I can play it all day but against an off-spinner Id prefer the ball straighter onto the stumps or my pads. So reverse sweeping an off-spinner (even a leggie as well) that is pitching outside off-stump means that Ill keep doing it and scoring runs or they will be forced to bowl where Id prefer it. Its a win-win

d) It is a psychological tool as well. For me it is also telling the bowler that no matter how good they are that I think they cant bowl. If it bothers the bowler then great but it is more of a way of boosting my own confidence and bringing a helpful swagger to my own game (especially if the bowler is a medium pacer).

I think it is a very useful shot and just because it looks funny doesnt mean it isnt valuable. I also dont believe it is a low %age shot. Very few get out form it, its just those that do get castigated. The normal sweep and the hook are more likely to get a player out.

 

[1-9-7-7]

Love it.
When pulled off right of course.

I use it myself now and then playing cricket with friends, it's a bit of a nasty one for the lads because they never cover that area

 

[thierry henry]

actually the ideal line in indoor cricket is leg stump, theres only one shot the batsman can play to a ball bowled at his box and thats why you have a leg side fielder and a leg guard, if you can bowl there more often than not then you'll take wickets...

Exactly! And the reverse sweep allows the batsman to get a straight ball into the off-side!

 

[vic_orthdox]

I play the shot regularly for 4 basic reasons.

My reverse sweep is more of a traditional one where my legs do not swap and I just reverse the blade and dont try to hit too hard but redirect the ball.

a) Its a very high percentage shot that I have never got out to. Its also something I practice in the nets. Far more high percentage than the orthodox sweep which Ive got out to playing many times (though it has scored me a lot of runs)

b) It enables me to score around the ground and pick places where there are no fielders. ie it opens up scoring opportunities.

c) I can play it all day but against an off-spinner Id prefer the ball straighter onto the stumps or my pads. So reverse sweeping an off-spinner (even a leggie as well) that is pitching outside off-stump means that Ill keep doing it and scoring runs or they will be forced to bowl where Id prefer it. Its a win-win

d) It is a psychological tool as well. For me it is also telling the bowler that no matter how good they are that I think they cant bowl. If it bothers the bowler then great but it is more of a way of boosting my own confidence and bringing a helpful swagger to my own game (especially if the bowler is a medium pacer).

I think it is a very useful shot and just because it looks funny doesnt mean it isnt valuable. I also dont believe it is a low %age shot. Very few get out form it, its just those that do get castigated. The normal sweep and the hook are more likely to get a player out.

AWTA

 

[Richard]

Always used to think that meant "away with the angels", TBH.

 

[Goughy]

Awta?

 

[andmark]

I like watching people play it.But I wouldn't play it, it's too much of a risk.

 

[Richard]

Awta?

It actually means the opposite of DTWA, which is disagree with the above.

 

[SJS]

I also dont believe it is a low %age shot. Very few get out form it, its just those that do get castigated. The normal sweep and the hook are more likely to get a player out.

1. Its percentage doesnt depend upon how many batsmen gret out to it but how many runs you score against how many times you get out. The number of runs score off the other strokes are hugely greater too.

2. Conventional sweep too is a relatively low percentage shot though not as much as the reverse. The very way a shot is played and the number of basic principals of 'safe' batting it defies will determine how dangerous/unsafe/risky/low percentage it is. Needless to say some play it better than others.

3. The hook is a bit different in the way that many batsmen play it on impulse or as a reflex action to something heading towards your eyes/head. They are big targets for getting out. The comparison with reverse sweep for hooking should be done for those hooks which are deliberate and the batsman was in a position to 'not hook' as the reverse sweep is a very deliberate shot.

4. For those who play it deliberately and are trying to score runs as against not-caring-for-scoring-rate the hook may turn out to be the only alternative for certain deliveries. The same is not true for sweep or reverse sweep.

5. Just as some play the hook as a reaction some play the sweep and the reverse sweep because of their inability to counter spin. Most of these batsmen are poor users of their feet against spin.

Most of the early users of this shot belonged to this category. However some, like Tendulkar do not sweep like say Gatting (and many many Englishmen did and do). Tendulkar is able to play the spinner witout sweeping but he has mastered a variant with the paddle sweep which is played differently, played very late, and very rarely gets him into trouble.

Tendulkar's lack of moving out of the crease in recent years has made him sweep more often in one dayers while in the longer version he prefers to keep padding the ball away if their is a negative attack.

 

[Perm]

Always used to think that meant "away with the angels", TBH.

No idea how you could think that, other than the fact the intials match up. There would be no real need to post "away with the angels" often enough to deserve it becoming an acronym.

 

[Goughy]

1. Its percentage doesnt depend upon how many batsmen gret out to it but how many runs you score against how many times you get out. The number of runs score off the other strokes are hugely greater too.

So the forward defensive shot must be the worst there is as it scores zero runs and players get out playing it all the time?

 

[Perm]

So the forward defensive shot must be the worst there is as it scores zero runs and players get out playing it all the time?

The forward defensive shot isn't generally classed as a scoring shot though.

 

[SJS]

So the forward defensive shot must be the worst there is as it scores zero runs and players get out playing it all the time?

I am astonished at the logic or whatever that is supposed to convey. You really want me to answer that one ?

 

[Goughy]

I am astonished at the logic or whatever that is supposed to convey. You really want me to answer that one ?

Obviously I dont believe it, Im just applying the logic you detailed above which was a low percentage shot was one that scored few runs compared to the number of times you get out to it. The forward defensive fits the bill perfectly.

As Ive said, I dont believe the reverse sweep is a low %age shot as I think it is difficult to get out playing. You will not be out LBW as the front pad should be outside the line and it should be a controlled shot that is unlikely to go in the air. And if it does who is going to catch it? Only the keeper and for that you have to be very unlucky.

 

[Richard]

No idea how you could think that, other than the fact the intials match up. There would be no real need to post "away with the angels" often enough to deserve it becoming an acronym.

Interesting to say the least only became said often enough because people manufactured it into something that was said often.