Switch hitting

[Halfpast_Yellow]

The fairness of doing this has already been investigated by the MCC and it has been deemed fair.

And, to be fair to Warner and any other "Aussie smartarses", they didn't invent the shot and it's hardly even particularly new. The first person I've seen play it was Kevin Pietersen at Edgbaston in May 2006 when he hit Murali for 6 - and he's played it many times since. Others have also played it. Graeme Swann did it against Paul Harris in the Test series in December.

I'm fine with novelty switch hitting ala KP. I was getting at this

To me the real danger in this is that batsmen being taking opposite stances to their normal stances with their arms crossed and change as the bowler approaches. This opens up a lot of attacking opportunities not normally open to them, particularly behind square on the new off side.

If this becomes commonplace I would expect a law change. At the moment it's just a novelty.

The post you quoted was more my response to Street's "What if the batsman stands facing the bowler holding the bat in front of his body without indicating a left or right hand stance. A batsman is under no obligation to take up a stance other than what he himself wants. "

I guess the shorter and sweeter answer to that would be 'expect a law change' as above.

If there is a problem with switch hitting, it's that it's the thin end of the wedge and could lead to that sort of (unfair) 'innovation'.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Streetwise]

"Aussie smartarses", .

I've no idea whether any Aussies have claimed he invented it. I was quoting and responding to the post by Halfpast Yellow (location: Wellington) who seems to think Warner did invent it, and was having a go at him for being a "smartarse" and playing it. My point is, Warner is well within his rights in playing a shot that is now pretty well established in the game.

OK I didnt know Halfpastyellow was an Aussie.

 

[Streetwise]

If you're going to spring something off the wall on absolutely everybody including umpires during a match, you deserve to have the book thrown at you for being an idiot if it's anything like the sort of typical aussie cricket smartassness you imply as 'innovative'.

Obviously the lessons of the underarm incident have still not been heeded even today.


.

Thats a high horse you have there HPY. never seen one that high before.

 

[zaremba]

OK I didnt know Halfpastyellow was an Aussie.

You still haven't read my post. I'm not saying he is an Aussie. When I used the expression "Aussie smartasses" I was quoting what Halfpastyellow wrote, and disagreeing with it.

If you're going to spring something off the wall on absolutely everybody including umpires during a match, you deserve to have the book thrown at you for being an idiot if it's anything like the sort of typical aussie cricket smartassness you imply as 'innovative'.

Obviously the lessons of the underarm incident have still not been heeded even today.

 

[zaremba]

The post you quoted was more my response to Street's "What if the batsman stands facing the bowler holding the bat in front of his body without indicating a left or right hand stance. A batsman is under no obligation to take up a stance other than what he himself wants. "

...
Sorry for any confusion.

Ah I see. That's not how your post read, tbf, but no worries

 

[Uppercut]

I don't agree. Just because the batsman moves when the bowler is running in, it doesn't follow that he wasn't ready when the bowler started his run-up (or for that matter at the point of delivery). And there is as far as I know no Law prohibiting a batsman from moving as the bowler is running in. Think about Derek Randall - if stillness at the crease were a requirement then he would never have been allowed to face a ball. And I think that as others have pointed out it is significant in this context that a batsman is quite entitled to charge the bowler as he runs in.

Yeah, was going to post the same thing. The definition of "ready" has to be entirely down to the batsman, surely.

Can only laugh at the idea that the batsman is at an unfair advantage because the laws allow him to turn around mid-run-up and play a remarkably difficult type of shot with his entire stance and technique reversed.

 

[Goughy]

Anyone have a clip of the Warner incident? Ive been commenting generally but Id like to see the specific incident?

 

[four_or_six]

The only difference I could see from KP was that KP switches his grip after taking guard, whereas Warner crossed his hands when taking guard in the first place.

How on earth Warner can be warned () when KP and Swann can play the shot I have no idea.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

The only difference I could see from KP was that KP switches his grip after taking guard, whereas Warner crossed his hands when taking guard in the first place.

How on earth Warner can be warned () when KP and Swann can play the shot I have no idea.

See I'm fine with it when grip is changed, but if your going to basically telegraph a stance swap before hand like that, it's getting into a murky area....

Basically what the lawmakers need to do is rather than just say 'switch hitting is ok', make some actual rulings on the more contentious areas.

1. If a batsman changes stance from left to right or vice versa after the bowler has started his run up, slips can't be penalised for being onside.
2. Deliveries that are bowled down the batsman's new legside should not be wided unless it would have also been considered wide had his stance not changed. ie, use pitch markings. Unpires should be very extremely lenient on widing a delivery once the batsman has changed stance as above.
3. Immunity to LBW when pitching outside leg rule voided.
4. Changing stance as above after bowler has started delivery only allowed once or twice (undecided) per over, akin to the bowler's bouncer rule.

 

[Neil Pickup]

1 and 2 are already the case and as for 3, LBW applies to the stance originally taken.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

1 and 2 are already the case and as for 3, LBW applies to the stance originally taken.

Ugh, if that's the case, I apologise for being so ill-informed! Good to know the wides thing is in place.

Still think limiting it to 1-2 times per over is a good move though. I don't agree with a batsman crossing his hands when taking guard and potentially switch hitting every ball in the over to the spinner for example... too unfair for the fielding side to set a field to.

 

[Furball]

Ugh, if that's the case, I apologise for being so ill-informed! Good to know the wides thing is in place.

Still think limiting it to 1-2 times per over is a good move though. I don't agree with a batsman crossing his hands when taking guard and potentially switch hitting every ball in the over to the spinner for example... too unfair for the fielding side to set a field to.

You can't limit the number of times a batsman plays a particular shot, and surely any element of suprise is negated by the fact that the batsman is playing with his weaker hand?

 

[Top_Cat]

You can't limit the number of times a batsman plays a particular shot, and surely any element of suprise is negated by the fact that the batsman is playing with his weaker hand?

That's the more salient point for me. The rules have been the same for an awfully long time now and the reason you don't see players changing stance/grip on a regular basis is because the risk simply outweighs the potential reward. There's no point in legislating against such rare events. Bigger fish to fry.

 

[99*]

I hate the shot. Looks ugly as ****.

But so long as the majority of its use stays within the realm of T20 cricket (and by that I mean I see one every 7 test series or so) then I couldn't care less.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

You can't limit the number of times a batsman plays a particular shot, and surely any element of suprise is negated by the fact that the batsman is playing with his weaker hand?

Shifting from right to left handed stance or vice versa is more than just the difference between choosing a shot to play the ball to the offside or onside. And I don't see why that can't be limited, when a bowler can be limited on all sorts of things, least of which is how many bouncers he can send down in an over.

You can say it's fine because he's maybe hampering himself, but what of a batsman who takes guard on his 'weaker' side, with his hands crossed so large change of grip isn't required, and switches to his strong side every delivery? Warner has obviously practiced this to the point where it was of no disadvantage to him to hit the spinner right-handedly. Surely that batsman is unfairly hampering the opposing captain's ability to set his field, and it just appears to be a line that Warner was getting a lot closer to than KP or Swann have, by crossing his grip and taking the need to change grip while the bowler was running in in order to switchhit out of the equation..

Yes the rules have been how they are for a long time, but switch hitting is to my knowledge a recent phenomenon, and to come back to the underarm delivery incident, that was a incident that blew out because of laziness of the sourthern hemipshere tournament's directors to adopt a change to the rules that had been already been bought in for County Cricket.

Are we not able to have the foresight to snuff these things out before they arise, do we have to go through an underarm type scenario everytime to get things done?

 

[Streetwise]

Yes the rules have been how they are for a long time, but switch hitting is to my knowledge a recent phenomenon, and to come back to the underarm delivery incident, that was a incident that blew out because of laziness of the sourthern hemipshere tournament's directors to adopt a change to the rules that had been already been bought in for County Cricket.

Are we not able to have the foresight to snuff these things out before they arise, do we have to go through an underarm type scenario everytime to get things done?

If you change the laws then the players will just turn their attention to some other innovation, one team found a loophole where they could run out a batsman when he went to congratulate his teammate for scoring a hundred. These things happen in cricket and teams will be looking for ways to exploit the batsman when he plays the switch hit so the worm will turn.

 

[Top_Cat]

Don't think the underarm and grip changes are analogous, tbh. Changing grips opens up other scoring opportunities but it's risky enough that bowlers will believe they're in with a chance. Plus, being able to bat both ways requires immense skill that should be rewarded somehow. Underarm along the ground almost completely removes a 6 from the scoring possibilites and doesn't require much in the way of skill to do.

More important for the game's legislators to find a way to keep switch-hitting in the game than to ban it, I reckon. A fielding captain might feel it's unfair but it's not that unfair.

 

[silentstriker]

I think he should inform the umpires every over and he cannot change back for the over. My main concern would be wasting time switching fields every over. However, if you have the skill to bat both left and right handed - go for it. It's not a skill that'll start cropping up for everyone, it's not something you just pick up when you're 25. If you've got the skill to play a off spiner right handed and a leg spinner left handed - go for it definitely. That's an amazing skill that you ought to be able to use - though not every delivery of after the bowler has started his runup. I'd just stop my runup everytime he changed and rearrange the field.

 

[zaremba]

what of a batsman who takes guard on his 'weaker' side, with his hands crossed so large change of grip isn't required, and switches to his strong side every delivery?

I think this is on a par with "there is inadequate protection against meteorite strikes in cricket grounds". It's just not gonna happen, so let's not lose any sleep over it. And even if it did happen, the umpires would simply step in and call a halt to it.

 

[Uppercut]

I think this is on a par with "there is inadequate protection against meteorite strikes in cricket grounds". It's just not gonna happen, so let's not lose any sleep over it. And even if it did happen, the umpires would simply step in and call a halt to it.

Besides, you'd be allowed to bowl with five leg-slips and three leg-gullies in that scenario. Bowlers would be loving it.