Freakish Talents

[Burgey]

Wait you're still not making sense.

The bowler can change his plan as the batsmen change his stance. The batsman changes to lefty, the bowler changes to length ball outside (the original) off. The batsman stays normal, the bowler can stick to his legstump yorker.

No bowler has his plan as bowling a length ball outside legstump. When you say the bowler should be allowed to bowl a length ball outside legstump to a swtich hitting batsman and get away with it, what you are saying is that he should be allowed to change his plan and do that. If he his changing his plan anyways, why not just bowl a length ball outside offstump?

Also, why aren't you in uproar about a batsman upsetting a bowler's plans by walking down the wicket, moving around his crease, or falling to his knees and dilscooping? Why is one particular movement by the batsman unfair but the rest are legit? This really makes no sense.

Mate, let's be a bit clear about this. A batsman doesn't change his stance to switch hit when the bowler is at the top of his mark. He does it in delivery stride, or thereabouts. There is no time for a fielder to change position to counteract it (as has been suggested in another post).

Secondly, it's not dilscooping, its Maurillier-thrillering. Calling it the dilscoop is like calling a Chinese rip off of an iPhone an actual iPhone. Dunno how that bloke sleeps at night taking credit for something he didn't invent, but anyway.

You are comparing apples with oranges here in terms of movements by batsmen to counteract bowlers. One reason it's different is because there are fielding restrictions in place as it is within which a bowler has to operate. The bowler sets his field for a right handed batsman, who becomes left handed and hits a ball to the left hander's leg side as a left hander. It's a good skill to have, but if you want to turn into a left hander as a ball is delivered, then you should have to cop it if you're hit in front by a ball which pitches outside your newly defined off stump. There are also restrictions in play in real cricket, not just LO stuff. A bowler can't have more than two fielders behind square on the leg side. Switch hitting will no doubt become a thing in longer formats, like it has in other formats. If a fielding captain wants to counteract a bloke who's switch hitting every other ball by putting in a couple of slips and a gully in on either side of the wicket (like an old fashioned umbrella field), he literally can't because the rules won't allow him to.

Seriously, batsmen simply want everything their own way.

 

[honestbharani]

yeah the two fielders only behind square is another I totally forgot. It was supposed to ensure bodyline doesn't happen but now it means a batsman can switch hit (and by extension, switch defend) against spinners all day, knowing that he wont have that many blokes around the bat catching.

 

[straw man]

Coming back to the ambidextrous bowler - if someone is genuinely good enough to bowl with either arm at international level then that would be an amazing sight. Hamstringing them by making them declare bowling arm each ball is such a killjoy response - if there are some practical concerns (sight screens etc) then everything should be done to alleviate those so that it can happen.

 

[Shri]

What if he bowls tight handed normally and left handed like Sohail Tanvir? That shoul eliminate most foot related excuses.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How bout he has to choose which side of the wicket he bowls from, but can use either arm?

 

[Shri]

Spinners doing this would hilariously set people off.

 

[straw man]

How bout he has to choose which side of the wicket he bowls from, but can use either arm?

sounds good to me

 

[Shri]

Or this could all be solved if the bowler refuses to bowl citing the switch as distracting. Or pull a Russell, feint giving up and bowl anyway.

 

[cnerd123]

You all keep emphasizing that the Switch-Hit (and to some extent, reverse sweeping) is 'unfair'. But I still don't understand what exactly is unfair about it?

Let me try and understand all your objections:

- "So what you are basically saying is that once the batsman switches hands and can still go for a shot on either side of the wicket, the bowler still has only place to bowl and that is wide of the original off stump???"

Hate to break it to you HB, but batsmen always have been able to hit either side of the wicket. That's just how the cricket works. Ever since Ranji discovered the leg-glance, the game has forever been corrupted.

I don't see why you're outraged by what the status quo already is. Batsmen can hit both sides of the wicket, and bowlers can't stray very far wide of leg stump (the rules are much harsher under ICC ODI playing conditions, but the MCC Laws do allow for some leeway). This does not change whether or not the batsman switch hits. This is not unfair. This is cricket.

- "But what about wides and LBWS?!?!"
I hope we are clear by now that the wide and LBW laws do not change, and infact, given how they are written in the MCC Law Book, a batsman switch hitting actually reduces the range of deliveries that can be called a wide. Switch-hitting is actually a disadvantage for a batsman. And LBWs are unaffected, there is no advantage gained by batsmen in this regard.

-"But the bowlers can't swap hands!! Why can the batsmen!!"

As mentioned earlier, the bowler needs to mention which end he is bowling from, and which hand he is bowling with, for the pragmatic reason of making it possible for the umpire to watch for the no-ball, and for the safety of the batsmen when it comes to fast bowling (IE, not letting the bowler bowl the ball away from where the sightscreen is).

-"But the bowler sets the field to bowl one side of the wicket and the batsman can ruin that!"

Watch this video of VVS Laxman vs Shane Warne:

Notice how Shane keeps trying to bowl a legstump line and VVS keeps hitting him inside out over the offside? Pay special attention to the last shot, the one at 1:50 ish.

Warne set a legside field
Warne bowled the ball outside leg stump
VVS hit the ball through the offside

Now, does it really matter how he accomplished this? The intent was to hit a ball on legstump to the offside. The result was hitting the ball from leg to off. It involved him moving around. Why is it okay if he does it in one manner, but unfair if he does it differently? How is a switch hit different to this stroke when the intent and end result are identical? Why does the manner of execution matter?

If anything, what VVS did is less fair than a switch-hit - atleast with a swtich-hit, the bowler knows as he is running in what the batsman is planning, and can adjust accordingly or pull out. Here VVS moved around after the ball was bowled. The bowler had no way of adjusting for this movement. How devious! How unfair!

I seriously don't get this 'it's not fair' argument. Can you please break it down and explain to me why the switch hit is unfair, but why what VVS did there isn't? It's clearly not about wides, LBWs, field placements, or the fact that the batsman can hit the ball either side of the pitch. What is it then? I'm so confused.

 

[Shri]

Because I don't like it unless its someone I like doing it.

 

[the big bambino]

Thanks *****. The difference being he faced up right handed and hit the ball as a right handler. When he switches he changes to a lefty. Thanks for taking the thread back a few pages and making us go through it again.

 

[cnerd123]

Thanks *****. The difference being he faced up right handed and hit the ball as a right handler. When he switches he changes to a lefty. Thanks for taking the thread back a few pages and making us go through it again.

OK so you basically have no logical reason behind claiming the switch hit is unfair and thus necessitates a rule change. Cool. Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Thanks *****. The difference being he faced up right handed and hit the ball as a right handler. When he switches he changes to a lefty. Thanks for taking the thread back a few pages and making us go through it again.

Why does that difference matter

 

[the big bambino]

Like I said: thanks *****.

 

[TheJediBrah]

***** has owned ITT

some guys just salty that they've been made to look silly

 

[Adders]

LOL........Brah batting hard here for the likes I reckon

 

[TheJediBrah]

LOL........Brah batting hard here for the likes I reckon

Not everyone has the same motivations as you champ

 

[Adders]

Awwww, don't be dirty cos I stole your like off ***** mate.

FTR, it was just a joke, I even stuck a stupid tonguey at the end so you wouldn't take offence........now untie your knickers and lets just all get along eh.

Edit:

And also ftr........I agree with both you and ***** on the switch hit. Normally I'm in favour of anything for the bowler in order to redress the balance, but in this instance I can see no case for any rule changes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

lol you kid

seriously, are these likes worth something that I didn't realise? Like can you trade them in for cash or prizes? I must be missing something

 

[Shri]

Not everyone has the same motivations as you champ

Clearly.