Freakish Talents

[smash84]

This Pakistani bowler can bowl 140km/hr with both hands - Khaleej Times

An ambidextrous fast bowler who can bowl 140 kph with both left and right arms? Any precedent for such a thing?

 

[Victor Ian]

I've always found it annoying that the bowler has to declare their bowling. This guy could be awesome. I'd love to see him succeed.

 

[Shri]

Switch hit? How about switch BOWLED?

 

[Coronis]

I've always found it annoying that the bowler has to declare their bowling. This guy could be awesome. I'd love to see him succeed.

Would they have to declare whether they were bowling spin or fast, e.g Sobers?

 

[cnerd123]

Would they have to declare whether they were bowling spin or fast, e.g Sobers?

Nope; just which hand and which side of the stumps they are bowling from.

Kinda makes sense tbh. Even if you ignore the comfort of the batsman; the umpire has to know which side to look at for the no-ball, and which foot is the front foot/back foot

 

[Daemon]

 

[smash84]

Nope; just which hand and which side of the stumps they are bowling from.

Kinda makes sense tbh. Even if you ignore the comfort of the batsman; the umpire has to know which side to look at for the no-ball, and which foot is the front foot/back foot

with noball calling moving to the third umpire completely (hopefully sometime soon) that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[mr_mister]

Do you actually have to tell anyone when changing from pace to spin? I do it mid over all the time at indoor without telling anyone

 

[Shri]

No you don't have to.

Do you actually have to tell anyone when changing from pace to spin? I do it mid over all the time at indoor without telling anyone

 

[Daemon]

Do you actually have to tell anyone when changing from pace to spin? I do it mid over all the time at indoor without telling anyone

Of course not

 

[cnerd123]

with noball calling moving to the third umpire completely (hopefully sometime soon) that shouldn't be an issue.

I feel this is one of those things they won't remove from the game.

I imagine it would be freakishly hard for a batsman to judge which hand the ball is coming out from if he wasn't informed, and if the bowler was capable of delivering it with either one. For a switch hit, the bowler knows as he runs in which side is the offside and which side would be a wide; it doesn't matter if the batsman switches hand halfway, those things don't change. He can adjust in his runup to bowl a ball wide of offstump if a batsman switches hands, and knows it won't be called a wide.0 A batsman can't do anything remotely similar - he has to play at the ball no matter which hand or angle it comes from.

Similarly, even if the third umpire was calling wides, he would still have to know which foot is the front foot and which is the back foot. I imagine he's not viewing a replay after the ball is bowled and then calling it a no-ball - he has to call it live just like the onfield umpire would have. And therefore, he has to know where to look and which foot to look at as the bowler is running in; and if the bowler doesn't declare that at the start of the run...it could be a problem.

 

[Howe_zat]

Agree with ***** but the bigger issue is that fast bowling becomes dangerous if hand-switching is used to avoid the sightscreen.

 

[honestbharani]

Bowlers declaring their hand of release and angle of bowling is fine. I just want the batsmen who prefer to reverse sweep or switch hit lose all the blind spot privileges around leg stump that is basically giving them a licence to play these shots without worry of consequence when they don't execute properly.

 

[cnerd123]

Blind spot privellage????

 

[Shri]

Blind spot privellage????

A little death shouldn't hinder an angry bowler.

 

[the big bambino]

Blind spot privellage????

I'm guessing HB means a reverse sweeper, in effect, should have "no leg stump". I'd also say he should, in effect, have "two off stumps". So a bowler can innovate with his line in response to a batsman innovating with his stroke. So a reverse sweeping batsman would have reduced protection from the wide law and greater vulnerability to the lbw law.

 

[honestbharani]

Exactly.. And it gives the bowler a fair chance coz otherwise at the moment, even if they defeat the batsman, the batters get away with a lot.

 

[cnerd123]

No that makes no sense.

If a batsman reverse-sweeps/switch-hits, his leg stump and off stump remain exactly where they are. Fire it a foot wide of his off stump (now leg stump) and you won't be wided and he won't get close to the ball. If you pitch a ball on the off-side (now leg-side) and it's hits him on the pads in line with the stumps and would have gone on to hit the stumps, he's still out LBW.

There is literally no difference between a batsman backing away and hitting a ball inside-out, and a batsman reverse sweeping/switch hitting. The batsman is not gaining a new wide-ball region, or some sort of immunity to LBWs and the such. I don't understand what the problem is? Why must the laws change at all to accommodate for this shot?

The way things are is perfectly logical imo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

with noball calling moving to the third umpire completely (hopefully sometime soon) that shouldn't be an issue.

I disagree. Allowing the bowler to bowl with either arm without announcing it is one thing, but I feel that it would be a bit too much for the bowler to be able to bowl from either side of the wicket without telling anyone.

But then again it's not like it would be a huge surprise for the batsman, you could tell which side of the wicket the balls going to come from well before the delivery stride.

Maybe I agree actually

No that makes no sense.

If a batsman reverse-sweeps/switch-hits, his leg stump and off stump remain exactly where they are. Fire it a foot wide of his off stump (now leg stump) and you won't be wided and he won't get close to the ball. If you pitch a ball on the off-side (now leg-side) and it's hits him on the pads in line with the stumps and would have gone on to hit the stumps, he's still out LBW.

There is literally no difference between a batsman backing away and hitting a ball inside-out, and a batsman reverse sweeping/switch hitting. The batsman is not gaining a new wide-ball region, or some sort of immunity to LBWs and the such. I don't understand what the problem is? Why must the laws change at all to accommodate for this shot?

The way things are is perfectly logical imo.

Yes. It's not like batsmen get hit on the pads from balls pitching outside leg often anyway, and if they do it's almost certainly because the bowler is bowling a negative leg-side line in the first place. why reward the bowler for this?

 

[the big bambino]

No that makes no sense.

If a batsman reverse-sweeps/switch-hits, his leg stump and off stump remain exactly where they are. Fire it a foot wide of his off stump (now leg stump) and you won't be wided and he won't get close to the ball. If you pitch a ball on the off-side (now leg-side) and it's hits him on the pads in line with the stumps and would have gone on to hit the stumps, he's still out LBW.

The bowler doesn't have carte blanche. Just what is available to him under he existing lbw and wide laws being applied to a batter reverse sweeping.

Neither an I see a comparison with hitting a ball inside out and reverse weeping as the former isn't characterised by a change of stance and this discussion grew out of one discussing a bowler changing hands.