|Photos||Video & Audio||Blogs||Statistics||Archive||Shop||Mobile|
'Cricket needs its flair'
Cricinfo's panel of experts comment on the legality of Kevin Pietersen's 'switch-hitting' (10:03)
June 17, 2008
Pietersen's about turn
'Cricket needs its flair'June 17, 2008
Tony Greig: Interesting news today that the MCC have decided to have a look at the reverse-sweep of Kevin Pietersen in particular. Now this reverse-sweep has been used for quite a long time. I can remember guys like [Mike] Gatting using it. I can also remember the first time we ever saw the reverse-sweep in the very early days, commentators were commenting on the fact that perhaps it should be questioned because in quite a lot of cases the batsman reversed his hands. The theory basically was that if bowlers have to inform the batsman that they are changing hands, which they do, or if they have to inform the batsman that they are going round-the-wicket, then why should the batsman be allowed to change hands and turn himself around [without informing anyone]?
Now that's quite a good argument. There is no doubt about that. But the truth of the matter is that there is a thing called flair in cricket, which I see is the word used by Pietersen this morning. That makes it a case for allowing a batsman to indulge in the shot. I cannot, for the life of me, see how the MCC can rule it out. The way I see it is that there are some players in the world who are capable of playing this shot and playing it effectively. It certainly creates some problems for spin bowlers in particular. There are other players who have been made to look very foolish when trying this shot. Now it is going to get back to a situation where the adjudicators - rather like in the bat issue recently - decide whether this particular shot is in the best interests of the game and whether or not it is fair to both batsmen and bowlers. I suspect that when they look at it long and hard, they probably will come down on the conservative side and say that if the batsman decides that he wants to bat left-handed or wants to change his grip around or change his stance completely, then he will have to inform the bowler that he is doing that.
That is only a personal view but as long as I am concerned there has got to be a bit of flair in cricket. The more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned, is the way they should go.
Sanjay Manjrekar: These are exciting times in cricket. We have got Twenty20 that has taken international cricket by storm. Then we had the IPL which is going to give a new shape to the way cricket is played and how cricket will be marketed henceforth; it's an insight into the future of the commercialisation of cricket and maybe that is how cricket will turn out to be eventually.
The latest entrant into cricket is now the switch-hitting concept which has been popularised and taken to a different level by the one and only Kevin Pietersen. Now switch-hitting is something that I have seen before. In fact, during the World Cup [in 2007] in West Indies I actually mentioned it during commentary - I think it was Paul Nixon who switched his batting stance and changed his grip to hit the bowler on the on side and collect boundaries. And my reaction was: hey that's unfair. The bowler is bowling to the batsman as a right-hander; with Nixon it was the other way around - a left-hander who was batting right-handed.
What we have is a bowler, with an off-side field, bowling to a right-hander, and as the ball is delivered, before it's too late, the batsman switches sides, which means that he changed his stance and his grip into that of a left-hander. My first reaction to that was it's unfair because the fielding side has set a field for a right-hander and suddenly the bowler finds himself bowling to a left-hander.
So to start with, I think it is an issue and I think the MCC is right in meeting and discussing this issue. Firstly I would like to say that there needs to be a lot of brainstorming on this issue because there will be a lot of complexities coming into it. Pietersen will obviously be feeling that this is a non-issue and that people are making too much about it. But if you change your grip and your side, I think it is an issue. The reverse-sweep is a different matter where the batsman doesn't change his grip or his side or stance so he remains a right-hander who has taken his range of shots to a different level. So I think it is fair for the administrators of the game to be concerned about it.
I remember that a long while back, Sunil Gavaskar, in a Ranji Trophy game, batted left-handed but he informed the umpire every time [he did that]. At this stage and having applied my mind to this issue I feel that it is only fair that the batsman informs the bowler that he intends to bat left-handed [ie change his stance if he is a right-hander]. John Buchanan, former coach of Australia, had spoken about ambidexterity coming into the game and I think that we are seeing the first signs of it.
The bowlers have raised the issue about the wide lines, but I feel that is not so much of an issue. If you look at it, Pietersen, a right-hander, switches into a left-hander to hit on the on side where he can get the maximum for the risk that he is taking and if you apply the right-handers rule for the wide to begin with, then there is leeway for the bowler on the right-handers off stump which is now the left-handers leg side.
So as you can see it is getting a bit complicated but I am just excited that the game is changing. Let's not take any credit away from Pietersen - he is a wonderfully exciting batsman and it is this new generation of cricketers who do not care so much about tradition and boundaries, who get a great thrill from exploiting the limitations of the game and try to explore uncharted territories - I think this is another example of it and it is great. As far as the custodians of the game are concerned, they have got to react to what they see and at the moment having a brainstorming session makes a lot of sense. My final comment at this stage is that it is slightly unfair to the bowler, who has no idea that the batsman that he is bowling to is not going to be the same one who will play the ball - that in itself is slightly unfair. Let's hope that there is a decision on this matter and it will be interesting to see what they come out with.
|"My first reaction to that was that it's unfair because the fielding side has set a field for a right-hander and suddenly the bowler finds himself bowling to a left-hander"
Greg Chappell: I think some thought needs to be given to this whole subject. Obviously if a bowler wants to go from left-arm over-the-wicket to left-arm round-the-wicket he has to inform the umpire that he is going to change and the umpire then informs the batsman. We are looking at a similar thing here where if the batsman is going to change his stance completely, then the bowler needs to be informed.
David Lloyd: All the talk this week is about Pietersen's extraordinary shot that he played in the one-day international at Chester-le-Street against New Zealand where he actually changed hands. It appeared that he jumped into position and reversed his hands and swatted the ball for two magnificent shots. I have got to declare an interest here. I wasn't working on that game, I was watching it on television and I nearly jumped out of my seat. I thought he was absolutely brilliant and it was a stroke of genius. I was reading on Cricinfo this morning where Daniel Vettori has said that he thought it [the shot] was magnificent. That is coming from a player who is playing against Pietersen.
Pietersen obviously defended the strokes that he played but now there is some legality issue. Well I'm not certain that is absolutely right because all the percentages are with the bowler. If somebody just jumps into position and changes hands, the bowler could just fire in the yorker. Get your yorker in there and bowl a delivery that he cannot hit. Then there is every chance that you are going to get him out - the batsman is giving you such an opportunity to get him out. But he [Pietersen] played these two shots very well.
There is another issue about whether he [the batsman] is right-handed or left-handed if there is an lbw shout. I think that is pretty simple to overcome - once you start in your stance as a right-handed batsman when the bowler is running in, you are then deemed as a right-handed batsman. That is it. As an umpire, you disregard the left-handed aspect of it.
There is going to be a meeting today at the MCC and it appears that there are a lot of things going on in the UK regarding this shot. It may be that the batsman will have to declare whether he is batting right-handed or left-handed. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that you are allowed to bring these innovations in because I think it is very much in the bowler's control to stop him from doing it. One way for me, seeing it again and again, is for him [the bowler] to bowl a yorker. Where is the batsman going to swipe that? He is not going to swipe that anywhere, right-handed or left-handed. Scott Styris had a smile on his face when he bowled the deliveries. It looks like it is going to come down to our administrators but I hope that we get to see this shot time and time again from Pietersen and from other batsmen. I thought it was sensational.
|Comments have now been closed for this article
Jul 16, 2014 Geoffrey Boycott says he never agreed with players riling up opponents, and if James Anderson is found guilty he shouldn't be spared from 'stern' punishment (02:52)
Jan 2, 2014 ESPNcricinfo UK pundits and journalists discuss their New Year's resolutions for 2014 (01:35)
Bowl at Boycs: Geoffrey Boycott talks about the troubles in West Indian cricket, Steven Smith's recent catch against Pakistan, and fast bowling in India (20:18) | Oct 23, 2014
News and Analysis: South Africa may look to shake up the middle order for the second ODI against New Zealand (01:33) | Oct 22, 2014