The problem with switch-hitting
It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to operate and then not subject batsmen to the same rule
22-Jun-2008
 |
|
Kevin Pietersen was right when he said following the first ODI against New
Zealand, "The reverse-sweep has been part of the game for however long." Mike Gatting's futile attempt in the 1987 World Cup final springs readily to mind,
but I recall the innovative Javed Miandad was the first to employ the shot.
However, Pietersen was wrong, and for more reasons than just the obvious
contradiction, when he went on to say: "That is a new shot played today and
people should be saying it's a new way to go." He's wrong for the reason I put forward on total-cricket.com in May 2001.
"While on the subject of legislation there's another case looming where the players are well ahead of the administrators. This happened with Bodyline and the underarm delivery. Whether or not you agree with Douglas Jardine ordering his bowlers to pitch short to a packed on-side field, or Greg Chappell who asked his younger brother to imitate Sir Francis Drake, no one can accuse them of operating outside the laws. If the administrators didn't want Bodyline bowling or underarm deliveries, they should've thought of it before the event and legislated accordingly, rather than castigate the instigators after the event.
The same will happen with the reverse sweep if the administrators don't act swiftly
to clarify the situation. It is unfair to ask the bowlers to nominate beforehand the
way they are going to operate (over or round, left or right arm) and then allow
batsmen to change their mode of striking after the ball is in play.
I have no problem with a batsman who cleverly uses his wrists to upset the field
placings by reverse sweeping. However, I can't accept that a batsman is allowed to
change the order of his hands and/or feet after the bowler commences his run-up, as
this in effect makes him the opposite type of player to the one who took strike. By
this method a right-hander becomes left (or vice versa) after the bowler commences
his run-up and renders the field placings obsolete. This is taking an unfair
advantage, while a batsman sticking with the first method is pitting his skill
(evenly) against that of the bowler.
If that isn't reason enough to change the law, then administrators should ponder
what would happen in a Test if a batsman decides to change mode with his team
needing one run to win and only a ball remaining. If three slips and a gully are in
position, in theory the batsman would be turning those fielders into four men behind
square leg and would have a legitimate claim for a no-ball under the current
legislation.
It couldn't happen? Well, I'll bet that's what the administrators were thinking
before 1932-33 and prior to 1980-81 when first Jardine and then Greg Chappell jolted
them out of their smugness."
| If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman | |||
I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is unfair and a
simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order of his feet or hands from the time of taking his
stance to playing a shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler originally intended.
How can it be fair when a captain has placed the field for a specific set of
circumstances and then the batsman, without warning the fielding side, renders them
obsolete by completely changing his stance? If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman.
Maintaining an even balance between bat and ball is crucial in ensuring the game of
cricket remains a fair contest. The administrators are already pushing the envelope
by reducing the boundary dimensions at a time when bats are constantly improving; if
they are not careful, cricket will become a game of entertainment rather than an
entertaining game.
Throughout history bowlers have never been shy about fighting back when they
feel they are pushed beyond the limit. They have resorted to chucking, Bodyline, and
bowling underarm to even up the contest, and if this anomaly isn't corrected, then I
wouldn't blame them for indulging in methods like those to make their protest.