Kevin Pietersen and the art of 'switch-hitting'

Entertainment Cricket and Other Sports
1

Kevin Pietersen raised a few eye-brows when he twice slog-swept Scott Styris over long-off for six during his match-winning 110 against NZ in the first ODI so much so that MCC felt compelled to debate the fairness and legality of switch-hitting today. Thankfully commonsense prevailed in the end and they decided against outlawing the left-handed stroke.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvnz/engine/match/296904.html

Switch-hitting is when a right-handed batsman changes both his grip (i.e. batsman swaps hands on the bat handle) and stance to become in effect a left-hander and vice versa. Now we have all seen batsmen reverse-sweeping spinners in ODIs but they do not usu. reveal their intentions well before the bowler is in his delivery stride. In reverse sweep the stance changes but the grip essentially remains the same. What Pietersen did was quite unique i.e. in a pre-meditated move he changed both his grip and stance well before Styris had gotten into his delivery stride. It was pure innovation and improvisation.

Have a look at the shot from Pietersen here

Michael Holding (who sits on the ICC’s cricket committee) is concerned about the growing imbalance between bat and ball in cricket. He argues that it unfairly penalises the bowler and fielding side should the bowler slip the ball down leg side (which is now the batsman’s off side because of his changed stance) and the umpire call it a wide.

In cricket it is deemed unfair (and the umpire is obliged to call it a no-ball) if a bowler fails to notify the umpire of any change; if he is going over or round the wicket etc. So should the same not apply to batsmen? For the bowlers the field positioning is a key argument. Setting the field for a right hander only to find yourself bowling to a left-hander is fundamentally unfair

On another day it could have gone up in the air or Pietersen could have been yorked between his legs and people would have slammed him for even attempting to play such a crazy shot.

Switch-hitting does raise some questions:

1. When does a right-hander become a left-hander? (presumably he must change both grip and stance)
2. Once a right-handed batsman becomes left-handed, which is the leg side and which is off?
3. How does the umpire determine what is a wide?
4. How does the umpire determine which stump for LBW’s sake?
5. What if suddenly there are now more than two fielders behind square on what has become the leg side?

A batsman could in a test match suddenly decide that Murali (off-spinner - ball spins from off to leg) is more likely to get him out leg-before and change to left-handed on nearing a milestone, (say a personal hundred, test victory etc.), so that the ball would be considered to have pitched now outside the leg stump, so removing the possibility of LBW!

Michael Atherton came up with the following suggestions to couner this (which make perfect sense to me):

1. once a right-handed batsman has changed both grip and stance to become in effect a left hander, the bowler ought to be allowed to bowl both sides of the wicket without incurring a wide

2. Once a batsman decides to switch-hit, the bowler be allowed to get leg-befores by pitching both sides of the wicket. This way an over-ambitious batsman will know the risk of missing and being hit in front of the wickets.

2

Same argument presented from the point of view of a batsman: If a bowler changes his bowling style considerably within an over, there should be some sort of a penalty given to the fielding team (case of Sreesanth and Shoaib Akhtar on some occasions).

Furthermore, with the technology rising and the role of field umpires getting reduced to decisions that they know they have the capability to make without an error, is ICC going to leave this in the hands of on-field umpires to call for decisions where the bowler is allowed to appeal for leg-befores by pitching it on either side, or would the third umpire be given this responsibility to give the decision on where the ball pitched?

What is Michael Atherton's recommendation on possibly having more than two fielders on behind the square?

3

I am completely in sync with the decision to outlaw the use of strokes which makes a mockery of the field positions and throws the bowler's rhythm off-balance. Not only that but it was presenting with too much of an advantage to the batting sides rather than fairly adjusting the game on both ends.

Wanna be Freaked?????
4

Re: Kevin Pietersen and the art of 'switch-hitting'

I feel its a pretty complicated issue, needs to be given a lot of thought. There is also the question of the definition of "switch hitting". I mean if the rules are going to be changed, then I can see batsmen arguing that I did infact switch hit or not depending on the outcome; or vice versa with the bowler arguing depending on the outcome. And I see the definition you have posted GA, but I can see arguments coming up on the field. Also it just seems very complicated for the umpire to decide that it was switch hitting and not a reverse sweep shot etc.

I think the easiest way is to not allow it like dhobi bhai has suggested, but I really don't see realistically that strokes can be/will be banned.

Anyways, gotta give credit to KP for that. Brilliant stuff, although left a big mess.

5

He did not say anything on that but I am ‘for’ allowing the stroke if the law does not unfairly penalise the bowler or fielding side at the same time. It takes special skill and nerves to switch-hit a medium-pacer. There is a huge amount of risk involved in playing such a crazy shot but if well-executed they are certainly eye-catching. Pietersen managed to get it right in the middle on both occasions. If you are good enough to play it, I think you should be allowed

Common Fielding Positions
http://www.cricinfo.com/perl/picture.cgi/001513

I appreciate what you are saying but with a reverse sweep it is just not possible for the ball to sail over long-off! Most reverse swept slogs end up at third man or deep gully. Certainly if the ball is ending up forward of deep point, the batsman must be changing his grip as well.

Whether you are reverse sweeping or switch-hitting, the normal’ LBW’ law (which says that a batsman cannot be given out if the ball is pitching outside leg) should not apply to you and you should be prepared to take the long walk back to the pavilion if you miss the ball and it strikes you on the pad (front or rear) in front of the stumps. That should address some of the imbalance between bat and ball.

6

Good point, I think its the best solution so far and will continue to discuss this issue with you guys later, have to get some sleep. About the lbw rule, as I said best solution so far, I just hate to see cricket get more complicated with rules, it bothers me a lot, especially when a lot of new people are checking cricket out, hate to see them turned off by so many rules.

7

Re: Kevin Pietersen and the art of 'switch-hitting'

ICC has done the right thing. Switch hitting is perfectly legal and should be allowed. The lbw and wide decisions should be made based on the batsman's original stance. For example, a ball pitching outside off stump can be given lbw, even if the batsman switched the stance and the ball would appear to be pitching outside leg after the switch. Same goes for wides.

There aren't that many batsmen that can pull it off, so those who can should be rewarded accordingly. If this is deemed illegal, then so should the reverse sweep since both these shots play havoc with the field settings.

8

Re: Kevin Pietersen and the art of 'switch-hitting'

Asif the link stopped working, do u have another one? I gotta see this

9

Here, an even better clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDo9JAmV2ok

and some clouts they are…strokes of a genius, simply brilliant!!

10

Re: Kevin Pietersen and the art of 'switch-hitting'

Wat eva any one says ......

Kevi is master :D

11

Re: Kevin Pietersen and the art of ‘switch-hitting’

star news people were moaning about it yesterday :hehe:

12

Agreed but I think it is also a bit unfair to penalise a bowler who upon sussing the batsman's intentions intelligently slips the ball 'marginally' down leg side in order to thwart him unless you bowl so wide that it misses the wicket-keeper and everyone and flies off to the boundary. Some credit must also be given to the bowler for not letting the batsman reverse-sweep or switch-hit successfully.

So once a batsman has changed his stance and/or grip, the 'normal' leg-before and wide (within reason) rule should not apply any longer. You just can't have it both ways.

13

Which leg side, the old one or the new one? If the ball would be outside leg according to the pre-switch stance, then I say let that be a wide. However, the bowler is free to send the ball outside off upon sensing the impending switch. The ball would turn out to be outside leg after the switch, hence unplayable, but still legal because it's outside off according to the pre-switch stance.

Otherwise we could throw all the benefits in bowler's favor, letting the batsman assume all the risk. If the ball could've been deemed legal in either the pre-switch or post-switch stance, then it is legal. If the batsman could be lbw according to either stance, then he's out. The batsman is in effect, making both sides his off-side for the determination of wides and lbw, and hence loses the security of outside-leg rules. The will really kill the switch hit though, since not many batsmen will be willing to bear the greater risks.

Fawad Khan's cosmetic surgery
Fawad Khan's cosmetic surgery
14

^ even the pre-switch leg side delivery should not be penalised IMO unless it's too wide once the batsman has changed his stance.

15

It is a bit annoying that they keep removing the clips from youtube, but I managed to find another one

Pietersen did something similar to Murali 6 months ago as well but note this time the ball went over deep point/deep cover region rather than long off

16

Re: Kevin Pietersen and the art of 'switch-hitting'

^ In both these clips he changed his grip/stance when the bowler was almost about to deliver. Is there a clip which showed that he changed his position/grip when bowler started his runup/walk?

17

^ No there are n't any....that would be too outrageous and the bowler might actually stop running after seeing what the batsman's upto. But notice how Pietersen quickly changes his grip and stance just as he sees the bowler getting into his delivery stride, a tribute to his great reflexes and excellent hand-eye co-ordination, reminiscent of Viv Richards.

18

Re: Kevin Pietersen and the art of 'switch-hitting'

All said and done.....in today's cricket, the batsman is the KING and the bowler is the COURT JESTER. In other words, the BOWLER only serves to help the batsman entertain the crowd.

19

To extend the analogy:

Umpire is the Ace
Batsman is the King
Trophy/Audience is the Queen
Bowler is the Jester

Timepass
20

I wonder what will be the reaction of ICC/Umpires If right handed bowler suddenly delivers the ball with left hand or vice versa....someone should try....