Needless extravagance or worthy entertainment?

Quotehanger

"Looks go after certain age. Besides, I am no Brad Pitt who wants an Angelina Jolie."
Harbhajan Singh is more for substance than style when it comes to a partner

Oct 6, 2008

The headlines

The news

TWC

Related pieces

Search

Eat your feeds

Posts

Comments

Who will win the series?
- India
- Australia
- Drawn (0-0)
- Drawn (2-2)
- Abandoned due to poor behaviour
View Results
Loading ...

Polls Archive

Sponsors ?

Cricinfo blogs

Cricinfo articles

Scorecards

No Match in progress..

By Will 4 months ago Leave a comment on this post

That was the most thumping of one-day wins by England. We’ll reserve judgement about this new-look and improving England ODI team until the end of the series, but the signs are disctinctly promising: a nice blend of experience and youth, and the younger members of the side (Stuart Broad in particular) are cementing their places rather than holding onto them. New Zealand, well…they were a shambles.

The big topic of the day was Kevin Pietersen. Not just his brilliant hundred but his two “reverse-switch” shots (video below) which dazzled everyone, in particular Scott Styris, the unlucky bowler. They were remarkable, awesome strokes from a brilliant entertainer - and not simply reverse-sweeps: just before Styris reached his delivery stride, Pietersen changed his grip and stance to that of a left-hander, bashing him over cover. Or midwicket, depending on your view. Pure entertainment - more of that, please!

Michael Holding was not quite so in awe of Pietersen though. In fact he feels it’s unfair on the bowler who isn’t allowed (as far as I know) to change from right-arm-over to left-arm. Nor apparently can they approach the crease as if to bowl over the wicket, then sneak behind the umpire and go around the stumps. Holding wants to allow this, which is a bold idea, but surely the umpire would have to know which side of the wicket a bowler was going to deliver from, especially if he wants to keep an eye on no-balling.

Most who watched Pietersen destroy New Zealand’s bowlers will have admired his bold brilliance, and as Nasser Hussain pointed out at the end of the day, there will be dozens of kids around the country trying to replicate it in gardens and parks everywhere. That’s what these professionals should be doing: inspiring a new generation. It’s also worth mentioning that Pietersen is an extreme talent: not many batsmen would be technically proficient enough to time the ball “wrong-handed” as well as KP can. There won’t be a flood of LHB/RHBs littering scorecards around the world, I shouldn’t imagine, so let’s just enjoy Pietersen while we can.

Tags: england, entertainment, extravagance, kevin-pietersen, kevin-pieterson, new-zealand, one-day-cricket, scott styris |

Comments to “Needless extravagance or worthy entertainment?” SpryCorpse wrote:
June 16th, 2008 at 12.59 am

I didn’t see any of it. Certainly I’m inclined to agree that a certain bending of rules should be allowed in the name of entertainment.
Nevertheless it is an interesting point regarding changing stance to a left-hander while bowler is running in. The fielders are not allowed to move laterally to adjust, and the bowler can’t change either. So it is interesting to contemplate what should be allowed and what shouldn’t.
I’m leaning towards allowing the batsman to take this type of risk. And it is undeniably fun to watch them trying.

Alan R wrote:
June 16th, 2008 at 6.59 am

I see no reason to stamp out this innovation, which for an average batsman seems just as likely to result in a wicket as a 6.

If it proves too big an advantage to batsmen, I suggest changing the LBW rule so that if a batsman switches hands after the bowler begins his delivery stride it should be considered that there is no defined “leg side” for purposes of deciding LBW. So it doesn’t matter where the ball pitches as long as it hits the pad in line with the stumps and would go on to hit the wicket.

David Barry wrote:
June 16th, 2008 at 8.25 am

I basically agree with Alan R - if the batsman changes hands during the runup or ball, then both sides are the off-side. This would apply to wides as well as LBW’s. I’m not sure how wides are interpreted at the moment - the bowler should be allowed to counter a batsman changing hands by firing it down the new ‘leg side’.

One of John Buchanan’s predictions was for the emergence of switch hitters in cricket.

Rob Murphy wrote:
June 16th, 2008 at 11.47 am

David Barry makes a good point on wides - firing the ball down the back of KP’s pads while playing that shot should not result in a wide. So it’s not all advantage to the batsman.

Changing the LBW law and the off-side/leg-side definition could be complicated. What if a batsman stands square-on (like in french cricket)? What is the umpire going to do? Who decides whether he’s right-handed or a south-paw?

I say leave things as they are. If KP had been caught after playing this shot no one would be talking about it.

Finally, I wouldn’t pay too much attention to Holding’s comments - they seem in line with most of the stupid comments coming from that particular channel’s commentary team - they’ll say anything to get the world to look at them!

Alan R wrote:
June 16th, 2008 at 7.44 pm

FYI, from the current laws (#36):
3. Off side of wicket
The off side of the striker’s wicket shall be determined by the striker’s stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery.

That’s kind of vague in the case of a square-on stance or switch hitting, but my interpretation is that KP’s shot reversed the field for the purposes of LBW. I’m wondering whether the choice of bottom hand could be considered part of the stance in case of ambiguity. As for wides, I think Law 25 may already give an edge to the bowler in the case of switch-hitting:

The umpire shall not adjudge a delivery as being a Wide
(a) if the striker, by moving,
either (i) causes the ball to pass wide of him, as defined in 1(b) above
or (ii) brings the ball sufficiently within his reach to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.

David Barry wrote:
June 17th, 2008 at 1.01 am

I think that ‘the ball comes into play’ actually happens when the bowler starts his runup - otherwise the umpires wouldn’t need to signal dead ball when the bowler/batsman withdraws during the runup. So the definitions are currently clear.

You can’t just go by where the hands are on the bat. Otherwise, bowler has two slips and gully, batsman shows that he’s got crossed hands, suddenly there’s three behind square on the leg-side, no-ball.

I don’t see a problem in changing of off-side/leg-side definitions. If, in the opinion of the umpire, the batsman has turned to or past square on to the bowler before the release of the ball, then both sides count as the off-side.

Alan R wrote:
June 17th, 2008 at 7.03 am

I stand corrected and clarified. I hadn’t thought about the issue of field settings. As a right-handed batsman (who lacks any of KP’s ability and can’t hit leftie at all), when facing a fast bowler with a sufficiently long run-up it might be in my interest to take guard as a leftie and switch during the run-up every ball, even if it’s just to block, because there would be limits on the number of slip fielders. I’d have an increased risk of LBW from balls that pitch in line with my heels and swing toward the stumps, but the risk of getting caught off a thick edge goes way down, and I’d get more deliveries coming at my legs rather than in the corridor (formerly known as the corridor of uncertainty). It forces the bowling side to change their field settings and forces the bowler to choose between bowling to a field setting and bowling to trap the batsman.

A batsman who can hit fluidly from both sides could really disrupt the field settings and the bowler’s line. I’m beginning to wonder whether the LBW rule change would be enough to offset the advantage.

David Barry wrote:
June 18th, 2008 at 2.46 am

Interesting thoughts there Alan. More reasons for both sides to be the off-side in the case of a batsman changing hands mid-ball.

I hadn’t considered the case of a genuine switch hitter - changing hands at random would indeed wreak some havoc with the field. But the LBW advantage to the bowler is very big - loads of LBW’s are turned down because the ball pitched outside leg.

Comments

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

« Monty wants to buy Luton Town FC | Main | West Indies’ dream still alive »

The Corridor (a cricket blog)

"Peering down the corridor of uncertainty. It’s about cricket, sport and journalism"