Should the 'Switch hitting' Sweep be banned?

[mattfb]

I think they were saying its unfair that the batsmen can change to a left hander without the bowler knowing as he may want to change sides he bowls on I would think.

 

[barmyarmy]

Yup. I was actually considering batting left-handed in my game on Sunday as the pitch we were using was on the far side of the square and the boundary was twice as long on one side as the other.
Got a bit fed up when 3 slog sweeps that would probably got 6 each only netted me 3 2's!!!
Then I tried it in practice and am sure I would have been bowled or caught instantly...

 

[lancashire666]

i just think a few things need to be cleared up, for example, if a bowler is going round the wicket to KP and he changes to a left handed stance, if the bowler sends the ball down the 'original' leg side, which is noe effectivly the off side, and KP misses it, is it going to be called a wide? if he didnt change stance it would normally be a wide, but as hes changed stance i hopw it wouldnt be called wide, otherwise its seriously harse on the bowler.
but it also has to be said, i actually stood up out of my seat when he hit the 2nd one, and its been a long time since ive stood up at home to cheer a shot haha

 

[irottev]

It wasn't a reverse sweep, it was a left handed? Drive? I dunno what to call it.

Firstly I want to make this clear. It's awesome seeing someone do it in a game. Pietersen is talented, no doubt this takes talent and strength. However, you have to feel for the bowlers. He's changed his grip and feet position mid delivery. He's effectively a left hander. I don't really think that's fair myself on the bowler who thinks he's bowling to a right hander. Especially when the bowler isn't allowed to do tricks like that themselves.

My question is, is the bowler allowed to bowl the ball behind the batsman? Or will it be called a wide? How can we call wides on bowlers in ODIs anymore if batsmen can switch mid delivery?

I have no problem with the shot, I have a problem with yet another thing which goes against the bowlers. Batsmans game I tell you!

 

[shravi]

It raises complications with the umpires. If a right handed bowler, starts bowling with his left hand without telling the umpire, it would create problems with no-balls.

Plus, a bowler would have to change his run-up, so surely it would be obvious to the batsman?

The commentators were also talking about bowlers being able to choose whether they were going to bowl over/around the wicket without telling the umpire. It's an interesting debate.

 

[Cricketman]

Maybe bowlers should just develop deliveries that they bowl with the opposite hand...

 

[Therbs]

We thought about this as kids and when it came to game day a few of us tried it. We were told that if we were to change our stance and grip from RH to LH (or LH to RH) we had to inform the ump so that he could allow the fielding captain make suitable adjustments. I suppose this was just made up for juniors as it isn't a convention at the highest level.

 

[icyman]

It takes some skill to execute such a shot.Not every Tom,Dick and Harry can do so. Pietersen,undoubtedly has practised this shot and I see no reason for the shot to be outlawed.
If you wanna outlaw this shot,go outlaw T20 too,which is completely opposite to Test Cricket.

 

[shravi]

It's not like a batsman is going to attempt to play that shot every ball, once an over, or even more than once in a match. That said, it's the first time I've seen a total switch since Jacques Rudolph attempted it in a test series in Sri Lanka. It's something that comes off 1/5 times and if you can't accept that then you're a real sore loser.

 

[mattfb]

It wasn't a reverse sweep, it was a left handed? Drive? I dunno what to call it.

It was simply a left handed slog sweep.

 

[aussie_ben91]

You never know...

If the majority of the cricketing world started practicing batting on both hands then it could be possible that someone else other then Pietersen could play this amazing shot.

It could turn out to be the next thing that evolves in cricket and be used a solid tactic to tramatize the bowlers and put them off their length.

KP could become a pioneer of a cricket because of this shot!

 

[King Pietersen]

Daniel Flynn doesn't have a problem with it, he actually praised the shot, so surely if the opposition don't have a problem with it, the MCC shouldn't. Flynn did jokingly say that he would be practising the shot in the nets and would consider giving it a go in the game, but didn't want another trip to the dentist. I can't see many people being capable of playing the stroke though, the ambidextrous power required to play that shot and hit it for six is amazing.

 

[tech.007]

in a reverse sweep shot the possibility of getting out (lbw) is more then hitting the bowl so i don't think it should be banned...................

if a bowler can bowl slow,spin,....deliveries in an over then why cant a batsmen have choice in playing their favorite shot.................

 

[Sureshot]

The commentators were also talking about bowlers being able to choose whether they were going to bowl over/around the wicket without telling the umpire. It's an interesting debate.

1) Umpire would be looking on the wrong side of the wicket.
2) The non-striker would be in the way.


I think I'd do this.

Allow this switching to a left-hander (remember that only a few will ever be able to do this), but say you sacrifice the laws that help you by switching to a leftie. You can be given out lbw on the basis of, "Is the ball hitting the stumps?", outside the line, pitching outside, etc is taken out of equation. Maybe you could say that wides would be more lenient because of the change. Ie, with KP, switches to a leftie, if the ball is just outside the right handers off stump, it isn't a wide. If it's say, 2 feet outside the stump, it is a wide.

 

[mattfb]

1) Umpire would be looking on the wrong side of the wicket.
2) The non-striker would be in the way.

3) The batsmen would need the sightscreen moved over.