Switch hit?

[aussie1st]

Mark Taylor raised some interesting points in regards to Warner and his changing of stance from left to right handed during the bowlers run up. He mentioned the bowler has to declare which side hes bowling from and the dangers involved to silly mid off/on.

For me if you can pull it off I don't see why we should stop them from doing so. And the bowler can bowl his normal line and length and the ball shouldn't be called a wide.

To even it out I wouldn't mind allowing the bowler to use either hand without telling the batsmen. Same concept as above and if we are happy to allow the batters to do so then the bowlers should be allowed the same luxury.

 

[drainpipe32]

Apparently David Warner is an ambidextrous. Bowls and bat 15 minutes with the 'other' hand every training session.

But yeah, I don't see what's wrong with it. If you're going to field close, wear a helmet. What the batsman does isn't in your hands.

 

[Iridium]

Yep, I agree. If batsman can change their stance and use their other hand, it's only fair that bowlers be allowed to as well. Got to try keep the game as balanced as it possibly can.

 

[TumTum]

I don't have a problem with switch hits as long as the rules for the way he started batting don't change. As Warner is a lefty, the rules will stay that way for that shot.

 

[Covvy]

I'm not too sure about this one. Bowlers have to announce what way they're coming around from and I think the batsmen has to do the same thing.

 

[angryangy]

Changing bowling arm is miles harder than swapping stance. You certainly wouldn't see any good bowlers doing it in their delivery stride.

 

[TumTum]

What is actually the problem though?

Bowlers all the time change their delivery from normal balls to off spinners etc. Surely batsmen can play a silly shot like the switch hit.

 

[stefan]

I think the switch hit should be allowed.

 

[Owzat]

I think the switch hit should be allowed.

I agree, the only sticking point is when the batsman is allowed to switch from. For me it's no different to a batsman stepping outside leg or off, any danger to the fielders isn't going to change as the ball could be hit in any direction whether left-handed, right-handed or cack-handed. Danger is surely by proximity not position on leg or off.

If they can pull it off then so be it, although I do feel it is rather showing off than that advantageous. Sometimes when playing tennis or more recently badminton I have switched to left-handed thus extending my reach but decreasing my chance of accurately returning. Opponents don't whinge because I'm a right-hander and played the shot left-handed.

Slaggers questioned the implications in terms of fielding restrictions and the field going from being offside to legside and vice versa, but I say the restrictions should only be held to whatever stance the batsman was adopting before the bowler began his run in (as that's what the captain set his field to, a right or left hander)

As for moral questions, how is it any less fair than a quick bowler bowling a bouncer, slower ball or pulling up without releasing the ball??!? The bowler wouldn't complain if KP switched hands and was castled by a slower ball. It looks somewhat untidy, but no more so than some horrific swipes and other shots from a normal stance

 

[angryangy]

The switch hit is clearly allowed as the MCC determined there was nothing wrong with it. However the shot as Kevin Pietersen plays it, it is nothing more than a shot. He commences the shot at delivery or later. The issue Warner created by constantly changing guard was not one of the Laws, but of the Spirit of Cricket, because it increasingly presented as a unnecessary distraction and not so much as an attempt to play a shot.

 

[TumTum]

The issue Warner created by constantly changing guard was not one of the Laws, but of the Spirit of Cricket, because it increasingly presented as a unnecessary distraction and not so much as an attempt to play a shot.

Well batsmen do that all the time in cricket. Bowlers are supposed to readjust or stop from bowling the ball.

 

[pcfan123]

Ok lets get realistic here.

Switch hit is innovative, new and crowd pleasing. Its here stay.

I hear to even the playing field people are saying let the bowler bowl from either arm. Well realistically no one will/can do that.

Let the bowlers tamper damn ball!

 

[treva]

I bowled left handed once in a match. I did it regularly in nets to good effect so decided to try it in a game. Told the umpire I was bowling left arm around. Ran up and bowled the ball two strips onto the off side. Never again

 

[JD10]

Yep, I agree. If batsman can change their stance and use their other hand, it's only fair that bowlers be allowed to as well. Got to try keep the game as balanced as it possibly can.

On that note they use different variations and the batsman only know at the last moment, just like the switch hit.

 

[harrisb]

I don't see the problem with the switch-hit. After all, if people are complaining that the bowler's don't have the same kind of opportunity to change stance/arm/action during their run-up.

Why?

Because is a cricket match there are 2 innings, so the bowling side still has the opportunity to use the switch-hit when they bat.

If fielders want to come in close, they need to wear a helmet, and the aussies should be the ones who are doing this the most, after all, their captain was left with a smashed up bleeding mouth after taking Matt Prior's cover drive in the teeth last summer.

My other point, is that major equipment brands, Gray-Nicolls in particular, are now producing dual-sided bats (Dual T20 i believe it's called) which aids the batsmen to play more extravagant shots.

But to end, the man we need to thank, is Kevin Pietersen, the first person i know of to play the shot for 6.