Why are the media in such a twist over switch shot?

While here at Reverse Sweep I am glad to see that Kevin Pietersen’s audacious strokemaking is keeping us in the spotlight – I think a couple of people landed on the blog after doing searches for KP and reverse sweep – I can’t help but think that referral of his unorthodox methods to the MCC is going a bit far. We wanted innovation, we’ve got innovation. To rule this illegal would be simply snottiness. – and pointless. 

The majority of those playing the reverse sweep do not employ Pietersen’s methods and unless there are several other Pietersens out there with the ability not only to turn their bodies round mid-delivery but actually switch their bottom hand to become top hand and vice versa, surely his expertise in this area will remain unique.

If it is shown that there are other players who can imitate him with success, that might be a different matter, but I do not accept the argument that he has fooled the bowler by turning himself into a left-hander. If he does do it before the bowler has let go of the ball, the bowler is surely quite within his rights to pull out of the delivery. Otherwise, Pietersen is taking a calculated risk that he will be able to alter his stance and grip in the time available – and remember, with Styris, he was doing this with deliveries that reached 70mph.

To consider a change in the laws by which the direction to which he hits is now the leg-side is just over-complicating things. Mike Selvey, in The Guardian, poses the questions: “Which is leg stump and which is off? Would a slip, a gully and backward point, say, constitute three men behind on the leg side and so render the delivery a no-ball?”

The answers to these should be “The leg stump is still the leg stump” and “No, they wouldn’t.”  For in either case, it would be penalising the bowler for what Pietersen had done. If he gets hit on the pads in line by a ball moving from outside the ‘official’ off stump, he would still be lbw. Three men behind the wicket on the ‘official’ off side would still be on the off side.

I think the cricket writers and commentators are making a brouhaha about this simply to have something to say or write about – the tendency of cricket anoraks to have something small to ponder rather than appreciating the bigger picture. There is an inability to enjoy the stroke for what it is.

When I was at school we had a boy who could both bat and bowl right-handed or left-handed. OK, so he didn’t change halfway through, but what talents to possess. That’s what we should savour about Pietersen’s innovation.



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “Why are the media in such a twist over switch shot?

  1. John McNamara

    If you believe John Etheridge they are actually going to ban it (not that I was reading the Sun or anything). Absolutely ridiculous. Mind you, Pietersen is likely to get out to the shot if he tries it again and imagine the fuss then

  2. I’m all for bowlers shifting from Left Arm Over to Right Arm Round or vice versa-as they still come thru the same side of the wicket.

    But what if a Left Arm Round bowler shifts to a Right Arm Round or vice versa – that would be tricky, no? – But i still won’t put it in the same ballpark as KP’s switch hit. But yes, the Left Arm Round to Right Arm Round or Left Arm over would be fun, tho bordering on chaos. See a lotta umpires being trampled upon.

    KP’s case, it’s outta the box, but not outta the book, is it? And finally, the further cricket moves away from that dreaded book, it will cease to be cricket. Maybe still likable, but not cricket.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s