Dave Warner is right, batting right or left-handed
By Spiro Zavos, 26 Feb 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Bruce Oxenford, Cricket, David Warner, Rod Tucker, Twenty20

Australian batsman David Warner strikes the third of his 6's against South Africa during the KFC Twenty/20 match at the MCG in Melbourne, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009. (AAP Image/Joe Castro)
The umpires were wrong to stop Dave Warner, generally a left-handed batsman, from shaping up right-handed in the last Twenty20 match against the West Indies and then belting the next delivery by switching to his left-hand stance.
The argument used by umpires Bruce Oxenford and Rod Tucker to stop this ploy was that the West Indies would have to chop and change the field all the time, and that this would waste time.
There is no actually law against what Warner proposed to do. The umpires resorted to that good old stand-by, “not in the spirit of the game.”
The fact is, what Warner did was exactly in the spirit of the game in that it was clever, put the bowlers at a disadvantage with their field placings and was effective in creating space on the ground for him to send the ball scuttling over the grass, and occasionally over the fence.
Warner pointed out that bowlers are allowed to decide whether they bowl over or around the wicket and that he was merely adopting the batting equivalent of this.
This is true, of course.
He could have made the further point that fast bowlers come in and sometimes bowl slower balls: legspinners have the googly, and some off-spinners bowl the doorsa, a leg-break with the off-spin action.
The point here is that these bowlers change what they are supposed to be doing. These changes are regarded as certainly within the spirit of the game, and the same tolerance should be allowed for Warner’s great gift of being able to switch hit from either side of the wicket.
For me, switch-hitting is no different from a bowler trying to deceive a batsman with a different type of delivery from his normal stock ball. Or bowling with a different hand.
I played some cricket many, many years ago with Bob Blair, a good fast bowler for Wellington and New Zealand.
Like many quickies of his day (Freddie Truman was another), Blair used to throw the ball in left-handed. Presumably this was done to preserve their bowling shoulder. Blair was so proficient with his left hand that occasionally in club matches he’d bowl an over or two of left-arm spinners.
This switch bowling, in my opinion, enhanced the game and was entirely within its spirit. Warner’s switch hitting similarly enhances the game. It produces problems for the bowlers and opportunities for batsmen who can make the switch hitting come off.
The umpire only needs to establish what side Warner or whoever is going to shape up. The batsman must hold this stance as the bowler comes into bat.
When he makes his switch he remains liable to dismissal LBW, say, if the ball is pitched correctly in terms of his original stance and hits him in line.
Mickey Mantle was one of baseball’s great switch-hitters, with great power from either side. Warner has the talent to become Twenty20s Mantle equivalent, as the Twenty20 game becomes increasingly like baseball, without the longeurs that baseball fans have to endure.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Bruce Oxenford, Cricket, David Warner, Rod Tucker, Twenty20


February 26th 2010 @ 12:46pm
Working Class Rugger said | February 26th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Warner would be arguably the most exciting batsman in T20 bar none. Why restrict him? All this talk of ‘not in the spirit of the game’ amuses me to be honest. I have this argument regularly with an uncle who openly loathes T20. It’s not conventional and from is point of view ‘just isn’t cricket’. However, consider this this. If ‘switch hitting’ isn’t considered fair play then as has been made evident earlier in the discussion then maybe bowler’s varying their deliveries should be consider illiegal and unfair to the batsmen. If Warner has to announce his intention to switch then shouldn’t the bowler signal his intended choice of delivery?
There’s nothing wrong with his tactic. And as has been pointed out isn’t illegal. It adds yet another entertaining aspect to an entertaining form of the game. To be honest Warner is highly unlikely to ever play Test Cricket for his country so why tie him down in the form that has made him a household name. The ulitmate deciding factor should be the public. The crowd clearly enjoy it at the SCG and I ( and I doubt I’m aline) enjoyed it too. If the number’s continue to show up or tune in then personally there’s nothing there to complain about.
February 26th 2010 @ 1:08pm
sledgeross said | February 26th 2010 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Cmon Spiro, it is vastly different that bowling a slower ball, or a change of pace.
I have no problem with “switch hitting” if someone is good enough, but the game is already pro-batsman enough as it is. I think they should introduce a new lbw law whereby if a batsman changes his stance and is hit in line of the stumps, then he should be out lbw. Captains set fields to whatever stance the batsman is in, so why should the fielding team be disadvantaged if a batsman chooses to “move the goalposts”.
Not sure about this “spirit of the game” thing. As far as Im concerned the Aussie team has done plenty of worse things in the last 10 years without censure.
Oh, and Brett, WARNER FOR THE BAGGY GREEN!!!!
February 26th 2010 @ 3:10pm
Brett McKay said | February 26th 2010 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Sledgie, are you who I think you are?? Did you say this to me recently in person?? If so, you know my thoughts…
February 26th 2010 @ 1:42pm
Brian said | February 26th 2010 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Didn’t Pieterson do the exact thing a few year ago for the exact same debate?
To be fair to the bowlers how about the non-striking batsman stands whe re the runners normally do and the bowler determines whether to go over or around the wicket as and when they please
February 26th 2010 @ 3:08pm
Brett McKay said | February 26th 2010 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
the difference though Brian was that Pietersen maintained his right-handed grip in switching over to play his reverse slog-sweep..
February 26th 2010 @ 5:28pm
Mushi said | February 26th 2010 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
I think the bowling variations argument is weak as the batsman already has shot variation at his disposal which is far more comparable than reversing the field settings.
February 26th 2010 @ 6:07pm
mjg said | February 26th 2010 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
How is this different to a reverse sweep? It requires skill to pull it off and there’s a risk of dismissal.
If a batsman switched midway through a bowler’s run-up the bowler can simply stop and start again, if he wants to.
I haven’t played cricket at a high level, but I can bat and bowl left and right handed.
February 26th 2010 @ 8:32pm
Hansie said | February 26th 2010 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
I wouldn’t like to be the chap fielding at silly point (without a helmet) who suddenly finds that he is really fielding at short leg. While it might be exciting, I don’t think switch hitting (without prior warning) should be allowed.
February 26th 2010 @ 10:10pm
bever fever said | February 26th 2010 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
I would agree with that Hansie, although their is a reason they call it silly point.
February 26th 2010 @ 10:11pm
Hansie said | February 26th 2010 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Mind you, here is a catch where the fielder swapped sides pretty quickly.
February 27th 2010 @ 8:17pm
Year of the Tiger said | February 27th 2010 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
If your good enough to bat both sides at that level good luck to you.
Should be ok.
I’m sure the Aussies bowlers would love to bowl against a batter on his weaker side or are we saying there are many if any that can bat just as good either way??