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.
Year of the Tiger
Guest
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??
Hansie
Guest
Mind you, here is a catch where the fielder swapped sides pretty quickly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja4Ej_XfX6o
bever fever
Guest
I would agree with that Hansie, although their is a reason they call it silly point.
Jerry
Guest
"Original" meaning stance prior to the bowler beginning his run-up as each ball is bowled rather than stance for the first delivery of an innings.
Hansie
Guest
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.
mjg
Roar Rookie
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.
Mushi
Guest
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.
Brett McKay
Guest
Sledgie, are you who I think you are?? Did you say this to me recently in person?? If so, you know my thoughts...
Brett McKay
Guest
the difference though Brian was that Pietersen maintained his right-handed grip in switching over to play his reverse slog-sweep..
Brian
Guest
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
Brett McKay
Guest
cheers Tinnie, I think there's a case of confusion about this whole thing too, where "switch" hitting is in some cases being interchanged for "reverse" hitting. To add to my points above, I'll offer these definitions (and use Warner as the example): Reverse shots/hitting: where Warner's grip and stance is LH, but as the ball is bowled he laps sweep shots through point, instead of square-leg; the typical reverse-sweep. The off stump remains that of a LH. A colleague pointed out to me that at one point on Tues night, Warner stood as a leftie, but with a backwards grip, which them meant when he played the reverse sweep, he had the better grip. I don't have too much problem with this either.. Switch hitting: where Warner's grip and stance is RH. When he does this prior to the bowler commencing the approach to the wicket (and therefore when the ball becomes 'live'), he is for all intents and purposes a RH batsman, and the off stump and LBW and wides should be adjudged as a RH bat. Switching before the bowler approaches would be announced, and this is fine; I've no problem with this. Where I have the problem is when Warner switches after the ball has become live, and this is what I believe should be outlawed. The 'spirit of cricket' argument is a bit flimsy in my opinion, the umps just needed to have said that he was changing the contest...
sledgeross
Guest
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!!!!
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
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.
Tinnie
Roar Rookie
I think you've summed it up very well there Brett, i agree with all the points you made in that post. Just a question for you guys in regard to some of the previous discussion, as the rules stand now why was the delivery bowled to Warner not given a wide if the off-stump was still dictated from his left-handed stance? The situation certainly has created some grey areas, it's good to see some healthy debate on the subject. I'm surprised no-one has brought up the fact that Warner was almost dismissed employing this tactic. That is the main reason why it didnt bother me too much. I honestly believe that the more this tactic is employed, the more batsmen we'll see throwing thier wicket away in an unnecessary and embarassing fashion, much like the reverse sweep.
Mick of Newie
Guest
I think the only issue is lbw, wide calls and no ball for 2 behind square. I reckon if a player switches (or threatens to) whilst the bowler is running in, these rules should be read against the batter, ie a leg side wide is not called unless it is as wide as an off side wide. If the ball pitches outside leg and would have been lbw then it is out and the two behind square rule is not a no ball provided their was no more than 2 behind square on either side. This wide rule should also apply to batsmen who threaten to back away, if the bowler follows him and the batsman steps back inside it should not a wide.
Fivehole
Guest
But what if he faces the first ball right handed, and then switches to left for the remainder of his innings?
Jerry
Guest
As long as the original leg and off side remain for the purposes of determining an LBW, I don't see a problem.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in baseball a batter can't switch sides once a pitcher is ready to pitch. If he switches from one batter's box to the other during the pitcher's wind-up, he's called out. You're allowed to switch between pitches but the entire point of a switch hitter is that you bat left handed to a right hand pitcher and vice versa, so in practice they only switch if there's a pitching change. In cricket terms, it would be switching to counter right and left armed bowlers or over and around the wicket deliveries, but if he's doing it as a premeditated shot then it's nonsense.
Brett McKay
Guest
Lee, that's right, the field and stumps and wide line don't change for reverse shots. Warner was trying to switch just prior to the ball being delivered, certainly not after it's left the hand (try doing that to Shaun Tait!!). There's another element to this that I've just thought of. Once the bowler commences his approach, the fielders cannot change their position laterally. That is, mid-wicket couldn't move to square-leg before the ball is bowled. The umpire should call dead ball, and the batsman would almost certainly pull away anyway. This is what I think the umpires were right to pull Warner up for switching before the ball is bowled, and why also his over/around the wicket arguement falls over. He's trying to change the conditions of the contest after the bowler has commenced for that delivery. Again, I have no problem with him taking strike right-handed. That can be announced, and the conditions of the contest are defined. But he shouldn't be allowed to switch mid-delivery. The two scenarios need to be viewed differently...
Axel V
Guest
" 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. ". This is where the arguement is lost. Switch hitting ruins the game, as if the batsmen didn't have everything else in their favour already?