David Warner’s explosive switch-hit six against India in the first Twenty20 clash at ANZ Stadium on Wednesday night has rattled a goodly few cages.
The inevitable negative narks are already labelling the shot as a form of cheating.
Utter bollocks.
Even former Test captain Mark Taylor, who is far removed from being a nark, rates the switch-hit as “terrific TV, and skilful, but unfair”, which is a long way short of cheating.
So Warner has polarised the cricket fraternity. But why?
The bowler has first chop at the action, and can bowl faster or slower with off-cutters or out-swingers. The batsman never knows what he’s going to face.
But as soon as the batsman changes his normal stance to equate the battle between ball and bat, he’s cheating or unfair.
As it happens, Taylor would have been more adept than most had he tried switch-hitting during his stellar career.
Taylor was a world-class left-handed batsman who couldn’t play golf left-handed if his life depended on it. So he plays right-handed off a single-figure handicap.
Switch-hitting would have been right in his wheel-house.
Former keeper Rod Marsh is exactly the same story.
Former England all-rounder Brian Close was a left-handed bat who played golf both left and right-handed – left off a 5 handicap, right off 6. Close had a mixture of left and right-handed clubs in his allowable 14-club bag.
He was never ever stymied.
Let’s make one fact clear: Warner’s not the switching-hitting pioneer. That honour belongs to Pakistani Mushtaq Mohammad playing for Northamptonshire in the mid ’70s. But the traditionalists poo-barred the shot, so Mushtaq canned it.
Mike Gatting tried it against the bowling of Allan Border in the 1987 World Cup final – and that was that.
It was left to England’s Kevin Pietersen to reinvent what was originally tagged the reverse sweep.
Playing against New Zealand in a ODI in 2008, right-handed Pietersen deposited Scott Styris over the fence twice with left-handed swats. The negative narks had a field day, joined at the time by former fast bowlers Sir Richard Hadlee and Michael Holding.
But Sir Vivian Richards thought it was great, bringing a new dimension to the game.
The same arguments are going on right now. It’s sensational when a switch-hit comes off, but it’s a high risk shot. There’s a fine line between being a hero facing the next delivery, and a goose heading for the shed.
And while all this rubbish is being bandied about, what about the ramp shot, also known as the paddle scoop or Marillier – the ability to get the bat under the ball and flick it on its way to third man or fine leg?
Ramping is also a high-risk shot. But even the negative narks seem to have accepted its existence.
So let’s get on with it. Bowlers stop being so precious, just keep bowling straight at the body at yorker length, giving no width.
Fail with the latter and there’s a distinct possibility of being switch-hit.
And there’a nobody to blame but the bowler.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
If a batsman is able to cheat his stance after the field is set, then the fielder should be able to cheat theirs. Or is it only fair when it is rigged in favour of batsmen ?
Tom Bridge
Roar Pro
It really annoys me when commentators lampoon someone for providing what they are supposed to be there for, especially in a game like T20, and that is a little something called "entertainment". The "switch-hit" not only shows pure skill but the timing involved in switching to the opposite direction before the ball reaches the bat AND for it to hit the middle of the bat is something to behold.
Brett McKay
Expert
"Cases have been known of a striker actually changing his grip on the bat, even his stance at the wicket, from right handed to left handed, before the ball reaches him. Law 36.3 stipulates that all such changes, if made after the ball has come into play, are to be ignored. The leg side of the wicket as the bowler starts his run up (or action) remains as the leg side until the ball is dead."
JohnB
Guest
As I read that, it says nothing about what happens if there is a change in stance between the start of the run in and releasing the ball.
Red Kev
Guest
I've never connected that spelling with that particular meaning and context but you're right - apparently it's also an actual illegal movement in baseball. Awesome, a more complete vocabulary today - is there anything The Roar isn't good for?
JohnB
Guest
I think 'baulk' might be the intended word here.
Big Steve
Guest
But dont you get ejected for bowling two beamers. I think Younis did against Australia in a world cup match, didnt get to finish his over? Good way to get a few bowlers out of the game.
Brett McKay
Expert
I'm in the same boat eividently, CommyKev.. INteretsingly, I read that as saying that the leg side remains in place for a 'switch' and that wides, LBWs etc should be judged as normal. Which in turn means that had Warner had an air-swing on Wed night, it would've been wide, and had it hit him in front, he would've been not out as the ball pitched outside the LHs leg stump...
Red Kev
Guest
Well there goes my notion that it was simply an unconsidered circumstance (as per the underarm). It states in no uncertain terms that changing grip on the bat and batting stance are acceptable. Not that I agree, but the law is pretty clear. Which brings me back to beamers as a defence, batsmen will stop doing it if they cop a couple to the head, no balls or not.
Brett McKay
Expert
I was going to let this play out, but found this in another article on the matter, which may change some views: One query in particular keeps cropping up: under the Laws of Cricket, is Warner right handed or left handed when switch-hitting? The simple answer? Whatever stance the batsman takes at the time "the ball comes into play", which is when the bowler starts to run in, determines how the laws are governed for that delivery. The MCC cleared this up with their revised appendix law in October 2010: "Sometimes a right-handed striker will play the ball with a stroke appropriate to a left-handed one – the so-called 'reverse sweep'. Cases have been known of a striker actually changing his grip on the bat, even his stance at the wicket, from right handed to left handed, before the ball reaches him. Law 36.3 stipulates that all such changes, if made after the ball has come into play, are to be ignored. The leg side of the wicket as the bowler starts his run up (or action) remains as the leg side until the ball is dead. This is especially relevant to this Law, but applies in every Law where the distinction between the off side and the leg (or on) side is significant."
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
If you can change your stance, and walk across your stumps, why wouldn't you be allowed to change your grip? Darren Lehmann, in a tour game, once took guard standing OFF the pitch. As the bowler approached, he walked right across his stumps, so that he was eventually on off stump. What's the difference between that and changing your grip? If you're saying the bowler might set a different field if he knew the batsmen would switch hands, I would argue he would also change his field if he knew a batsmen would take guard outside off, instead of outside leg. He would probably change his field if he knew he was going to charge. You don't think bowlers would have a backstop (under 12 cricket memories!) if they knew the ramp shot was coming??
Bearfax
Guest
ps I also though agree that a bowler should be allowed to bowl in any manner the bowler sees fit and without advise to the umpire or batting side. If a bowler wants to bowl fast one bowl and then spin bowl the next, or right arm with one bowl and left arm with the next as long as the bowl itself is legal. So be it....I cant see any reason why that should not be allowed
Bearfax
Guest
There is a missed point here and that is the necessary evolution of the game. If it remains static, it will die. What Warner has done, and he's certainly not the first, just the first to get international press, is to show that the innovators in the game are always searching for a means to outwit the fielding side, as the bowlers are always trying to outwit the bats. There were those who were recently objecting to the type of pitches that have been developing in Oz that suited the fast bowlers. Again an evolutionary step to keep the battle between bat and ball as competitive as possible and therefore entertaining. Just as the bats had to work out how to counter the bowler friendly pitches, so the bowlers are going to have to work out means of countering the switch bat style, which personally is a great innovation in the game. Lets not knee jerk and seek more rules as rules too often can to hamper these iinnovative ideas thereby choking the development of a fine game. Be patient and see how far it goes and if it becomes apparent that an unfair advantage has developed, then do a little tweeking . But be sure firstly that an effective counter on the field cant be found. Maybe Bodyline 1930 all over again. If the balance gets too out of hand then tweek the rules but dont stop the innovation. Bodyline was one of the bleakest, yet fondest recalled series in cricket history. All credit to the brave.
bestywins
Guest
The batsman is always reacting to a bowlers ball that he knows nothing about. It is totally relevant that a bowler is allowed to switch the pace or length of a ball without telling anyone. Rules for one and not the other.Mightn't be the exact same thing as switch hitting but it is still relevant that the bowler can bowl what ever he likes without having to say a word. Why doesn't the bowler have to tell the batsman. I couldn't care if the bowler changed to left arm bowling or around the wicket without telling anyone. That's the rule they should change, and even if they did it wouldn't work the way people are trying to beat the story up with
jameswm
Guest
I thought the r in bork was an n for a while, and we were talking about something completely different.
Red Kev
Guest
A batsman can move forwards or backwards to alter the length of the ball. A batsman can move across his stumps to alter the line of the ball. A batsman can play off the front or back foot. A batsman can play with a straight or horizontal bat. The fact a bowler can bowl fast or slow or full or short is irrelevant. The bowler still has to inform the batsman that his is bowling "right arm over the wicket". The batsman should similarly inform the bowler (and fielding captain) that he is batting left or right handed.
bestywins
Guest
The bowler can already switch his bowling. As David points out, a bowler can and does change the pace, swing and length of the ball bowled without having to say a word to anyone. They have an advantage already with that. No they can't suddenly swap to round the wicket without telling the umpire but I think that argument doesn't hold water one little bit. When the day comes that a bowler has to tell the batsmen that he is bowling his special precious little slower ball or their vicious bouncer,then the same should apply to the switch hitting but until that day comes GO THE SWITCH HITTER. Amazing how it is deemed unfair or even cheating. Why is a bowler applauded and people go all gooey over the flipper, scooter or what ever else warne bowled and bamboozled or Steve Waughs great slower balls. Cheers
Steve
Guest
This! A good ball hitting the top of offstump is a good ball. I don't care about charging or giving yourself room, it's still a good ball in cricket. A good ball hitting the top of legstump is very rarely a good ball. By allowing the switch hit, the good ball is suddenly not a good ball. All of those balls warney bowled pitching middle stump and hitting the top of off for a right hander, would've been cannon-fodder. Slop-swept for 6. Mcgrath would've been bowling down leg stump every ball. It changes the notion of what constitutes a good bowler. McGrath could bowl a yorker, but a good majority of his wickets in one-dayers came caught behind bowling that off-stump line. You say it's good for entertainment and bowlers should then just bowl a yorker on middle stump. Jeez wouldn't that be exciting, same ball for 120 deliveries, squeezing a single to deep point every ball - how does that reconcile with you wanting extra entertainment?
Go_the_Wannabe's
Guest
Should the LBW rules "switch" as well? or stand as they are?
Go_the_Wannabe's
Guest
Thats an easy one to fix.....the batter at the non-striker end stands wide of the return crease. The harder one to solve is that the batsmen will want full width sight screens to cover around and over the wicket deliveries. Some fields could accomodate this (and do) but others would want the seating space for extra revenue - and therein lies the rub. Hope this helps.