The ambidextrous batsman is cricket's next step

Ok, take it back a second. So your opening line is you quoting commentators (which commentators by the way?) condemning reverse shots. By implication that means you support that view, and prefer the “normal game”. Now you’re saying that it’s attributed to commentators and doesn’t reflect your view? So why use it as the opening line of your post? Sorry, that’s just confusing and doesn’t make sense, why would you condemn reverse shots when you’re saying below it that players can play however they like? Or are you saying that players shouldn’t feel compelled to try and add the reverse shots to their arsenal unless they feel comfortable with playing them? In which case I’d be fairly comfortable that’s going to be the case already, the modern approach to 20/20 batting is to have your scoring zones in mind to a particular bowler or field, and they’ve already got a fair idea what sort of shot they’re going to try and play to a particular ball. A batsman isn’t going to try and haul out a shot he’s not comfortable with unless it’s dire straits and the situation demands he go for broke. I agree with you players should be able to bat whichever way they like, I can appreciate the skill of a switch-hit, a ramp, or any other number of unconventional shots. They all rely on superb hand-eye co-ordination, timing and skill, regardless of whether the ball is being stroked down the ground or placed to perfection back over the keeper's head. I'm all about the outcome, and if a guy scores runs I don't care what his wagon wheel looks like. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to analyse what is written, but it’s a little inconsistent. However in the interests of fairness I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to explain yourself better if you want it.

Paul D, read the article again and you will note the reference to “batsmen should concentrate on perfecting their batting skills playing their normal game rather than messing with reverse shots” was attributed to commentators. Did you miss that? "Ultimately it is the skill set that should determine how players approach the game" is saying that they can play whatever way they wish, it is not arguing that they should bat one way or another. I love great conventional batting. If you can, watch a clip of David Hookes belting five fours against Tony Greig in an over, or watch the sublime skills of Greg Chappell stroking the ball through the V. Just analyse what has been written rather than throw misguided missiles as you have been doing. Now that's a good chap! I suppose you drive a Holden, they also have medication for that. (Humour Paul!}

Mate, you're entitled to hold whatever opinion you like, but when you start recommending that "batsmen should concentrate on perfecting their batting skills playing their normal game rather than messing with reverse shots" and that "Ultimately it is the skill set that should determine how players approach the game" - well, I'm just pointing out that's based on nothing more than your opinion, and certainly not on any objective evidence. On the subject of drugs, I'd suggest ingesting a few that might help you develop a thicker skin.

Really, no one comments on batsmen getting out to conventional shots!!! What kind of drug are you on? My comment on preferring to watch a conventional batsman in the groove is not an argument, it is an objective observation. That is a "personal preference" as you so rightly observe yet you do not respect the rights of others to express an opinion Poor form Paul D.

Yeah, I thought that might be the case. I have to disagree, allowing lbw’s when the ball pitches outside leg disadvantages the batsmen too much. You’d have far more lbw appeals and contentious decisions, and a negative line of attack with balls constantly being fired at the pads. I know it’s a batsman’s game, but I can’t get behind that change, I believe it would alter the game and approach towards getting batsmen out far too much.

I'm saying that when a left handed bowler is bowling to a right handed batsmen, it shouldn't matter that it pitched outside leg, as long as it hits the pad in line with the stumps. As a left hander, the "trajectory" of the delivery is the same as if a right hander is delivering a ball that bounces outside off and strikes the pad. In other words, I don't think the rule should be based on whether the batsman is a right hander or a left hander, but rather whether the bowler is a right handed or left handed.

It's easy to blame batsmen who get out playing inventive shots, but no-one ever says a word about all the batsmen who get out playing normal cricket shots badly. Your argument just reflects personal preference on your part rather than objective observation. "Switch hitting is exciting to watch but give me a conventional player any day who is in the groove." QED.

Hang on, do you mean pitched outside leg, or that you must be struck in line with the stumps for balls that pitch outside off? Which part of the lbw rule do you want changed?

The whole "pitched outside off" rule is ridiculous in my opinion. The game is so much in favour of the batsman we should ditch this rule. It's even more absurd when you consider that a left handed bowler bowling to a right hander can miss out on an LBW for this rule, even though the trajectory of the ball should be of a simliar style to a right hander going over the wicket.

Didn't Mike Hussey switch hands as a kid. Warner batted a season in junior cricket with the opposite hand; its why he can play the switch hit. This skill like any other (including ramps, reverses etc...) can be mastered with practise. I've toyed with the idea of wearing left and right batting gloves, i.e. both gloves with thumb protection. Take an initial guard in the left stance,as everyone is set, change over. just be to a jerk.

How often do we players getting to normal shots, like a top edged pull, and hook to square leg, pushing an an off-drive that nicks to the keeper or slips. Batters should concentrate on not hitting the ball to fielders.

Good point about the LBW law I think- change that to - ball hitting stumps no matter what- then batsman can go for the ambidextrous gig to their hearts content. Let bowlers pick the seam and use Vaseline while we are at it. The attraction to cricket for me has always been the battle between bat and ball. The game is being reduced in all forms to a glorified version of a golf driving range- everyone wants to go long! The other solution is that if the batter swaps hand position on the handle- he should be given out, still allows creative shotmaking but would prevent confusion with the laws.

Great. Just what we need, another way to slow down the game and another way to advantage the batsman. John Buchanan foreshadowed this as the future back in 2000. It's innovative but problematic. I suspect we won't see this develop as quickly as we think.

As the commentators often say, batsmen should concentrate on perfecting their batting skills playing their normal game rather than messing with reverse shots. How often do we see players "throw it away" by playing cute shots such as Glenn Maxwell. Innovative shots can still be played batting normally - where has the French cut gone as you say and that was a legitimate shot long before the advent of T20. As for ambidextrous bowlers, again the skill set will never allow that to happen as bowling is a difficult art already, witness the lack of maidens by high quality players. An innovation players do not use frequently but is highly effective is changing the length of the deliveries. My father in law was a great proponent of sometimes bowling from behind the stumps as this alters the time it takes for the ball to arrive without deviating the speed. Also batsmen can upset the bowler by changing the effective length by batting outside the crease. Ultimately it is the skill set that should determine how players approach the game. Switch hitting is exciting to watch but give me a conventional player any day who is in the groove. I do not believe there are sufficient numbers of players with the natural abilities to play in an ambidextrous way for it to ever become mainstream.

Cricket is a batsman's game, and one indication of this is that a batsman can switch-hit without having to provide advance warning to the fielding side. How this works with LBW decisions, ones that involve the umpire having to decide whether the ball pitched outside leg stump, I have no idea. Bowlers, however, are obliged to notify the umpire whether they are going to bowl left-handed or right-handed, information that the umpire then passes on to the batsman. Several players have the ability to bat "left-handed" (right hand above the left hand on the bat handle, stance taken with right shoulder facing the bowler) and "right-handed" (left hand on top, left shoulder facing the bowler). But off the top of my head, only Sri Lanka's Kamindu Mendis and the Indian Akshay Karnewar come to mind as ambidextrous bowlers. I don't have a problem with switch-hitting. But if it's good enough for batsmen to switch without any warning, it should be good enough for bowlers too.