This is nothing to do with peanuts, it is all about Kevin Pietersen's shot (twice) against New Zealand in the first ODI (One day International) where (if you don't know) he switched his grip on the bat and stance from a right handed batsmen to a left handed batsmen, pretty much.
Now I have heard that this shot has been done before, the unlucky bowler was Scott Styris and he talks about it on youtube, and since KP I know that Mal Loye for Lancashire tried it successfully.
An argument for shots like this, which I do agree with in theory is set out in an editorial piece by the Jamaica Gleaner.
Nasser Hussain and Michael Holding were asked for their views on the shot by David Gower as rain prevented the start of the second ODI and they had differing views, although both admitted it was an amazing shot with world class technique to pull it off as the MCC (the lawmakers in the game have said.)
However, where I agree with Mr. Holding is the lack of laws and the direction this could head in.
He said, in theory, that the West Indies Chris Gayle (a left handed batsmen) could walk out onto the field and take up his stance right handed which means that the bowler/fielding side are already at a disadvantage because they have set a field to a left handed batsmen, so instead of having two slips and a gully they now have two leg slips and a leg gully which is a major disadvantage for the bowling team - but they know he is left handed so do you change back just in case Gayle changes back? The umpires, if this happens, need to know what to do so that it doesn't become a farce.
When this point was raised in the studio, Nasser Hussain said it the batsmen (Gayle) was going to alter his stance (right handed from left handed) then bowl to that field where the leg slips are but 1) that is defensive and certianly not entertaining cricket (which is what we all want/need) and 2) it reminds (older) people of the bodyline series where England won but not in the spirit that the game is meant to be played in as Dave Cole gets at.
My argument is not against the stroke but the last two rules that are outlined towards the bottom of the page on a cricketing blog posted by Q the umpires need rules helping them if this shot can be played, they (and I!) need to know the rules and regulations on wides and LBW's (leg before wicket's).
As Q explains:
A ball that pitches outside the line of leg stump rules out the LBW. But then what about the ball that pitches outside the line of leg stump, which becomes the off stump when he batsman switches?
That should not rule out the LBW.
And the ball that pitches outside the line of off-stump, which becomes the leg stump when the batsman switches, should also not rule out the LBW.
And wides is another confusing area if this shot is going to be commonplace
A ball delivered down leg is a wide even if it misses the batsman or the stumps by an inch. This is fine, though what happens to deliveries bowled on the off-side, which becomes the leg side when a batsman switches?
Surely they should not be wide.
But then deliveries bowled down leg side, which becomes the off-side when a batsman switches, should also not be wide.
Another person that focuses on the fairness, so to speak, of the shot is blogofbam
Whatever happens, it is yet another time of Cricket being sprawled through the mud and another reason for people like this one guy who e-mailed in skysports news channel today to describe it as being "boring" and "pointless." I'm with blogofbam though in the way that I am (of sorts) a purist and this is making my view any purer.
No comments:
Post a Comment