Was Pietersen right to sweep?

When The Times "thunders" on a subject in its leader column, the world pays notice. Or that's the way it should work, anyway. So since the Editor of The Times has decided that one of the three topics to thunder about in today's paper is Kevin Pietersen's reverse-slog-swept six against New Zealand (third in importance only behind the environment and the Lisbon treaty), it is to be hoped that the MCC and ICC members read carefully and follow our advice. Mike Atherton has some useful views, too.

Is it really "not cricket" for a batsman to change his stance as a bowler runs in and play a shot left-handed when he is a natural righty? Or is it just a bold and slightly risky move that could as easily leave the batsman with egg on his face? And if a reverse-slog-sweep is banned, then why not ban a standard  reverse sweep? Or why not disallow batsmen the right to come down the pitch to a bowler he fancies hitting? Why not ban foot movement altogether?

Yes, there are some grey areas about whether the lbw law about not being out if the ball pitches outside leg stump is still valid if effectively the leg stump becomes the off. Personally, I feel that is a law that needs amending in any case. I've never worked out why, if the ball is likely to hit the stumps, the batsmen gets a life if they play it with their legs outside the leg stump but not outside off.

Some people, generally bowlers, also complain that bowlers are not allowed to switch which arm they use to bowl without telling the batsmen. Well, why not alter that law and allow bowlers to decide which arm they bowl with as they run in? After all, they can decide on the spur of the moment whether to bowl fast or slow, spin it or not, pitch it short or full. Let them bowl ambidextrously if they have the skill.

But please don't stifle creativity. After all, even the New Zealand captain, Daniel Vettori, praised Pietersen for his innovation, saying it was good for the game. But what do you think? Have a vote and click on comments below to add any thoughts.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Comments

[Som]

I needed an entire post to give vent to my anger.

My problem is not with the shot, or any shot for that matter. I’m appalled by the sheer readiness of the MCC and ICC to play to the gallery and the absolute marginalization of the other, equally important, protagonist of the bat-ball drama. Beneath the haze, cricket is essentially an exercise where bowler initiates the action and the batsman merely reacts. But unfortunately, those who run the game are hell bent to make it a complete mismatch pitting the author-backed batsman against a no-hoper bowler.

The only plausible logic put forward by the MCC eggheads was that it adds to entertainment. So does recreational drugs and I've Mohd Asif to vouch for that. So?

My sneaking suspicion is MCC’s decision to pander to the hoi polloi stems from its fear of redundancy. After all, cricket’s toothless watchdog is as relevant to the game as UN is to America’s foreign policy.

[Jonno Saunders]

I think it's ridiculous there's even a debate about this. The 'switch-shot' is in no way illegal, it's just not straight out of the coaching manual. I don't think there'd be anything wrong with holding the blade and hitting boundaries with the handle of the bat - it's the same difference. The shot is done at Pieterson's own risk - if he missed it he'd look like a total idiot in front of thousands of people.
However, the LBW and wide laws should apply to whatever stance the batsman has adopted when the bowler runs in to bowl.

[Tony Greenman]

I read with interest Michael Atherton this morning (19 June). Michael Holding is right, though I cannot see any right handed batsman daring to set up as a left hander against him then turning to the proper right handed form. It is blindingly obvious what would happen next, and I would suugest to that batsman he gets the name of Daniel Flynn's dentist!! Nonetheless it is a point well made and in fact as an MCC member I wrote to the laws committee exactly about this point on 18 June. I hope they will rightly consider it. I do not believe the shot should be outlawed, but batsmen are going to push the boundaries and practice all sorts of variaions of the shot. The laws committee neeeds to think hard and sensibly as to what the longer term implications are for this practice, and then set the laws - it is no good passing a law now that needs changing in two seasons time. At the moment things are best left as they are - imperfect as they are - until all the issues can be considered and dealt with properly. The only concession I would now do is to instruct umpires on the leg before issue, and as others have said, the easiest solution is that the ball can pitch outside of the stump line, even if that is deemed to be 'outside a leg stump'.

[Richard West]

Well well, what really sad times to play sport. Although I have not studied completely the rules of cricket or any other sport for that matter I am unaware of rules for example covering hitting a cricket ball, kicking a football or playing a tennis shot. Surely such matters are confined to coaching manuals and form no part of the rules of the game. I certainly agree with other comments made relating to bowlers and should we not therefore insist a bowler informs the batsman before starting to deliver the ball whether or not it will be a bouncer, off side / leg side delivery etc. As for unfair advantage when the fielding captains painstakingly sets a predominately offside field and the bowler delivers a wild leg side ball which is dispatched for six should this be called a no ball? No leave the Twenty 20 matches alone and allow innovation, these are games for entertainment noit the purist. Incidentally as a Kent supporter I admired Rob Key's French cricket style flip over the head for a boundary in a game last week.

[John Enderby]

Personally, as a fan of cricket and a dabbler at the game, I think that Kevin Pietersen has every right to "switch-hit". It is a weapon in the batsman's armoury that can give them an advantage over the bowler. Would we arguing to ban dunking in the NBA because certain players can't do it? Would we argue that Tiger Woods should be banned from playing his "stinger" shot, a shot that he and very few others can play? No. These are abilities that the athlete has worked at to be better than his/her competitors. That is the evolution of sport and makes games more interesting and entertaining, without this we would never see new records and exciting developments. If we ban Pietersen's "switch-hitting" we are effectively saying individuality and ingenuity are not welcomed in sport.

[Peter McGuinness]

The truth is that it's not a 'reverse sweep', which is (assuming a right handed batsman) still played with a right-handed grip, but as a 'crossed-over' left handed shot.

Figjam was playing genuine left handed shots. Fantastic stuff. Far more entertaining and effective than the previous Pommy fixation (especially amongst wicketkeepers for some reason) with the noodling bollocks of reverse sweeping - which you may remember cost England a World Cup in '87.

Good enough bowlers and captains will counter it. If not, they'll be punished by terrific skill and innovation. Simple as that.

As long as LBW and wide laws are policed as per whichever stance (right or left handed) the shot is played, then fair enough. The only question mark is the issue of fairness in field placement, 3 behind square etc...

But I guess you can't cover everything. Let's face it, there won't be too many blokes capable of playing it effectively, and the stunning spectacle of NZ medium/slow bowling is not showcased in every match either.

It's not a problem, really.

[Ashish]

If this change was done by a non English Player it would have been banned by now.

[Bill Monkau]

A qualified umpire, I would imagine applying the Law for a left handed batsman in Pietersen's case. Just to balance the batsman's liberty against the bowler's strategy. At the same time allowing the bowler a kind of insurance providing indemnity against Penalty for a Wide.

Bill Monkau
Middelburg
Netherlands

[Jubin Chheda]

With T20 taking over the world, the 'ban-this, block-that' outlook is all but going to shut the F50 and Test cricket into the 'Dark Ages'. The slogs and smashes are part of the game. If it brings more audience and players to the game, what's the problem?

[shandar hasan]

it should be banned only on one condition if icc bans the fast bowlers of bowling a slow ball or an off spinner a dosra i mean its just insane that we are even talkin about it if its right or wrong rather than acknowledging a man who has invented something quite remarkable and outsatanding

[Dan]

This comes with a grain of salt, as I am new to the world of cricket; but, I'd suggest dropping the bowler's requirement to notify, or adding a requirement to the batsman to notify. As others have mentioned elsewhere, freshening up the LBW rules may be part-and-parcel with this discussion. (I know what LBW is, but I couldn't positively identify one from a police line-up, myself.) I'll leave that to The Wise to determine.

Why not ban anyone who bowls yorkers? Or anyone who is good at hook shots?

[MARK HANNAY]

oh no! kids up and down the land are putting down their xboxs and arguing over who is going to be KP in their garden/school yard/changing room/corridor cricket. The result being a whole crop of KPs in 5-15 years time wearing the 3 lions and reigning supreme in all forms of cricket form bish bash bosh 20/20 to the test arena - we wouldnt want that would we oh no !

[Johnmc]

I've said for years that batsmen should not be able to move their feet. I would also ban spinners and anyone who can bowl a bit sharpish. It would make the game far easier to play