A change always takes a while before it is accepted by those
practicing and observing the activity, but the big debate around the ‘Switch-Hit’
is about its validity and not about its inclusion as a batting shot. (If my memory
serves right) Only Pietersen and Warner have had a try at the ‘controversial’
hit to decent success. Pietersen sort of discovered the shot in 2008; the
cricketing fraternity hasn’t converged upon an assertion regarding the legality
of the shot 4 years later. MCC (custodian of the laws of the game) had endorsed
the shot in 2008 and had reaffirmed that stand 2 months ago, when Warner
executed that hit (in a T20I vs India). If the law-makers are to be believed
the switch hit is an exciting addition to the batting skills.
There have been opposing views and it would be silly to
banish these thoughts without answering them justifiably. The logical
counter-argument is the undue advantage the batsman gets when he attempts to
execute the shot - the LBW will still remain the same for the stance which the
batsman has initially taken. This is a valid argument which challenges the
rules that are followed at the moment for the switch-hit. The logical way out
of this debate could be bringing in LBW as a mode of dismissal. If only the
rules are to be looked at, the switching could have 3 fielders behind the
square - which is normally a no-ball. The MCC has clarified that the rearranged
fielding position won’t merit a no-ball. A couple of thoughts which oppose the
shot are why can’t the bowler do the same - change bowling arm at the time of
delivery or change his delivery side? Or why a fielder cannot change his
position at the time of delivery? An attempt to answer these doubts is made below.
Most often we have seen graphics on TV which suggest that
the ball after delivery takes less than three quarters of a second to reach the
batsman. This time is practically insufficient for a fielder to move himself
from one ‘effective’ position into another; unless he is close to the wicket -
which is treated as an act to disturb the batsman. Hence the laws have
addressed the issue by disallowing the movement of fielders at the time of
delivery. Over to the bowlers argument - to be able to bowl with both hands
decently would need reasonable ability of ambidexterity. We haven’t had any
bowler attempt such a thing (at the international level), but if we get one
that change too should be considered for adoption. Changing delivery sides is
an argument that doesn’t hold practically. The non-striker generally stands at
the other side of the pitch and hence the bowler cannot bang into him! Also the
bowler is entitled to stop from his delivery stride if he finds the batsman
turning his stance, hence removes the element of complaint of helplessness. The
laws also have a provision to not have a wide ball to the off-side of the
reversed stance like a regular leg-side wide.
Innovation is order of the day and new skills should be
appreciated rather than critically examined for its ‘moral’ validity. The laws can
be modified to accommodate the ‘appropriate’ concerns of those opposing this
shot (like including the LBW for either stance). Switching over the stance and
striking the ball within a second is a very tough task and like the MCC has
said it is indeed an exciting addition to the game. The reverse sweep/pull was
and is accepted for it doesn’t ‘morally’ deviate from the framed laws. If you
think practically the switch hit is a subtle variation of the reverse hit. Acceptance
of variations to the century-old skills will take time but taking a rigid
stance against including them in the mainstream would appear archaism. The easy
way to bash the new hit is by saying it is a batsmen’s’ game, but neither the
fans nor the administrators are opposed to innovations with the ball or in the
field, are they?
Comments
Post a Comment