Why aren't more bowlers complaining about the switch hit?
The stroke is patently unfair and widens the imbalance between bat and ball
May 20, 2012
In my playing days I believed many Englishmen used to unnecessarily
complicate what was meant to be a reasonably simple game. It looks like
that habit has now spread.
I can't imagine a more complicated solution to control the switch-hit phenomenon than what the ICC is considering.
Complex changes to the lbw law regarding what is a batsman's leg side
and analysis of the risk-reward ratio of the shot to see if it
disadvantages the bowler are two such proposals. Without watching
another ball bowled, I can tell you the answer to the second suggestion:
the switch hit is patently unfair to bowlers.
If a bowler, having already told the batsman (via the umpire) how he's
going to propel the ball, places his field for a right-hander and ends
up delivering to a left-hander, how can that be fair? It's possible to
reach a more equitable arrangement dealing with the mafia.
One of the critical duties of an administrator is to ensure the contest
between bat and ball remains balanced, like an evenly weighted see-saw.
The switch hit is a hefty dad on one end with his five-year-old son,
feet dangling in mid-air, on the other.
A simple law that states, "Having taken up his stance, a batsman may not
change the order of his feet or hands in playing a shot", would ensure
balance is restored.
With the fielding positions still effective, let the batsman play the
reverse sweep, the scoop or whatever other innovative premeditated shot
he dreams up and any self-respecting bowler will feel the odds are in
his favour. The reverse sweep does not defy the proposed law above
because the top and bottom hands remain exactly that on the handle.
If the ICC wants real proof of any disadvantage then let the bowler not
have to tell the batsman from which side of the wicket he's going to
deliver. When the bowler swaps from over to round at his pleasure, see
how long it is before batsmen are bleating. In fact, the umpires would
probably be the first to call for a truce.
In addition to disadvantaging the bowlers, the switch hit could unfairly
help the batting side win a tight Test match. By swapping at the last
moment, a batsman could induce a no-ball under the maximum-two-fieldsmen
behind-square-leg law to gain victory without hitting the ball or the
bowler knowingly doing anything illegal.
One of the critical duties of an administrator is to ensure the contest between bat and ball remains balanced, like an evenly weighted see-saw. The switch hit is a hefty dad on one end with his five year-old son, feet dangling in mid-air, on the other | |||
I've championed the cause of bowlers over the years, as the major
innovators in the game, and I'm staggered they have been so timid in
this debate. Whatever happened to the spirit of those revolutionaries John Willes and Ned Willsher,
both of whom played a role during the 19th century in upgrading bowling
from underarm (via sidearm) to the modern over-arm delivery?
I'm surprised no modern-day bowling revolutionary has tried swapping
alternate deliveries from over and round the wicket until the officials
enquired, "What's your problem?"
As a part-time leggie and a baseball catcher in my younger days, I would
have seriously considered letting a batsman have it with a
well-directed throw if he changed the order of his hands or feet while I
was running in to bowl. I've no doubt Wills and Willsher would adopt
more subtle methods, but I'm sure they would have admired my zeal in
attempting to get my point across.
I'm often told the switch hit should be allowed because it's legal in
baseball. That's nonsensical because in baseball the hitter has to stand
in either the left- or right-hand batter's box, so the pitcher knows
beforehand what he's facing and can adjust his field accordingly. And
late in a close game the opposing manager will call on either a right-
or left-handed pitcher in order to exploit the switch hitter's weaker
side.
There's no doubt the switch hit requires a hell of a lot of skill, and
it's exciting when Kevin Pietersen or David Warner clubs a six while
quickly swapping from one style of batsman to another. Skilful yes, fair
on the bowlers no, and it's the approval of such imbalances between bat
and ball that can lead to things like chucking and ball-tampering, or
at the very least on-field animosity.