Skip to main content

Switch Hit or Switch Thoughts?


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

Popular posts from this blog

Should Cricket Embrace The 5 Rings?

Another glorious edition of the Olympics goes into the sunset. A couple of weeks that showcased the best athletes compete for the ultimate glory, an event that exhibited disappointment, defeat, joy, pride, victory, glory and a portrait that had participation from 204 nations! A rich history, a massive platform, unparalleled glory and probably the biggest show sports can offer, makes an Olympic Games edition stand out. Ardent cricket fans/followers would feel left out from this marquee sports event. Unlike Motorsports, Cricket is a recognized by the International Olympic Committee. Though cricket wasn’t an outright success in multi-sport models previously, times have changed and today cricket has its T20 avatar to offer for such events. The ICC has 105 countries as its recognized members, spanning continents and covering most of the globe.

Adieu Rahul Dravid

It could have been timed better, it could have come a little later, it could have been better celebrated but the retirement was always going to come some day. It is easier said than fathomed - the Indian test side without Dravid! The news on first instance was a moment of disbelief, followed by a moment of daze before logic struck saying that it had to come and the moment had indeed arrived. Dravid was never a glamorous character on or off the field, more of a thorough gentleman commanding respect from all quarters. His announcement was synonymous with his usual self - calm, composed, dignified and non-fussy. Dravid was, is and will always be remembered as a role model for his conduct, dignity, selflessness  on the cricket field & off it  along-with his technically impeccable batting. On the global scene the game has lost one of its modern-day great and an all-time legend. The clock was ticking for Dravid much before, but an exceptional tour of England postponed this event (

More Than Just An Aberrational Dip

As the team’s head to London for the final test of the series, 2-1 is not an unimagined scoreline at the beginning of the tour and in most ways is a fair reflection of superior execution of skills. The nuances though have a different story to tell - some of England's top performers of this series have emphatically over-achieved (given form and/or ability), while those rated highly in the visitor's camp have grossly under-performed. The form or the lack of it, of two young, promising Indian batsmen has been a source of pronounced scrutiny, disappointment & poor form for the batting unit. While Pujara's problems are restricted to lack of conversion, Kohli is struggling to even getting to that stage. Yes the openers have failed consistently and the lower middle order hasn't provided that assuring cushion, but given Pujara's attributes & Kohli's dream batting form, averages of 25.87 & 13.50 respectively are frustrating for themselves, the team &