That Pietersen shot...
- Thread starter Teaboy
- Start date
advancing up the wicket doesn't change offside and onside though, this therefore doesn't impact on other laws in quite the same way.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Oh, for sure: I was thinking of the impact on the bowler, who is arguably "put off" in the way that the batsman would be if the field changed.
the button
out on the kocker
I'm thinking of any close fielders on the leg side, who might suddenly find themselves in a far more dangerous position without the option of calling for a helmet. 
felixthecat
are we there yet?
I'm thinking of any close fielders on the leg side, who might suddenly find themselves in a far more dangerous position without the option of calling for a helmet.
THat came to my mind too!
That would be covered by current laws which legislate against (and I'm paraphrasing here) people acting like cunts.I'm thinking of any close fielders on the leg side, who might suddenly find themselves in a far more dangerous position without the option of calling for a helmet.
Ultimately I think whether this is made illegal is going to come down to whether it gives the batsman - and I mean any decently talented batsman - an unfair advantage. If it could be demonstrated that switching stance tends to favour the batsman then it should be banned, or at least restricted in some way; but if it turns out that switching stance is a massive gamble and tends to get batsmen bowled or caught, then it seems to me that it should be allowed.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Another issue is that KP did it against a slow-medium bowler. But what happens against a spinner? The batsman has for more time to change his stance and will therefore gain more of an advantage. If it proves successful and more batsmen practice the shot, as im sure is already happening up and down the country, then it could become seen as being far more than just a slog shot for 6, and instead an integral piece of a batsmans strokeplay.
There's nothing to say you have to hit the ball for 6 when playing that shot and if players use it on a semi-regular basis to nudge one's and two's it would, in my view, make a mockery of the game.
There's nothing to say you have to hit the ball for 6 when playing that shot and if players use it on a semi-regular basis to nudge one's and two's it would, in my view, make a mockery of the game.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
So that basically means nothing will be changed??
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Just heard the bowler that Pietersen did that shot against speak, even he says there's no problem with it.
Most batsmen, even at the highest level, will do well to get their hands and feet in position ITFP never mind score any runs.
There may well be a fad for it in club cricket for a while but it's a ridiculously risky shot and more times than not will probably result in them losing their wicket, embarrassingly.
I don't think it can be stressed enough how difficult a shot Pietersen played, he said himself he expected to fuck it up and get out. The bowlers and their skippers should be practically encouraging it.
ICC/MCC et al should be thinking about more serious stuff like ensuring Test cricket isn't left in the wilderness in the face of Stanford Billionaire T20 bollocks etc.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I would think that it has to be allowed, but that leg/off sides should be fixed from the moment the bowler's run up begins.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
What in theory would stop a right-handed player always lining up left-handed then switching during the run-up?
I would think about declaring symmetry with the leg/off sides, in the bowler's favour. So they can't bowl a tight 'leg-side' wide down either side, can get an LBW pitching outside the stumps either way *. That way the batsman cannot derive any unfair advantage.
* and can operate with two or less men behind square on any one side.
Dirty Martini
gets what he cant want
That sums it up for me.
And to be fair to Pietersen (and Styris) that ball would have gone for 6 if Pietersen hadn't changed to left-handed.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Easy. If they switch more than 50% of the deliveries they receive, the bowler can appeal and the bastman can be given out.
Red Faction
Allez Les Rouges
i can see why they looked at it
but for me there are 2 main points to consider
1) its a specator sport- and shots like this are awesome, they crowd want to see them
2) its a foolish shot to play- like nixon's reverse sweep, its a premeditated shot rather than playing the best shot for a particular ball, you're playing for the crows.
provided the the bowler bowls a decent ball, you should be fucked
but for me there are 2 main points to consider
1) its a specator sport- and shots like this are awesome, they crowd want to see them
2) its a foolish shot to play- like nixon's reverse sweep, its a premeditated shot rather than playing the best shot for a particular ball, you're playing for the crows.
provided the the bowler bowls a decent ball, you should be fucked
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Yeah just saw that on the news.
The batsman is gambling the ball will be fired in full on leg-stump (to normal guard).
It was shots not shot and it's going to make him a fortune on 20/20. They can't stop shots like this in a game like 20/20. I can understand them being cautious about test matches as bowlers have to declare which arm they will bowl with but as has already been said the reverse sweep is a similar shot.
although completely different as I pointed out.
tbh, don't give a shit if they can't stop it in 20/20, it's a shite game anyway
jugularvein
extra
pietersen has timed this to perfection with lucrative contracts coming up. such an exciting player...
The Black Hand
Unclean
Yes.
Similar threads
