If a batsman can play a reverse sweep then

[MIG]

why not allow bowlers to bowl from round or over the wicket without the umpire telling the batsman?

Would make the game really interesting as well - can be tried in 20/20 - why not?

[india_fan]

Sorry, but your point is too vague. How exactly will it benefit the bowler ?

[purplehaze]

But where would the batsman at umpire's end would stand?
Mind you- bowler can bowl close to stump or may choose to bowl wide from crease, so perhaps he surely won't like non-striker batsman coming his way...

[MIG]

Think about it - the bowler starts his run up gets closer to the umpire, then cuts right accross and bowls from the other side of the umpire, adding a little bit of uncertainity for the batsmen.

[MIG]

Actually, this was a point made by Graham Gooch after Pieterson hit 2 left handed sixes today against NZ.

[purplehaze]

Originally Posted by MIG Think about it - the bowler starts his run up gets closer to the umpire, then cuts right accross and bowls from the other side of the umpire, adding a little bit of uncertainity for the batsmen.

Bhai, how are you making sure that batsman at non-striker end won't come in bowler's way?

[12thMan]

If batsman changes the stance then both sides should be treated as off side. Ball can pitch on legside (whichever side it is) and can be LBW. Wide ball will be wider on both sides

Bowlers cannot change the bowling arm, though I haven't seen a player who can bowl with both arms.

Fielders cannot move, like one going from 1st slip to leg slip, when batsman is ready and bowler starts his runup

[purplehaze]

Grounds would smaller side screens would face lot of trouble with this as well...

[sy]

The bowler's equivalent of reverse sweeping I would imagine is bowling with the left hand (for a right-armer) and not changing the side of which you bowl from. The problem with changing which side your running in from, would be that you would end up running into the non-striker.

[Farhad]

MIG

Cricket is now so much of a batsman's game that you may be sued for blasphemy by ICC for making such a suggestion!

[india_fan]

MIG, your suggestion is virtually impossible for pace bowler. You cannot have a pace running in at his full stretch and change sides because that would just break his rhythm, no ?

[MIG]

Originally Posted by purplehaze Bhai, how are you making sure that batsman at non-striker end won't come in bowler's way?

Good point

Why not make it the non strikers responsibility to watch out for the bowler?

[MIG]

Originally Posted by india_fan MIG, your suggestion is virtually impossible for pace bowler. You cannot have a pace running in at his full stretch and change sides because that would just break his rhythm, no ?

I know yaar but I just dont like the idea of the batsman just doing what he feels like while the bowler just runs in like a dumb servant in a straight line !

[india_fan]

Originally Posted by MIG I know yaar but I just dont like the idea of the batsman just doing what he feels like while the bowler just runs in like a dumb servant in a straight line !

Picture this..... Pace bowler runs in like there is no tomorrow and eventually bowls an underarm. What would be the batsman's reaction to that

[MIG]

Think the Aussies know about that one....

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by india_fan MIG, your suggestion is virtually impossible for pace bowler. You cannot have a pace running in at his full stretch and change sides because that would just break his rhythm, no ?

That is why two bowlers will run in and one will bowl. But which one

[Ralync]

Originally Posted by 12thMan That is why two bowlers will run in and one will bowl. But which one

That would be hilarious.

[purplehaze]

Originally Posted by 12thMan That is why two bowlers will run in and one will bowl. But which one

and perhaps there will be a dedicated keeper to each bowler

[The WagonWheel]

Good point - but very difficult to implement. In order to make it even - I'd rather want a keeper be allowed to walk down stealthily to the stumps while the bowler is running in.

[Taurus]

It's all well and good asking such a question in theory but it is unworkable de facto because of the numerous problems out-lined above. I've always thought that a bowler should be grateful to see a batsman reverse-sweeping aerially anyway - it's a high-risk shot against the angle of the ball into the (usually) more heavily populated off-side. It was noticeable also today that Scott Styris's two balls that vanished for six would have been leg-side wides anyway, so why complain about the bowlers being treated with such disdain when they wouldn't have to suffer such a fate if they could actually land the ball in the right areas? I personally find it quite galling to hear an intelligent and likeable man like Michael Holding blathering on nonsensically about such issues without considering the numerous pit-falls of 'equality' between batsman and bowler.

To talk about such things in consideration of only a number of freaks in world cricket who are capable of playing such a shot is sheer lunacy anyway.

[india_fan]

Originally Posted by 12thMan That is why two bowlers will run in and one will bowl. But which one

..how about

2 bowlers bowling at the same time but from different ends and to different batsmen (to striker and non-striker.... well in this case there will be no non-striker)

2 innings in an ODI will be done in a span of current 1 innings in ODI

[Savak]

Guys playing a reversesweep is not easy anyway, if the bowler has common sense, fire in a faster one. Someone did this in our school match once, we had this guy who was an Afridi style bowler, he got reverse swept for a 4, the guy he was bowling too had a reputation of beeing a good reversesweeper, next over he tried it again, our guy spotted it and immediately fired a faster one, and clean bowled, stumps uprooted, very funny dismissal and ugly as well. Batsman was embarrassed while we

[SameerM]

a reverse sweep is just like playing any shot!

if a player can pull well, does it justify a call to use mangoes as the ball, so it cant bounce??

Gooch is ill.. send him to the hospital with his designer white jacket

[Amir]

To me switchign left to right or vice versa is not the same as a reverse sweep. I don't think batsmen should be allowed to switch their stancce from right to left like Pietersen did today. However I do think they should be allowed to play the reverse sweep.

The best way to instill this rule is that a player cannot switch his batting grip once he has taken his stance. And hence, this will allow him to play the reverse sweep as the batsmen will not need to switch his grip.

[Oxy]

Also - when KP played that shot.

Offside become legside......legside became offside.

Square leg umpire became umpire at point!

Also - isnt there are rule governing how many fielders you can have on leg side - so that also became disrupted.

Michael Holding made a big issue about this - said it had been discussed by ICC - and that he couldnt reveal much more than that.

[12thMan]

I think they should treat both sides as off side if player switches. The bowler should be able to bowl a foot away (or regular distance for offside) on both sides And if ball pitches outside the legstump it can be LBW

[lollol]

I can see munaf patel doing this

He really has this strange runup, where he moves sideways in his last step

[Easa]

The thing is, cricket is all about magical things like that... it was an unbelievably majestic shot that not many batsman (if any) can play

I'm all for it

[lollol]

Im with colin croft and co...

This shouldnt be allowed, its unfair to the bowler!!

[Easa]

Does anyone have the other reverse.... shot?

[Mohsin]

Originally Posted by Easa Does anyone have the other reverse.... shot?

It was a magnificent reverse shot!

[Megadeth]

Originally Posted by lollol I can see munaf patel doing this He really has this strange runup, where he moves sideways in his last step

munaf can bowl anyway he pleases..as long as it is in his backyard..

[Daoud]

I remember a Pakistan/Sri Lanka match where I think Jayawardene tried a reverse sweep and missed and it was given a wide. Sure it would have been a wide if it were a left hander batting but it was perfectly fine for a right hander. Ian Chappel was on air at the time and while he isnt really a fan of the shot normally, he was pretty disgusted at that decision

[Dhonian]

Ya, if a batsman is skillful enough to pull off a shot like that, only thing that I can think of is that a bowler should bowl with the other arm, if he has the skills.

Or, he can bowl that "magic ball", but then that is just chucking.

[Megadeth]

Originally Posted by Daoud I remember a Pakistan/Sri Lanka match where I think Jayawardene tried a reverse sweep and missed and it was given a wide. Sure it would have been a wide if it were a left hander batting but it was perfectly fine for a right hander. Ian Chappel was on air at the time and while he isnt really a fan of the shot normally, he was pretty disgusted at that decision

yup..agree..umpires must consider the original stance before judging wides when the batsman's playing the reverse sweep..

[Fish]

I dont see how it is unfair to the bowler, he still has the chance to take a wicket like any other ball probably more if the batsman does this. The bowler can change his speed, swing, cut, line or length on any delivery so why the fuss about a batsman changing his grip. Bowlers will now be looking for Pietersen to do this and if smart will have something up thier sleeve when he does. If he had of been dismissed on any of those shots he would have looked silly and Holding would be saying how silly it was for him to do it.

[Big Harvey]

Originally Posted by india_fan Picture this..... Pace bowler runs in like there is no tomorrow and eventually bowls an underarm. What would be the batsman's reaction to that

Underarm bowling is illegal nowadays (except by special agreement before the match), so the batsman would be able to throw his bat at such a delivery with impunity, since it would be called no-ball.

Interestingly, back in the 19th century there used to be fast underarm bowlers. For an idea of the pace that it's possible to generate bowling underarm, check out the Irish sport of road bowling. You'll find plenty of footage of it on You Tube.

DLA Jephson is sometimes (mistakenly) classed as a fast underarm bowler. The confusion comes from the fact that early in his career he used to bowl fast overarm, before developing his trademark underarm lobs, which he used with much more success. He was really more of a batsman than a bowler, but his underarm lobs were formidable enough to give him figures of 6 for 21 in the Gentlemen v Players match at Lord's in 1899, which at the time used to be the most prestigious fixture of the year.

I think it's very sad that underarm bowling is no longer part of the game.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Oxy Also - when KP played that shot. Offside become legside......legside became offside. Square leg umpire became umpire at point! Also - isnt there are rule governing how many fielders you can have on leg side - so that also became disrupted. Michael Holding made a big issue about this - said it had been discussed by ICC - and that he couldnt reveal much more than that.

No it doesn't. Offside remains where it was when the bowler began his run up.

[Farhad]

Gatting was lambasted for killing England hopes playing that shot and perishing against Australia in the '87 WC final.

http://content-pak.cricinfo.com/stat...tch/65117.html



Javed used to play that quite often though - many thought he was the first one to play it properly but some vouchsafed that Kanhai also played that shot sometimes. But definitely in the modern era, Miandad brought that shot to prominence and was an excellent exponent of that stroke.

[Daoud]

Originally Posted by Farhad Gatting was lambasted for killing England hopes playing that shot and perishing against Australia in the '87 WC final. http://content-pak.cricinfo.com/stat...tch/65117.html Javed used to play that quite often though - many thought he was the first one to play it properly but some vouchsafed that Kanhai also played that shot sometimes. But definitely in the modern era, Miandad brought that shot to prominence and was an excellent exponent of that stroke.

Funny enough, Miandad also got out playing the reverse sweep in a WC final but the difference would have been that his dismissal came at a time that it only benefited the team

[Farhad]

Originally Posted by Daoud Funny enough, Miandad also got out playing the reverse sweep in a WC final but the difference would have been that his dismissal came at a time that it only benefited the team

Yah! And that was the only time he tried that shot in the Final. Was indisposed that day though the great man, and still rose to the occasion like a true champion.

[Big Harvey]

Originally Posted by Fish I dont see how it is unfair to the bowler, he still has the chance to take a wicket like any other ball probably more if the batsman does this. The bowler can change his speed, swing, cut, line or length on any delivery so why the fuss about a batsman changing his grip. Bowlers will now be looking for Pietersen to do this and if smart will have something up thier sleeve when he does. If he had of been dismissed on any of those shots he would have looked silly and Holding would be saying how silly it was for him to do it.

I agree. It's morally no different to any other premeditated shot, in my opinion. This one if anything looks easier for the bowler to pick, so I'd imagine that New Zealand's bowlers will already have a plan to deal with it in the next game.

I really like KP as a cricketer, even if he does talk a lot of rubbish. He's always trying something new to give the bowler something to think about and disrupt his rhythm. When he's on form, he takes the art of batting to new, and unexplored heights of innovation.

[12thMan]

It is not a new shot from KP. First time this got visible to world he did it in test vs SL

and if I remember correctly he might have gotten out playing the same shot soon after that

but even that time some commentator later was asking where is the leg side when it comes to LBW. He is now a left handed batsman. The same can be applied to wides.

The shot shouldn't be banned but both sides should be off side if batsman switches.

Is this like a leg slip moving to first slip during bowler runup?

What I think ICC might come up with is that bowlers will stop bowling if they see it early, resulting in dead ball and wasting time.

[12thMan]

The MCC, the guardians of cricket's laws, will discuss the legality of the shots played by Kevin Pietersen during the first ODI against New Zealand at Chester-le-Street when they meet at Lord's on Tuesday. In the course of his matchwinning century, Pietersen twice switched his grip and stance to hit Scott Styris for six, essentially turning from a right to a left-hand batsman, while the bowler was approaching the crease.

A meeting to discuss issues such as grip changes and reverse sweeps had been requested by the ICC last month before yesterday's events....

Daniel Vettori, New Zealand's captain, approved. "It's amazing to see and I think it's really good for the game that batsmen have the skill to do that. The only thing I would say about it is that if you're going to bat left-handed then I think to even it up for the bowlers you should have both sides of the wide line. That would bring your skill into play and the wicketkeeper's skill into play, if a batsman wants to change then it should be fair for both ball and batsmen." ...

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engv...ry/355007.html

[Farhad]

They should not ban it as it stifles innovation.

[rahulrulezz]

Originally Posted by Fish I dont see how it is unfair to the bowler, he still has the chance to take a wicket like any other ball probably more if the batsman does this. The bowler can change his speed, swing, cut, line or length on any delivery so why the fuss about a batsman changing his grip. Bowlers will now be looking for Pietersen to do this and if smart will have something up thier sleeve when he does. If he had of been dismissed on any of those shots he would have looked silly and Holding would be saying how silly it was for him to do it.

Totally Agreee with Fish..i really doubt if there are any other right handed batsmen who can hit the hard as Kevin while reverse sweeping... it is actually easier to get or beat a batsman if he is try to hit the ball after rechanging his position ..jus stick to the offstump line of the original batsman position..there is no way a batsman can hit a fast bowler in that line..

[Amir]

Originally Posted by Big Harvey I agree. It's morally no different to any other premeditated shot, in my opinion. This one if anything looks easier for the bowler to pick, so I'd imagine that New Zealand's bowlers will already have a plan to deal with it in the next game. I really like KP as a cricketer, even if he does talk a lot of rubbish. He's always trying something new to give the bowler something to think about and disrupt his rhythm. When he's on form, he takes the art of batting to new, and unexplored heights of innovation.

Then why can't bowlers switch their bowling hand or come around the wicket without notifying the batsmen? the batsmen has time to notice he is switching, so I guess he can be prepared.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Amir Then why can't bowlers switch their bowling hand or come around the wicket without notifying the batsmen? the batsmen has time to notice he is switching, so I guess he can be prepared.

The bowler needs to notify the umpire which side of the wicket he will bowl from so that leg side rules can be checked and sightscreens set, also the non striker would get in the way.

But the simple fact is the laws do not stop a batsman from changing his stance so it is legal, the laws state the bowler cant change hands so he cant do that without notifying the umpire.

The laws are fair because they apply to both teams equally.

[deathstreak]

I have a doubt. Do you actually have to tell the umpire left arm over or just point out which side you are going to bowl from?
Then an ambidextrous bowler might be lethal.

The batsman should not be allowed to change his grip. But he can play the reverse sweep.

or treat both sides as offside for the batsman.

[deathstreak]

Originally Posted by Fish The bowler needs to notify the umpire which side of the wicket he will bowl from so that leg side rules can be checked and sightscreens set, also the non striker would get in the way. But the simple fact is the laws do not stop a batsman from changing his stance so it is legal, the laws state the bowler cant change hands so he cant do that without notifying the umpire. The laws are fair because they apply to both teams equally.

u answered my question before I asked.
We are more concerned with fairness to both the bowlers and batsmen.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by deathstreak I have a doubt. Do you actually have to tell the umpire left arm over or just point out which side you are going to bowl from? Then an ambidextrous bowler might be lethal. The batsman should not be allowed to change his grip. But he can play the reverse sweep. or treat both sides as offside for the batsman.

I dont understand the problem here, are you suggesting that the batsman gets a unfair advantage from changing his grip.

[india_fan]

I don't get what is the real fuss about changing the grip ? I mean in order to execute this shot, batsman has to pick the right line and length fairly early. I think this is more harder than the actual slog sweep itself.

[Asim2Good]

last year during Eng-Ind series, Greg Chappel also questioned this and said bowlers should be allowed something to benifit from these kinda shots. and said atleast batsmen should not be allowed to change their grip. coz
1 : bowlers are bowling according to their plan to right handers and not to left hander
2 : field is also set for right hander and not left hander. and if batsmen changes the grip and completly becomes left hander then it's complete injustice to fielding side.
3 : also said if batsmen play the rever sweep and ball goes down the leg side (right hander's leg side), then it should not be called wide coz when batsmen changes their stance, it becomes their off side

[Megadeth]

But it isn't easy for a right hand batsman to change stance and grip and negotiate a ball like a left hander..or vice versa ....so it takes tremendous skill to do it..and a high chance that the batsman'll look like a complete dunce unless u are kevin pietersen..

noone seems to care abt how difficult it is to do it... comparing that to a bowler changing to over/round the wicket is unfair= that is easier done

[Big Harvey]

Originally Posted by Amir Then why can't bowlers switch their bowling hand or come around the wicket without notifying the batsmen? the batsmen has time to notice he is switching, so I guess he can be prepared.

That was legislated against years ago. On the other hand, things like underarm bowling and bowling from way behind the crease have also been legislated against fairly recently, neither of which in my opinion were necessary. The laws already in place following the Greg Chappell/ Trevor Chappell underarm incident, banning deliveries that roll along the ground or bounce more than twice would prevent any unsportsmanship associated with either kind of delivery. The thing that seems to have been missed by most people about the whole Greg/Trevor Chappell episode is the fact that that infamous delivery was only unsportsmanlike because the ball was rolled along the ground. The problem was actually not the fact that the delivery was bowled underarm.

[Megadeth]

What is wrong with "bowling from way behind the crease" again??...doesn't it work in the advantage of the batsman cause he has a little more time to see the ball and decide his shot...

[Easa]

Originally Posted by YusufPathan What is wrong with "bowling from way behind the crease" again??...doesn't it work in the advantage of the batsman cause he has a little more time to see the ball and decide his shot...

Its allowed as long as you're still ahead of the umpire while releasing the ball.