Kevin Pietersen

Let's face it..

it just isn't cricket!</p>

That's probably the reason that phrase was invented.</p>

 

There has to be some rules though or it will become ....

.... a farce .......... what next, the bowler sneaking up behind the umpire to bowl whilst the batsman is taking his guard or having a drink??

Tell you what, lets make the football nets 20 foot high by 30 foot wide as well, do away with offside and play 'goalie when needed', that should entertain the fans

 

Used to play myself.

More bowler than batsman, and I still don't see the issue. Yes, there's the field placings, but as a captain you know the guy tries the shot so you set the field accordingly. It's not as though it's an orthodox cricket shot where he's suddenly dissecting field placings on the onside with a lovely cover drive. It's a slog and it only goes in one direction.

If this shot is banned or deemed to be unsportsmanlike, what happens about standing a foot outside your crease or padding up to leg-spinners etc? And what about a bowler's variations? A slower ball bowled with a fast arm action? The doosra/googly? Reverse swing? It can't all be in their favour.

 

So should FIFA increase the size of the goal in football? And if not, why not? It would make for more entertainment, right? How about scrapping the offside rule?

Not that im drawing direct comparisons, but to some people the idea of altering fundamentals of the game are something that is a non-starter. In cricket the batsman has always 'declared' his stance before the bowler balls. Agreed, there is no rule saying he can't change stances, but to some people it's just not cricket.

If you'll pardon the pun

 

RE: There has to be some rules though or it will become ....

ah beat me to it!

 

RE: Let's face it..

oh, beaten to it twice!

 

RE: Used to play myself.

I think in one day cricket the odds are heavily in the batting teams favour already. Limited overs for the bowlers, no bouncers, limited number of fielders outside the circle, barely no margin for error when it comes to wides etc.. Indeed in the name of entertainment (ie more runs) the batting side has been given those advantages.

I agree, other batting quirks exist which are not disimilar in terms of their intent of ganing an advantage, but they don't alter a fundamental fact in that the game has always been played with the batsman and bowler facing up to each other knowing what hand or stance they are using. That I think is the issue.........

To change that will have many consequences. For instance it needn't be just a slog, because by extention people might will practice playing 'the other way' and use it more and more. Will it be the same game when batsmen are reversing their stance and nudging singles on the other side of the wicket twice an over?

And what about the LBW law? You'd have to bring in a new law to deal with batsmen playing the shot.

Is that cricket anymore?

I'm not sure it is and i'd personally hope the ECB outlaw the shot.

 

I've played too

And don't think it's in the spirit of the game. The umpire for one needs to know if the batsman has adopted a left or a right handed stance. If he does change his stance, do the fielders at slip, gully and backward point become behind square on the leg side and mean the devlivery should be called a no ball ?

I once had the misfortune to play against a very arrogant Kiwi, we were getting stuffed and he thought he would show off while batting by changing from left to right handed, not mid delivery, but before the bowler had started his run up. He also made various comments back to the pavilion about how easy it was and how he was just about to score his tenth 100 of the season. The **** was 98 and facinga new over, and they needed 3 to win, so I came on to bowl and sent down the widest wide for 4 down the leg side leaving laughing boy not out on 98 - and he got the right hump about it

 

I think he should have to tell the field where he's going to hit it too

It's so unfair these batsmen scoring runs.

 

LBW

I think that the shot should not be outlawed but that the LBW rule should be worded to avoid ambiguity. The wording should reflect that the leg side and off side should apply to the batsman in his declared stance. Therefore when he switches stance he can be LBW to a ball that effectively pitches outside leg. This makes the shot much riskier.

 

Trust you not to understand

You're probably the type who would turn up to play cricket wearing a pair of trainers

 

I think the chances are pretty slim

of me ever turning up to play a game of cricket.

 

RE: LBW

and would it still be a no-ball if you had, for instance, 2 slips and a gulley and the batsmen changes stance?

 

Great minds .... and all that! nt

 

Fair points.

But I would still argue that it's a fair shot. The trigger movement is early, so the bowler should be entitled to pull out of his delivery or, as happens when you spot the charge early, alter the length/direction. It won't take long before bowlers spot the trigger movement and fire a quick one in at the legs. It'll get him out more often than it gets him runs and will probably be left out of his repertoire once it's sussed.

It's an interesting debate, but as a former quickie I'd be happy to see someone trying that shot against me. As you say, spinners and mediums might have an issue, but they also have more time to pull out/change the delivery too.

 

Hopefully No Rule Will Be Changed

Our best batsman should not be punished with a rule change, simply because he's more innovative then everyone else with the shots he plays.

 

No

As the stance is declared before hand (ditto leg side wides).

 

RE: Fair points.

I agree, it's a great shot and fantastic to watch, but call me a traditionalist (which I am!), but I don't think one of the game's fundamental 'natural laws' should be fiddled with to allow this shot to be made legal.

It's not that i think it wouldn't make the game better or more exciting - it's just that you're essentially changing the entire essence of the game and over the years people would begin to use the change in stance in many different ways that minimize risks whilst still making it advantageous to play.

Mind you, im against all replays and think the game should be left entirely to the umpires, so you can see where im coming from on this........

 

MCC deems KP's shot lawful...........

so there you go.

 

It was sheer class, he brought the whole stadium to its feet, I was out of my seat. Next we will be moaning that bowlers disguies their deliveries and the poor batsman cant read how the ball is coming at them so they need a rule change .....