Revolutionary batting styles adds spice to the gameplan

by Trevor Chesterfield

How often over the years have you heard the phrase, that if the law is an ass, it is time to change it?

india train

Apart from maligning, the poor animal known by as the ‘beast of burden’ – or the domesticated donkey – it has been repeated often enough. Yet any reason to change any law in question needs careful examination, not just a cursory glance, as some would prefer.

It is often when there is confusion over what is legal and what is not under the laws of cricket that frequently creates doubt among even the most astute of analysts. A glaring example of this occurred at Trent Bridge, Nottingham in the Angelo Mathews fielding incident last week that was quickly sorted out on the field, although this did require television technology to pass on the correct outcome from the third umpire to bowler umpire, in this case Billy Bowden.

This particular incident, and the accuracy of Nigel Long’s interpretation of the two laws involved, questioned as it has been by letter comments in some English media, explains why such incidents are over magnified to create a wrong impression and lead to unjustified controversy.

But it does suggest how the Marylebone Cricket Club has long moved from its fusty image and into the 21st century, understanding how the

legacy burden which current lawmakers at the MCC have had to suffer. This is because of those who ran the game as an old boys club from the inception of the International Cricket Council in 1912, until it was challenged in the late 1970s over the Kerry Packer banning of players and the restraint of trade issue.

Yet it is a question of the law, which has Ian Chappell, a former Australian captain and now television commentator an unhappy chappie over the switch-hit. His argument is that as the bowler is indicating what he is bowling, the batsman has no right changing his stance from being a right to lefthander or from a lefthander to that of a righthanded batsman. It is a simplistic view but to suggest it is illegal is arguing over a law that doesn’t exist, which means you cannot change it.

In Galle last year, while watching Virender Sehwag plunder that brilliant double century against Sri Lanka, views as well as interpretation of the switch hit were tossed around during a casual conversation. It is my opinion there is nothing wrong with it, but a Sri Lankan commentator at the time, Ranjit Fernando, suggested that had it been attempted by an Asian batsman it would have been ruled illegal. It is a view, which is hard to adgree with, no matter who uses it, the innovative thought behind it, as well as the practice to get it right is inventive enough.

No where in the laws of the game does it refer to left or right and batsmen, or their stance; only a bowler’s action is described to explain what is a fair or not a fair delivery.

There is argument here, but the MCC commented how in their view the switch-hit used by Kevin Pietersen is legal; as much as it would be had Sanath Jayasuriya, Kumar Sangakkara or Sachin Tendulkar first applied it. It is as smart a tactic as is the application by Tillekeratne Dilshan batting of the scoop shot which is an extension of the Doug Marillier scoop shot that had its seed planted by former Zimbabwe captain and coach Dave Houghton.

Marillier held the bat parallel to the pitch with the toe of the bat pointing at the bowler and allowed him to either flick or scoop the ball over the wicketkeeper’s head, which is a different action to that used by Dilshan, although the method of application is similar. It could be argued how Dilshan’s smart revolutionary tactic is an extension of the original Marillier flick, but he has refined it and it has become a more sophisticated stroke.

Just as has Pietersen’s other fancy trick, the flamingo shot earned runs and added style to his repertoire: this is a part leg-glance part drive effort that had one commentator referring to it as a ‘cross-court flick,’ with the batsman standing on one leg, hence the term flamingo. Effective it is, ungainly . . ? Well that is a matter of opinion.

It is up to the fielding captain, the bowler and a streetwise bowling coach to find ways to get around such a new batting fad. It does explain how, in the modern game with focus on the short showbiz brand, the ICC World Twenty20 series now in England, and the 50/50 game, innovation is needed to overcome improved fielding standards and bowling skills.

Anyway, in September1988, when Bob Woolmer was one of several coaches at what they now call the South African high performance academy centre in Pretoria, he was in charge of the batting clinics of a four-day camp of skilled young players. It had such future international worthies as Jonty Rhodes, Andrew Hudson, Mike Rindel, Daryll Cullinan, Hansie Cronjé and Adrian Kuiper among others in the squad.

Bob was displaying the use and effectiveness of the reverse sweep as he had observed being employed by Pakistan’s Mushtaq Mohammed when they were still playing in the 1970s.

It is argued how Mushtaq’s brother, the great Hanif, first played this particular stroke as a way to score runs in limited overs internationals as their popularity grew in the pre-Packer era. Bob was not shy to admit how he had watched Mushtaq play the reverse sweep and its run-making qualities, making it popular during his first spell as coach of Warwickshire and for others to copy.

Innovative strokeplay, as much as a bowler learning new tricks to fool the batsmen is a natural part of the game’s progress. The theory here is of the game is that it is becoming more vibrant each passing year. To remain competitive at international level, there is a need to keep changing for the good of the side of which you are a member, as it helps develop ideas.

Note: Prior permission has sought from the author before republication of the above article.

ICC World Twenty20: Why Did India Crash out?