Switch Hit - ICC needs to switch its view

No game in the world is the same as it used to be decades before. Time and again, every game, either to suit viewer’s interests or for the betterment of its own self was made to evolve. If a game is played the same way as it was during the time of our fore fathers, then it would create nothing but boredom. Let us take for cricket instance. The popularity of cricket in India cannot be attributed to five days of Test cricket. Although it is the original form of cricket, but in the modern world where people are busy with their frenetic lifestyles, it is not possible for them to spend five days enjoying a format which may or may not yield a result in the end. Thus, the ODI format really surged the interests of people as the same game which took 5 full days to provide a result, started to yield results in just eight hours’ time.

Over a period of time, when England first introduced the T20 version of cricket, which is the most abridged form of ODIs, the viewers’ interest in the game multiplied to a large extent. T20s eventually brought about an evolution in the batting styles of many cricketers. The whole thing proved that – people are attracted to the changes brought about in cricket.

If such is the case, is there any logic in appealing against the Switch Hit? A Switch Hit is an innovative shot which was first introduced and perfected by none other than England batsmen, Kevin Pietersen. The shot earned its name as Switch Hit because a batsman switches his stance and hits the ball by altering his grip of the bat i.e. from right-handed to left-handed or vice versa. Perhaps Pietersen is ambidextrous, thus, he has learnt to play such a unique shot that was never attempted by any cricketer before.

But instead of appreciating such a shot, the umpires warned him against playing it when he used it in the recently concluded Test series in Sri Lanka. When Kevin Pietersen is at the crease, the spectators are looking forward to see him play that shot. The shot has become very popular in the modern day’s game and so why can’t the ICC approve of it?

If you are a fast bowler, you are expected to bowl at a pace of 150 kmph. But nowadays, the fast bowlers are seen bowling different varieties of deliveries. They bring variations by bowling slower balls, off spinners or for that matter even leg cutters as surprise weapon to fox the batsman. But, nobody has ever questioned the usage of such deliveries. No one has ever questioned a fast bowler telling him that “You are supposed to be a bowler who bowls fast, you cannot use slower balls while you are bowling”. When that is the case, I would like to know as to why a batsman alone should be questioned for playing a shot like the Switch Hit.

In fact, there should be some sort of relaxation given to the batsman as compared to the bowlers. This is because a batsman has only one life whereas a bowler has too many lives. When a bowler bowls, he might get hit for 6 continuous sixes but still can get a wicket of the same batsman in his next over. So, when there are relaxations of bowling different varieties of deliveries are given to the bowlers, batsmen also should enjoy such sort of privileges.

Of all the innovative shots in cricket, the Switch Hit looks to be the most difficult of them. If you compare a reverse sweep with a switch hit, the latter is by far the most difficult. When a batsman hits the reverse sweep, he does not change the grip as such. Instead, he just rotates the bat in a different direction and plays a normal sweep shot in the reverse direction. Whereas in case of a switch hit, if the batsman is say, right-handed, he is required not only to rotate the bat in the opposite direction but also has to change the grip so as to look like a normal left-handed playing the shot. So, the time taken for committing to a switch hit is more than the time taken before committing for a reverse sweep. There are also certain innovative shots like late cut, upper cut, Dil Scoop, Vil Scoop and so on and for all such shots, a batsman has to adjust very little before executing them and so they are all much easier to play as compared to the Switch Hit.

So, by playing a shot like Switch Hit, a batsman is not doing any favours to himself as the risk of him getting out is very much on the higher side. One small mistake while playing the Switch Hit can be disastrous for the batsman. This shot is not going to give any undue advantage for the batsman, and on the contrary, the chances of him getting out are very high. Therefore, there shouldn’t be any hues and cries against playing this shot.

Besides, when other innovative shots are allowed to be played, like the ones mentioned above, the question arises – Why this shot alone should be stopped? If cricketers were told not to play shots such as reverse sweeps, Upper Cut at the initial stages, then no one would have attempted to bring new innovations in the game.

First of all, one should understand what cricket is all about. It is about either scoring runs or taking wickets and so however those two prime things are achieved, so be it. Not all players are gifted like Sachin Tendulkar or Brian Lara, who can accumulate runs through proper cricketing shots. So, for the rest of the lot who are not so talented, playing such shots should not be considered a taboo.

Whatever shots cricketers are playing these days were not there in the text book of the game when the game was invented. It was only after players began playing those shots, they hit the pages of the text book. So, instead of stopping a batsman from playing shots in his own way, ICC could encourage them to play those innovative shots.

I feel Pietersen’s Switch Hit should be made legal as only such things will raise the interests in the game which otherwise would be monotonous, to say the least.