Pietersen’s left turn is not right for cricket

So, maybe we should start putting this in the rules as well; that if a player is brought down, intentionally or otherwise, and as a result of the act he cannot complete a run, the ball becomes dead; assuming of course that a catch wasn’t being taken somewhere else at the same time. (I can see other implications here: what if it is the last ball with one to win and you bring the batsman down? This argument is more about the spirit than about the letter of the law!)

I also believe the ICC needs to take a very firm view on switch-hitting. When the MCC, the guardians of the law and the spirit of the game (and surely that has to be wrong—it has to be the ICC, not the MCC), say it is okay for Kevin Pietersen to change his grip, and effectively become a left hander, they are letting the bowler down. And lest we forget, for we do so too often, the bowler is an equal shareholder in the game of cricket. At the heart of our game lies the contest between bat and ball and when that is imperiled, the game is imperiled.

There are rules to bowling and batting. When the bowler delivers a ball he is presenting the batsman with a challenge. The basis of this challenge, which can never change, is the line and length he has chosen and the field he has set. These are the cards he holds. The batsman now has to respond to this challenge by offering a shot. If the field is moved in the process of the ball reaching the batsman, it is unfair on him because the goalposts are being moved, the challenge is being amended, without him being aware of it. That is why it is against the spirit of the game to do it. So, just as the batsman enjoys the security of a fixed challenge, so must the bowler. If the batsman alters the foundation on which the challenge has been presented to him, he is wrong and he must be stopped.

That is why a right-handed batsman must remain a right-handed batsman. If he becomes a left-handed batsman after the ball has been delivered, he is conning the bowler and because the bowler delivers his cards first, he has no comeback. That is unfair and undermines the very foundation of cricket, which is a fair contest between bowler and batsman given identical conditions for both. Indeed, I will go so far as to say it is immoral. Admittedly, it requires an extraordinary level of skill to switch hands in such a short while and still hit the ball for six, but then extraordinary skill doesn’t make things lawful. We would have to legalise pickpocketing otherwise.

To allow switch-hitting, we must allow the fielders to change positions after the ball has been bowled, allow the bowler to go over or round the wicket and to bowl right- or left-handed without informing the umpire or the batsman. This list could get longer. The easier, simpler and more honourable way is to preserve the sanctity of the challenge; the bowler sets his field and chooses line and length, the batsman responds and nothing changes in between.