‘Worth a debate to work out what’s right’ - Shane Warne slams switch hit, backs Chappell

[MenInG]

Amid India’s tour of Australia, the debate over switch-hitting has heated up after Australian spin legend Shane Warne shared his thoughts. A couple of days ago, former Australian captain Ian Chappell expressed his frustration as Glenn Maxwell foiled the Indian attack with this particular shot.

The former Australian captain had stated that it’s very annoying and extremely unfair when a batter becomes ‘opposite-handed’ and foils the fielding set by the opponent captain. He even went on to urge the International Cricket Council (ICC) to ban this batting style.

And now, Shane Warne has favoured Ian Chappell, stating that although the shot entertains the crowd but also gives the batsman an unfair advantage.

“As a bowler, we have to nominate what hand we’re bowling with, and what side of the wicket we’re bowling with,” Fox Sports quoted Warne as saying on Wednesday.

“I’m setting a field to a right-hand batsman, so now when they switch-hit, I’m actually bowling to a left-hand batsman. I’m not sure I like it. It’s worth a discussion, worth a debate to work out what’s the right thing. Maybe the bowler can run up behind the umpire and bowl over or around,” he added.

However former Australian wicketkeeper Ian Healy’s opinion differed from Chappell’s. The former instead said that the bowlers should take a bit of onus to better anticipate it.

“I think bowlers have got to be a little bit better, they’ve got to be more aware,” Healy said.

“Last minute changes for the bowlers aren’t that great at the moment, but they’ll get better at that. But it is tricky, it’s very tricky. Let the batters do it, not many are doing it well, but the one’s that do are incredible entertainers,” he added.

The issue popped up after Australian all-rounder Glenn Maxwell played a couple of switch-hits during the ODI matches against India in Sydney. He tormented the Indian attack, scoring back-to-back fifties in the first two games which India lost by 66 runs and 51 runs respectively.

Maxwell continued his form in the third ODI on Wednesday as well. He slammed another half-century but ended up scoring 59 off 38 in Australia’s 303-run chase. The visitors successfully defended the total, wining the game by 13 runs with 3 balls to spare.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...ks-chappell/story-3cz4fIaXxez7jFZ7InJuKM.html

 

[Mamoon]

Cricket rules are inherently heavily biased towards bowlers. Rules such as benefit of doubt and switch hit only provide balance.

It will not be banned and it shouldn’t.

 

[Mamoon]

Switch-hit is also a very difficult shot to pull off and requires a lot of skill. Don’t handicap the few batsmen who can use it.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Don't make it sound like everyone can switch hit at will. No one can and even for the best batsman it remains a risky shot. I think this has already been discussed to a conclusion way back when KP was doing it. This discussion is a decade old.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Cricket rules are inherently heavily biased towards bowlers. Rules such as benefit of doubt and switch hit only provide balance.

It will not be banned and it shouldn’t.

So you’re a contrarian to even the one thing that pretty much every person following cricket agrees on - that it’s a heavily batting friendly era with little balance between bat and ball?

 

[Mesozoic]

Cricket rules are inherently heavily biased towards bowlers. Rules such as benefit of doubt and switch hit only provide balance.

It will not be banned and it shouldn’t.

Bruh you trolling or what? How are they biased towards bowlers?

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

I'd love to see these innovations become part of test cricket. Imagine it's the first day of a test match at Lords, 4 slips, 2 gullies in place, and the batsmen changes stance from a left-hander to a right-hander and slap pulls the ball for a six.

The sweet sound of the stunned audience ...

 

[Madplayer]

Bruh you trolling or what? How are they biased towards bowlers?

Must be the classic "bowlers get 6 balls to get the batsman out and batsman has gets only1 life per match" argument.

 

[Saurav]

I'd love to see these innovations become part of test cricket. Imagine it's the first day of a test match at Lords, 4 slips, 2 gullies in place, and the batsmen changes stance from a left-hander to a right-hander and slap pulls the ball for a six.

The sweet sound of the stunned audience ...

They already are. KP used to do it

 

[ataullah]

If switch hit is allowed so should the doosra which saqi invented. If it was invented by some other than Pakistanis would it be still alive and kicking like switch hit???

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

They already are. KP used to do it

For spinners, not fast bowlers. This becoming a norm for fast bowlers will be insane.

Also, Haddin once played a free-hit from Akhtar by standing behind the stumps. A reverse hit standing behind the stumps in Test cricket of a fast bowler in the first session will be a genuine sight to behold and a true evolution of cricket.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Growing up playing tapeball if a batsman ever dared to switch hit it was hugely embarrassing for the bowler. It would really fire up the bowler to come charging in next ball. Any bowler who suffers multiple switch hits only really has themselves to blame.

 

[Mamoon]

So you’re a contrarian to even the one thing that pretty much every person following cricket agrees on - that it’s a heavily batting friendly era with little balance between bat and ball?

Bruh you trolling or what? How are they biased towards bowlers?

Must be the classic "bowlers get 6 balls to get the batsman out and batsman has gets only1 life per match" argument.

Yes exactly.

It is important to understand the difference between rules and conditions.

Cricket rules are extremely biased towards bowlers. However, the conditions of play i.e. pitches, outfield, state of the ball etc. serve to neutralize that imbalance to an extent.

If the conditions are also extremely biased towards the bowlers, then there is nothing left in it for the batsmen.

Cricket in its elementary form is a hugely unfair game because of the contrasting margin of errors that batsmen and bowlers enjoy.

A batsman does not get second chances. One mistake and it is over for him. Even if the wicket is flat and the bowling is poor, one error, one momentarily loss of concentration and his game is finished.

On the other hand, a bowler will always be in the game for a fixed number of deliveries no matter how many mistakes he makes (in terms of bowling poorly, not breaking rules).

That is why benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman. It is one way of negating the inherent imbalance - the inherit flaw - in the nature of cricket.

I always find it amusing when people say that cricket is biased towards batsman. That is an illogical statement and contradicts the very fundamental nature of the sport itself.

 

[Mamoon]

In order to counteract the strong bias in the nature of the game, it is imperative to have laws such as benefit of doubt to batsmen, impact outside off-stump/pitched outside leg, switch hit etc. to increase the margin of error for batsmen which the natural laws of the game simply do not provide.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Removing the switch-hit is pathetic, I don't understand why there is even a need to debate this.

It's like asking bowlers not to bowl slower balls because they declared that they were "fast-bowlers". It's like asking spinners not to bowl both off-break and leg-break because they are declared "off-spinners".


I don't need to give further examples, but if you see a guy like Maxwell switch-hitting you, there should be enough competence in a bowler to push it full, wide, short, yorker-length, slower, etc. to throw off the batsman.

If a batsman is switch-hitting you, it is because your bowling is predictable, to put it in simplest terms.

 

[Hasan123]

The switch hit should stay. It's a difficult shot to pull off but when it comes off it looks brilliant. Shouldn't take away something fun away from the game.

 

[Rana]

Flat tracks, pro batting rules are not applied to the game to negate the clear bias the game has for bowlers )

Flat tracks= Longer batting innings (full over quota played in the day of 90-100 overs)

Longer batting innings= longer time for bar+food revenue income at stadiums

Longer batting innings= longer TV time

Longer TV time= enough time for the sponsors to get the exposure they have invested for.

The basic thing to say is flat tracks make games more entertaining for the audience who wants to see fours and sixes...but at the end of the day it is all about $$$

 

[Mamoon]

People talk about “balance” between bat and ball but who decides what this “balance” is?

Why is 260-270 considered a balanced score just because we have all decided that it represents balance?

Our perception of balance is primed by how ODI cricket worked for the first 30-40 years of its existence.

If teams were scoring 350-400 from the day ODI cricket was introduced in 1971, then that score would have represented “balance”.

Who decided that an economy rate of below 5 is very good? Why is 7, 8 or 9 not a good economy rate? Again, it is because of how we have been programmed as viewers and players based on the average (mean) scores that we have witnessed over the first 30-40 years of ODI cricket.

What is happening today is part of the evolution of the Limited Overs game because of the rise of T20 cricket. Batsmen have become more skilled at hitting big shots.

The shots that were blocked or dabbed for one 25 years ago are now lapped or switched hit for boundaries.

Instead of artificially tinkering with the evolution of the game, people need to let it go and adjust their perception of “balance” accordingly.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Yes exactly.

It is important to understand the difference between rules and conditions.

Cricket rules are extremely biased towards bowlers. However, the conditions of play i.e. pitches, outfield, state of the ball etc. serve to neutralize that imbalance to an extent.

If the conditions are also extremely biased towards the bowlers, then there is nothing left in it for the batsmen.

Cricket in its elementary form is a hugely unfair game because of the contrasting margin of errors that batsmen and bowlers enjoy.

A batsman does not get second chances. One mistake and it is over for him. Even if the wicket is flat and the bowling is poor, one error, one momentarily loss of concentration and his game is finished.

On the other hand, a bowler will always be in the game for a fixed number of deliveries no matter how many mistakes he makes (in terms of bowling poorly, not breaking rules).

That is why benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman. It is one way of negating the inherent imbalance - the inherit flaw - in the nature of cricket.

I always find it amusing when people say that cricket is biased towards batsman. That is an illogical statement and contradicts the very fundamental nature of the sport itself.

That’s absurd. There’s a reason there are 11 batsmen and just 5 bowlers. It may be brutal to the individual batsman but the team as a whole gets 10 chances to bat well. In previous eras, this compounded with other factors well to provide balance between bat and ball with par ODI scores hovering at 260.

And perhaps if you weren’t stubborn on taking the popular opinion then negating it and trying to creatively justify the negation, you’d recognize what pretty much everyone knows - that the game has become entirely batsman dominated due to the absurd amount of rules and conditions applied in their favor.

This is a team game at the end of the day. You want to provide balance in margin of errors between one team’s bowling and the other team’s batting. Your misconception is to provide balance between one player’s bowling and one opponent’s batting. So your fundamental premise is flawed.

But even if I shift over to your premise, our modern day 400-par pitches where 3 of your top 5 is guaranteed to score 50 with 1-2 goin for at least 100, shows how much of an edge even one batsman has these days. It is feasible and conceivable that the opening stand and the number 3 themselves can account for a major chunk of batting, which is to say 3 batsmen are really all that is needed in addition to the bowlers.

Really the only thing I have been able to glean from this conversation is that you have an instinctive urge to make tall claims granted that they catch attention. In other words, a troll, and I almost feel bad for obliging your words with a response of my own. I really don’t expect anything fruitful to come out of this conversation, that’s for sure.

 

[zarak]

In order to counteract the strong bias in the nature of the game, it is imperative to have laws such as benefit of doubt to batsmen, impact outside off-stump/pitched outside leg, switch hit etc. to increase the margin of error for batsmen which the natural laws of the game simply do not provide.

That's actually a very interesting take. It only takes one ball. But would you not agree that over the last 10 years the margins have shifted relatively more in favor of batsman. For example, two new balls.

 

[Tubs]

Removing the shot is silly.

However, I'd be open for the bowler to be able to bowl which whichever hand they want, and over/around the wicket without declaring to the ump- perhaps the non-striker would have to stand at a certain point away from the stumps? Unsure how it'd be implemented, but would be exciting.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

No problem with the switch hit. It requires a lot of skill to pull off and it provides a wicket taking opportunity for a bowler. Just regulate these bats a bit more.

 

[ManFan]

In my opinion, the bowler should be allowed to switch hands in the middle of his action.

It only seems fair. With the level of professionalism and analysis these days, batsmen can easily adjust.

 

[Mamoon]

That’s absurd. There’s a reason there are 11 batsmen and just 5 bowlers. It may be brutal to the individual batsman but the team as a whole gets 10 chances to bat well. In previous eras, this compounded with other factors well to provide balance between bat and ball with par ODI scores hovering at 260.

And perhaps if you weren’t stubborn on taking the popular opinion then negating it and trying to creatively justify the negation, you’d recognize what pretty much everyone knows - that the game has become entirely batsman dominated due to the absurd amount of rules and conditions applied in their favor.

This is a team game at the end of the day. You want to provide balance in margin of errors between one team’s bowling and the other team’s batting. Your misconception is to provide balance between one player’s bowling and one opponent’s batting. So your fundamental premise is flawed.

But even if I shift over to your premise, our modern day 400-par pitches where 3 of your top 5 is guaranteed to score 50 with 1-2 goin for at least 100, shows how much of an edge even one batsman has these days. It is feasible and conceivable that the opening stand and the number 3 themselves can account for a major chunk of batting, which is to say 3 batsmen are really all that is needed in addition to the bowlers.

Really the only thing I have been able to glean from this conversation is that you have an instinctive urge to make tall claims granted that they catch attention. In other words, a troll, and I almost feel bad for obliging your words with a response of my own. I really don’t expect anything fruitful to come out of this conversation, that’s for sure.

Again - who decided that a par score of around 260 represents balance? Why do you believe that it is a balanced score but 320 is not?

Secondly, cricket should not be classified as a team sport. Sure you have two teams of 11 players competing, but it is actually played as an individual sport because it is a 1v1 competition between a batsman and a bowler.

Think about it - when Hazlewood bowls to Kohli, is it Australia vs India or is it Hazlewood vs Kohli?

Moreover, when Hazlewood bowls to Kohli, who has a greater margin of error?

The reason why teams have more batsmen is because of the fact that batsmen have no margin of error, whereas you can pick 5 bowlers and they will stay in the game for their allotted overs irrespective how good or bad they are bowling and how many mistakes they have made.

As far as majority people are concerned, well majority of the people are afraid to think for themselves because they are either afraid of criticism or because they assume that since most people believe in something, it must be true.

This balance between bat and ball is one example. We have all been led to believe that 260-270 represents a balanced score because that is what we decided and that is what we saw for the first 30-40 years of ODI cricket. Now that the balance has shifted because of flatter pitches, two new balls and increased improvisation by batsman, we have a problem with the new balance.

Hence my advice is to let your perception of balance shift instead of forcing the game to continue to be placed at a pace that you deem appropriate.

For the record, at a personal level, I was also not that big of a fan of this new balance because like you and others, I also grew up in an era where scoring 300 was a big deal and any time a batsman scored a 150, it would be classified as a historic achievement.

But unlike others, I have accepted this shift in balance and have allowed myself to adjust to the new pace at which ODI cricket is played now, and as a result I am beginning to enjoy ODI cricket as much as I did 10,15,20 years ago.

 

[Mamoon]

That's actually a very interesting take. It only takes one ball. But would you not agree that over the last 10 years the margins have shifted relatively more in favor of batsman. For example, two new balls.

The margins are still extremely low because even within two new balls, it takes one error of judgement for the batsmen to be out of the game.

But over the last 10 years, the two new ball rules has allowed batsmen to hit more boundaries especially in the middle overs and that has contributed to the higher team totals.

People talk about flat pitches but ODI pitches have been flat for decades. It is the two new ball rule and the increased improvisation by batsmen that have contributed to greater team totals.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Secondly, cricket should not be classified as a team sport. Sure you have two teams of 11 players competing, but it is actually played as an individual sport because it is a 1v1 competition between a batsman and a bowler.

Think about it - when Hazlewood bowls to Kohli, is it Australia vs India or is it Hazlewood vs Kohli?

Wrong again - it’s Australia vs India. It doesn’t matter whether Kohli gets out for a duck, as long as the rest of the batsmen chip in to take the score to a favorable total. Whether Kohli scores against Hazlewood or not, does not matter. It doesn’t even matter if 10 batsmen are bowled for ducks as long as the 11th scores a 350.

Cricket is not a 1v1 game, it is a 5v11 game. Hence, batting friendly rules might make it more “fair” for the individual batsman to emerge into the spotlight, the way you are saying (though even then I believe it is skewed). But when you factor in a multiplier of 11, that “equalizing benefit” turns into a “graveyard for bowlers”.

The very fact that you believe this era is still bowler friendly and needs further “equalization” is scary.

As far as majority people are concerned, well majority of the people are afraid to think for themselves because they are either afraid of criticism or because they assume that since most people believe in something, it must be true.

Indeed. But the converse of any logical proposition does not always hold true. Since most people believe in something, that means it is false - you seem to have taken that to heart.

 

[Mamoon]

Wrong again - it’s Australia vs India. It doesn’t matter whether Kohli gets out for a duck, as long as the rest of the batsmen chip in to take the score to a favorable total. Whether Kohli scores against Hazlewood or not, does not matter. It doesn’t even matter if 10 batsmen are bowled for ducks as long as the 11th scores a 350.

Cricket is not a 1v1 game, it is a 5v11 game. Hence, batting friendly rules might make it more “fair” for the individual batsman to emerge into the spotlight, the way you are saying (though even then I believe it is skewed). But when you factor in a multiplier of 11, that “equalizing benefit” turns into a “graveyard for bowlers”.

The very fact that you believe this era is still bowler friendly and needs further “equalization” is scary.

Cricket is a 1v1 game because during a cricket delivery, only two players are involved, and the margin of error for one player (bowler) is far greater than the other (batsman).

The subsequent involvement of other players on the field (fielders, the other batsman) depends on the outcome of the 1v1 battle.

If the batsman hits the ball for a big six or the bowler gets him bowled, lbw or catches him of his own bowling, it remains a 1v1 battle, but in any other outcome other players in the field will get involved, such as fielders catching or chasing the ball etc.

I am not saying this era is bowling friendly or batting friendly. My point is that it is illogical to call cricket a batsman’s game because it contradicts the fundamental nature of the sport itself.

Cricket cannot be a batsman’s game because in the 1v1 battle between a batsman and a bowler, only the bowlers has a margin of error and the opportunity to try again and correct his mistakes.

What I find scary is how people are set in their ways in terms of defining what balance is. I asked you twice why 260 represents a balanced score and you don’t have an answer. I don’t blame you because know one can answer why.

It is just what we have decided based on the average (mean) scores that we have observed in ODI cricket for its first 30-40 years, and now that the average scores have shifted, people have a problem accepting the new balance.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Cricket is a 1v1 game because during a cricket delivery, only two players are involved, and the margin of error for one player (bowler) is far greater than the other (batsman).

The subsequent involvement of other players on the field (fielders, the other batsman) depends on the outcome of the 1v1 battle.

If the batsman hits the ball for a big six or the bowler gets him bowled, lbw or catches him of his own bowling, it remains a 1v1 battle, but in any other outcome other players in the field will get involved, such as fielders catching or chasing the ball etc.

I am not saying this era is bowling friendly or batting friendly. My point is that it is illogical to call cricket a batsman’s game because it contradicts the fundamental nature of the sport itself.

Cricket cannot be a batsman’s game because in the 1v1 battle between a batsman and a bowler, only the bowlers has a margin of error and the opportunity to try again and correct his mistakes.

What I find scary is how people are set in their ways in terms of defining what balance is. I asked you twice why 260 represents a balanced score and you don’t have an answer. I don’t blame you because know one can answer why.

It is just what we have decided based on the average (mean) scores that we have observed in ODI cricket for its first 30-40 years, and now that the average scores have shifted, people have a problem accepting the new balance.

Those 1v1 battles are subparts of the overall battle.
What you are arguing is “balance” in the 1v1 battle at the expense of balance in the overall battle. No one cares about the 1v1 battle as long as the overall battle is won. Not the team, not the management, not the fans.

Cricket is not a 1v1 game.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

260 does not necessarily represent a balanced score simply because of its longtime presence as the established balance.

It is clear in this day and age it is no longer a pleasure to watch the best bowlers in the world as much as it was before, simply because of how they have been reduced to smarter bowling machines without any real assistance.

And neither is it as much of a pleasure to watch a batsman overcome that difficulty when they get a century. Most fans yawn these days when a batsman gets to a hundred - it’s part and parcel of the game, not necessarily a mark of true excellence.

I am comfortable with setting a score of 280 as the optimal balance between bat and ball within this discussion.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=151892]Thunderbolt14[/MENTION]

But what you are ignoring is the influence of these 1v1 battles especially between big players. More often than not, it will decide the outcome of the match.

If Kohli and Sharma win 1v1 battles against Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins by scoring hundreds and Bumrah wins 1v1 battles against Smith and Warner by getting them out for ducks, who will win the match?

99/100 times, in this situation, India will beat Australia because it won the important individual battles.

Furthermore, you are willing to accept 280 as a balanced score but the same question remains - why 260 or 280 and why not 320 or 340?

Why did you decide that a score of 260/280 is balanced but a score of 320/340 is not?

Why do you perceive an economy rate of 5 good but an economy rate of 7 bad?

Again it is what we have decided to accept as normal because of the average (mean) scores that we have observed over the first 30-40 years of ODI cricket.

If ODI cricket would have seen scores of 320+ since its inception, then such scores would have been deemed balance by you, me and everyone else. Our perception of what balance is would have been different.

I understand that we are now going in circles by repeating ourselves, but I will put an end to this debate by restating that we need let our perception of balance change with the evolution of the game instead of forcing the game to remain static to suit our perception.

 

[Mamoon]

In a nutshell, this is what has happened:

We have convinced ourselves that X is a balanced scored in ODI cricket because that is the average score that we saw in ODI cricket from 1971 until maybe 2011.

Over the last decade, the balanced score shifted from X to Y because two new balls were introduced which have resulted in more boundaries and have made it difficult for spinners to spin the ball and for fast bowlers to reverse the ball.

Moreover, because of T20 cricket, batsmen have become more creative and are now much better at playing unorthodox shots than they were 20-30 years ago.

20 years ago, bowlers would bowl to a leg-side field and the batsman will work it for a single or two. Now against the same ball and field, batsmen have adapted by getting a four or a six via a switch-hit.

However, we now have a problem because we are unwilling to accept that the balance has shifted from X to Y. We want to ensure that the balance remains at X because that is what we think is right.

 

[Abu_Hamza]

[MENTION=151892]Thunderbolt14[/MENTION]

But what you are ignoring is the influence of these 1v1 battles especially between big players. More often than not, it will decide the outcome of the match.

If Kohli and Sharma win 1v1 battles against Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins by scoring hundreds and Bumrah wins 1v1 battles against Smith and Warner by getting them out for ducks, who will win the match?

99/100 times, in this situation, India will beat Australia because it won the important individual battles.

Furthermore, you are willing to accept 280 as a balanced score but the same question remains - why 260 or 280 and why not 320 or 340?

Why did you decide that a score of 260/280 is balanced but a score of 320/340 is not?

Why do you perceive an economy rate of 5 good but an economy rate of 7 bad?

Again it is what we have decided to accept as normal because of the average (mean) scores that we have observed over the first 30-40 years of ODI cricket.

If ODI cricket would have seen scores of 320+ since its inception, then such scores would have been deemed balance by you, me and everyone else. Our perception of what balance is would have been different.

I understand that we are now going in circles by repeating ourselves, but I will put an end to this debate by restating that we need let our perception of balance change with the evolution of the game instead of forcing the game to remain static to suit our perception.

Sir [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], the thing is that batsmen have evolved and found new ways of scoring runs even when facing yorkers, so the new normal has become scores above 300 . The rise of T20 leagues have also helped batsmen to be more innovative while playing their shots. The bowlers too are trying to match them with bringing new bowling skills like use of knuckle bowl, wide yorkers. Its just that batsmen have become more courageous and they take more risks so they get more results in their favour with this approach. Bowlers often try to be defensive unlike batsmen thats why it seems that batsmen are having more advantage while the reward is equal for both if the take the risk.

 

[Extra_Cover]

Yes exactly.

It is important to understand the difference between rules and conditions.

Cricket rules are extremely biased towards bowlers. However, the conditions of play i.e. pitches, outfield, state of the ball etc. serve to neutralize that imbalance to an extent.

If the conditions are also extremely biased towards the bowlers, then there is nothing left in it for the batsmen.

Cricket in its elementary form is a hugely unfair game because of the contrasting margin of errors that batsmen and bowlers enjoy.

A batsman does not get second chances. One mistake and it is over for him. Even if the wicket is flat and the bowling is poor, one error, one momentarily loss of concentration and his game is finished.

On the other hand, a bowler will always be in the game for a fixed number of deliveries no matter how many mistakes he makes (in terms of bowling poorly, not breaking rules).

That is why benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman. It is one way of negating the inherent imbalance - the inherit flaw - in the nature of cricket.

I always find it amusing when people say that cricket is biased towards batsman. That is an illogical statement and contradicts the very fundamental nature of the sport itself.

Cricket as a sport is heavily biased in the favour of batsmen.

You do not have to go far behind in history to see the changes being silently made are all in favour of batsmen rather than bowlers. Some recent past changes in how the game looks today:

- Cricket gear: A major advancement over the years has been batsmen's comfort and safety while playing. From featherweight pads to helmet advancements. No changes for bowlers.

- Bat and bowl: Any person with decent eyesight would be able to see the increased width of bats used today while being way lighter than before. Also the shape of each bat is altered to each batman's preference i.e. middle being slightly lower for front foot batsmen and vice-versa. No change for bowlers, if anything the balls have become lighter to travel further (white/pink balls). Also the use of 2 balls eliminated any reverse that could potentially be exploited.

- Playing conditions: From uncovered pitches to barren soil. The pitches have become flatter with every passing decade. The grounds have become slower and more lusher for mistimed shots to achieve maximum results.

- Game laws: This thread is on switch hit which is legally allowed as per the law but what about degree of flexibility in bowling arms to assist in bowling doosra. If switch hit is an art then why bowling doosra is eliminated from game through laws? (In my opinion doosra cannot be bowled without breaching the flex limits).

As per your analysis batsmen are unlucky as its one mistake for them and their game ends. I see it differently, I see it as batsmen are given the opportunity to win the games more often than not. For example, a batsman has 300 balls in an ODI to yield a result while bowler has only 60 to make an impact. On good days batsmen will most likely win you games as they would bat for an entire innings while bowlers on good days would be seen off for 10 overs and their impact on match would be restricted compared to batsmen's.

In test cricket the above variable is eliminated hence we see more pure form of cricket which is a refreshing watch. In limited overs batsmen have far more going in their favour than bowlers.

 

[Abu_Hamza]

[MENTION=151892]Thunderbolt14[/MENTION]

But what you are ignoring is the influence of these 1v1 battles especially between big players. More often than not, it will decide the outcome of the match.

If Kohli and Sharma win 1v1 battles against Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins by scoring hundreds and Bumrah wins 1v1 battles against Smith and Warner by getting them out for ducks, who will win the match?

99/100 times, in this situation, India will beat Australia because it won the important individual battles.

Furthermore, you are willing to accept 280 as a balanced score but the same question remains - why 260 or 280 and why not 320 or 340?

Why did you decide that a score of 260/280 is balanced but a score of 320/340 is not?

Why do you perceive an economy rate of 5 good but an economy rate of 7 bad?

Again it is what we have decided to accept as normal because of the average (mean) scores that we have observed over the first 30-40 years of ODI cricket.

If ODI cricket would have seen scores of 320+ since its inception, then such scores would have been deemed balance by you, me and everyone else. Our perception of what balance is would have been different.

I understand that we are now going in circles by repeating ourselves, but I will put an end to this debate by restating that we need let our perception of balance change with the evolution of the game instead of forcing the game to remain static to suit our perception.

Sir [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], the thing is that batsmen have evolved and found new ways of scoring runs even when facing yorkers, so the new normal has become scores above 300 . The rise of T20 leagues have also helped batsmen to be more innovative while playing their shots. The bowlers too are trying to match them with bringing new bowling skills like use of knuckle bowl, wide yorkers. Its just that batsmen have become more courageous and they take more risks so they get more results in their favour with this approach. Bowlers often try to be defensive unlike batsmen thats why it seems that batsmen are having more advantage while the reward is equal for both if the take the risk.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

[MENTION=151892]Thunderbolt14[/MENTION]

But what you are ignoring is the influence of these 1v1 battles especially between big players. More often than not, it will decide the outcome of the match.

If Kohli and Sharma win 1v1 battles against Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins by scoring hundreds and Bumrah wins 1v1 battles against Smith and Warner by getting them out for ducks, who will win the match?

99/100 times, in this situation, India will beat Australia because it won the important individual battles.

Furthermore, you are willing to accept 280 as a balanced score but the same question remains - why 260 or 280 and why not 320 or 340?

Why did you decide that a score of 260/280 is balanced but a score of 320/340 is not?

Why do you perceive an economy rate of 5 good but an economy rate of 7 bad?

Again it is what we have decided to accept as normal because of the average (mean) scores that we have observed over the first 30-40 years of ODI cricket.

If ODI cricket would have seen scores of 320+ since its inception, then such scores would have been deemed balance by you, me and everyone else. Our perception of what balance is would have been different.

I understand that we are now going in circles by repeating ourselves, but I will put an end to this debate by restating that we need let our perception of balance change with the evolution of the game instead of forcing the game to remain static to suit our perception.

1. If you focus on big players, the balance is even further skewed. There is a reason that Kohli, Smith, etc had excellent series despite some top bowlers in the world playing this match. If Bumrah struggles to take any powerplay wickets, it reflects more on the pitch than on the batsman’s quality.


2. I have decided that a score of 260-300 is more balanced than a score of 320-360 because of the following: it is more likely for a match with a 280 to contain a century from the top batsman as well as a 5-fer from the top bowler of the opposition, than it is for a 340 match.

More often that not, batsmen these days are rarely challenged by effective swing and seam. “Above average” performers are easily able to generate “great” performances. My best examples to this are the ODI records of Jason Roy, Fakhar Zaman, and Imam ul Haq. This is a consequence of two things, the first is the rules/pitches/conditions/boundaries and the second is a decline in bowler quality. If you refuse to concede on the first as I am trying to argue, you will also have to concede that your modern day pet favorites in Bumrah, Boult, and co are vastly inferior and dare I say mediocre compared to the likes of Donald, Wasim, Marshall, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, and more.

The truth is that it is really in between. Bumrah has horrible one day stats against England, New Zealand, and Australia because despite being a fantastic bowler, the game offers no balance to him.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

In a nutshell, this is what has happened:

We have convinced ourselves that X is a balanced scored in ODI cricket because that is the average score that we saw in ODI cricket from 1971 until maybe 2011.

Over the last decade, the balanced score shifted from X to Y because two new balls were introduced which have resulted in more boundaries and have made it difficult for spinners to spin the ball and for fast bowlers to reverse the ball.

Moreover, because of T20 cricket, batsmen have become more creative and are now much better at playing unorthodox shots than they were 20-30 years ago.

20 years ago, bowlers would bowl to a leg-side field and the batsman will work it for a single or two. Now against the same ball and field, batsmen have adapted by getting a four or a six via a switch-hit.

However, we now have a problem because we are unwilling to accept that the balance has shifted from X to Y. We want to ensure that the balance remains at X because that is what we think is right.

It seems some People just dosent want to acknowledge evolution in any kind or form

I totally agree about the evolution of the game. Modern batsmen are just too good in hitting boundaries. They're physically way superior than the batsmen of 80s & 90s. In 90s many batsmen used to take runners after reaching score of 50-60 and used to get exhausted by the time of reaching the hundred mark even with a runner.
Bowlers also had unfair advantages with one single white ball along with unchecked tampering of the ball.

People who are nostalgic of the 80s & early 90s often forget how awful the standard of the game was compared to the modern days. This is the reason why I rate the Australian team(99/07)as the goat ODI team. They introduced greater standard of fitness, fielding and professionalism to the game which was sorely missing. They raised the bar of the game everyway possible and were pioneers of the modern game.

 

[Muhammad]

I have a lot of respect for Ian Chappell and his general views on cricket, but have to disagree with him on this point.

Batsmen take a lot of risk playing switch hits and doesn’t make any sense to try to outlaw their right to do so. It’s a more powerful variant of the reverse sweep which has been used for almost 40 years.

 

[MenInG]

Star Australian batsman Glenn Maxwell has responded to the growing discussion around the legitimacy of switch-hitting, insisting "it's within the laws of the game."

Nearly unrivalled in his natural ability at the crease, Maxwell has an arsenal of shots at his dispense and makes no apology for his innovation with the bat in hand.

The centrepiece of Australia's run-chase in last night's ODI loss to India, Maxwell cracked a 59 off 38, which included a monstrous reverse sweep for six that had Manuka Oval in disbelief.

The 100m blow was a genuine switch-hit in which Maxwell flipped both his bat grip and stance; after playing variations of switch-hits and reverse-sweep shots at other times in the series.

It follows a week of hot discussion led by Aussies Test legend Ian Chappell, around the fairness of switch-hitting and the importance of maintaining an even playing field for bowlers.

"It is very skilful, some of it's amazingly skilful – but it's not fair," Chappell said.

Aussie spin-king Shane Warne agreed.

"As a bowler, we have to nominate what hand we're bowling with and what side of the wicket we're bowling with," Warne said during Fox Cricket's coverage.

"I'm not sure I like it. It's worth a discussion, worth a debate to work out what's the right thing."

When those comments were put to him after the game, Maxwell was not so convinced.

"It's within the laws of the game," Maxwell said after his innings.

"I think batting has evolved in such a way that it's just got better and better over the years which is why we're seeing these massive scores getting chased down and scores are going up.

"I suppose it's up to the bowlers to try and combat that, and the skills of bowlers are being tested every day.

"They're having to come up with different change-ups and different ways to stop batters and with the way they shut down one side of the ground and whatnot.

"I suppose the way that batting is evolving, I think bowling has got to evolve to the same stage, so you see guys come up with knuckle balls and wide-yorker fields and different tactics.

"The tactics of one-day cricket have definitely evolved over the last little bit as well, so I just see it as a different part of the evolution of the game."

Maxwell is probably one of only a handful of people in the world who could have played the shot at Manuka Oval on Wednesday night.

"It probably helped it was with a pretty decent wind," he said.

"I wasn't too worried about the boundary rider there and just thought if I got it up in the air it was going to travel.

"But I got it pretty clean, and lucky enough, it went over the rope."

Former Test spinner Kerry O'Keeffe said that he was in favour of switch-hitting, an extraordinary skill which few cricketers in the world have mastered.

"I wouldn't mind people trying to switch-hit me, because I reckon it's a higher-risk shot," O'Keeffe said.

"It's not against the laws [of cricket]. Running in right-handed over the wicket and bowling around the wicket is illegal. It's outside the laws.

"Switch-hitting is inside the laws and it's entertaining. I like it."

https://wwos.nine.com.au/cricket/au...it-drama/bd0d8aba-1b0e-48e3-b9ae-b21f84b0aa79

 

[tyron_woodley]

So you’re a contrarian to even the one thing that pretty much every person following cricket agrees on - that it’s a heavily batting friendly era with little balance between bat and ball?

Loool. Agreed.

 

[UzmanBeast]

In a nutshell, this is what has happened:

We have convinced ourselves that X is a balanced scored in ODI cricket because that is the average score that we saw in ODI cricket from 1971 until maybe 2011.

Over the last decade, the balanced score shifted from X to Y because two new balls were introduced which have resulted in more boundaries and have made it difficult for spinners to spin the ball and for fast bowlers to reverse the ball.

Moreover, because of T20 cricket, batsmen have become more creative and are now much better at playing unorthodox shots than they were 20-30 years ago.

20 years ago, bowlers would bowl to a leg-side field and the batsman will work it for a single or two. Now against the same ball and field, batsmen have adapted by getting a four or a six via a switch-hit.

However, we now have a problem because we are unwilling to accept that the balance has shifted from X to Y. We want to ensure that the balance remains at X because that is what we think is right.

I completely agree with everything you have said thus far. I will reiterate my point that if a batsman is able to play the switch hit against a bowler, there are potentially two reasons for that:
1. The bowler has become predictable with line and length, allowing the batsman to take risks according to the field placement.
2. The batsman has taken a huge risk and played the shot correctly to score a boundary or get some runs.

The fact that people say that such shots are overpowered is absurd because they are "high risk, high reward" shots. One can easily mistime the ball straight into the air when playing the switch hit, and if that happens and a wicket is taken, I guarantee that a lot of people wouldn't question the balance of the shot.

As Maxwell said in his own interview, bowlers need to be creative. I refuse to believe that bowlers cannot come up with detailed plans against top-quality power hitters like Maxwell during the dying stages of the game. I also refuse to believe that the variations known currently are the only ones known. As stated by Maxwell, creativity in bowling is required. Being unpredictable is fundamental. Why do we see mystery spinners succeed? It is their unpredictability, forcing batsmen to avoid taking risks and whatnot. The same can be done with fast-bowlers, who have a variety of plans and methods to execute deliveries. The more deliveries that fast bowlers get comfortable with, the better it will be for them.

One thing which needs to be addressed is the fact that consistency in bowling the same line and length is not as important nowadays. Being able to bowl every ball on the off stump in ODI is probably why someone will get slapped for a six. Coaching needs to evolve and get bowlers to devise plans and deliveries which can rarely be hit, such as a wide yorker.

 

[shaz619]

It is true cricket in its nature favors bowlers given how a batsman never has as much room for error, a point emphasised quiet a bit in technical and mental analysis of batting in Bob Woolmers book. However, more recently the modern game rulings have done all they can to support batsman and bring out their best creatively. Two new balls plays a part, so does improvisation; but mostly this is executed at its best on flat pitches, KP is not going to more inclinced to play a reverse sweep on the greenery of Edgbaston from 1999, England changed their entire phillosophy on ODI cricket to ensure the talent could be utilised at their creative best by giving them the license to go all out on flat pitches.

Am fine with things as they stand but giving reverse swing back to skillful bowlers would be great and also being a bit more flexible with mystery bowlers. This will also play into how wickets are prepared and overall team strategy.

 

[hitthestump]

The Aussies should create more sporting pitches then. You're not going to see regular switch hits in anything except ideal batting conditions.

If you create phattas for batting shoot offs then you're asking for it to be played from ball 1.

 

[Caved12]

Agree with Extra_cover and thunderbolt14. It is not that tough to see that cricket as a sport is heavily biased in the favour of batsmen these days. 2 new balls, flat pitches, bigger and powerful bats, and bowling machines have dramatically changed the game in the favour of batsmen. Rules, conditions or whatever.. just find a balance and don't make a pitch where bowlers from either side are ineffective.

Btw I don't have a problem with Switch hit, but arguments presented by Warne and others do make sense if you think about it.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] running away from the thread again? So many unfinished debates between you and I

 

[FastBowlingAllrounder]

In a nutshell, this is what has happened:

We have convinced ourselves that X is a balanced scored in ODI cricket because that is the average score that we saw in ODI cricket from 1971 until maybe 2011.

Over the last decade, the balanced score shifted from X to Y because two new balls were introduced which have resulted in more boundaries and have made it difficult for spinners to spin the ball and for fast bowlers to reverse the ball.

Moreover, because of T20 cricket, batsmen have become more creative and are now much better at playing unorthodox shots than they were 20-30 years ago.

20 years ago, bowlers would bowl to a leg-side field and the batsman will work it for a single or two. Now against the same ball and field, batsmen have adapted by getting a four or a six via a switch-hit.

However, we now have a problem because we are unwilling to accept that the balance has shifted from X to Y. We want to ensure that the balance remains at X because that is what we think is right.

You’re right in saying that batsmen have become more innovative through T20 and whatnot, but then rules haven’t allowed the bowlers to also innovate to catch up with them. Spinners’ action regulations have taken mystery spin or doosras out of the game. Reverse swing is basically extinct bar few exponents in the right conditions. Bouncer rules are more strict and with a lot of focus on helmet safety and concussions (with push for concussion subs in past few years) lethal bouncers/“the scary short stuff” like Smith v. Archer is almost becoming a taboo.

While batsmen have been allowed to evolve, the rules of the game have stifled bowlers’ ability to innovate as well (yes, Andrew Tye and Bravo and co. have come up with more slower balls than there are fish in the sea but that has its limits) and once in a while a Rashid Khan type unorthodox bowler can come around but the conditions have further polarized the difference between the 2.

You’re also right in the perception argument, that if ODI came around after T20 and 300+ was the norm from the get-go that would be seen as balanced. But looking at most high-scoring games today shows us that batsmen (top 5 - proper batsmen) more often than not dominate the bowler and while scorecards might show a team was 7 down or 8 down at the end of the innings, these wickets are dry and often come in the death where batsmen go for boundaries and are caught in the deep. Batsmen now get out more often trying to force a boundary or something than they used to as compared to bowlers properly executing a plan and out foxing them (yes there is the odd peach of a ball, but that doesn’t rival the excitement of a bowler skillfully targeting a batsman in a spell).

Now people today may prefer batsmen friendly cricket and the polarization may continue as someone above mentioned that longer innings means more revenue but it doesn’t change the fact that there has been a tectonic shift in the balance between batsmen and bowlers with batsmen reigning supreme (an example of which being we have a Fab Four for batsmen but not something as significant for bowlers).

 

[Mean&Green]

Warne is just salty cause it's leg spinners getting smashed for those . But one has to realize that is the hardest shot to play in the game of cricket turning around at the right time having proper balance and power behind the shot is nearly impossible to pull off only two guys can do it in world cricket with such precision that is Stokes and Maxwell only. It would be impossible for Kohli Smith or Williamson to play a shot like that if they tried they would look funny they wouldn't even get anywhere close to pulling it off. That being said even guys like Pandya can't pull it off. If it is banned that will make cricket very boring this shot gives cricket more charisma and makes it exciting Chappel and Warne need to shut it and move on.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] running away from the thread again? So many unfinished debates between you and I

When I “run away” from a debate, I provide closure because I have nothing else to contribute/add and have already said everything that I have to say. It is not a competition for me and there are no prizes to win here.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

When I “run away” from a debate, I provide closure because I have nothing else to contribute/add and have already said everything that I have to say. It is not a competition for me and there are no prizes to win here.

It’s funny because you very categorically requested me to comment on a specific argument you brought up and said I hadn’t addressed it, and when I did you conveniently left. I can see why you have nothing left to add.

 

[Gilly]

In my opinion, the bowler should be allowed to switch hands in the middle of his action.

It only seems fair. With the level of professionalism and analysis these days, batsmen can easily adjust.

Bowlers get many other advantages than the batsmen, for instance if a batsman is having trouble playing a fast bowler his captain can't change him with a batsman who is better against fast bowlers. The bowlers have the advantage of being able to change bowlers whenever they like but the batsmen cannot.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Bowlers get many other advantages than the batsmen, for instance if a batsman is having trouble playing a fast bowler his captain can't change him with a batsman who is better against fast bowlers. The bowlers have the advantage of being able to change bowlers whenever they like but the batsmen cannot.

introduce unlimited bouncer rule back.
increase boundary sizes across all participating countries
let top bowlers bowl more overs in odi (up to 15 rather than 10)
new balls should be offered after 50 overs in tests instead.

 

[Gilly]

introduce unlimited bouncer rule back.
increase boundary sizes across all participating countries
let top bowlers bowl more overs in odi (up to 15 rather than 10)
new balls should be offered after 50 overs in tests instead.

And the only thing that will happen is the gap between the top teams and bottom teams will get bigger. You need to look at why these rules were put in place.

I know it sounds tough to say unlimited bouncers but what are you after because it wont increase the quality of cricket.

 

[JibranAnsari]

switch hit is a high risk shot and gives the bowler every opportunity to get a wicket. Should the batsmen complain about slower or quicker deliveries?

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Bowlers should be given a right to change around the wicket or over the wicket and switching hands with which they bowl(only Kamindu Mendis can do that though) as well.
Changing from over the wicket to around the wicket between the run up won't be easy either for the bowlers.

 

[Gilly]

Bowlers should be given a right to change around the wicket or over the wicket and switching hands with which they bowl(only Kamindu Mendis can do that though) as well.
Changing from over the wicket to around the wicket between the run up won't be easy either for the bowlers.

That wont make it harder for the batsman, it will only increase the chances of the non facing batsman to get in the way of the bowler.

 

[tyron_woodley]

And the only thing that will happen is the gap between the top teams and bottom teams will get bigger. You need to look at why these rules were put in place.

I know it sounds tough to say unlimited bouncers but what are you after because it wont increase the quality of cricket.

how does it not improve quality of cricket ?

 

[Gilly]

how does it not improve quality of cricket ?

Unlimited bouncers will cripple cricket, no one is going to watch a match where the bowlers just bowl at the head of the batsman. Yeah its fun to watch the odd bouncer but when it becomes the stock ball the match becomes unwatchable. The one bouncer rule was not introduced to make it easier for the batsmen it was introduced to prevent slow play.

 

[Majid Khan]

When you think about it, only few players can pull it off successfully like Maxwell, it’s high risk strategy for the batsman and he’s already handicapped as he’s batting in what is not his natural stance - so why not accept it as part of the game ?

 

[Mamoon]

Okay, now you have convinced me to reply because I can add something that I didn’t add previously.

1. If you focus on big players, the balance is even further skewed. There is a reason that Kohli, Smith, etc had excellent series despite some top bowlers in the world playing this match. If Bumrah struggles to take any powerplay wickets, it reflects more on the pitch than on the batsman’s quality.

The reason Kohli and Smith had excellent series is because they are great batsmen and in spite of the margin of error against them, they make less errors than other batsmen.

That is what great batsmen do. On average, they make less mistakes than other batsmen because they have superior judgement and match-awareness.

Similarly, great bowlers take advantage of their margin of error and they bowl a lot of wicket-inducing deliveries that force batsmen into mistakes.

If Bumrah does not take a wicket in PP overs, you cannot come to the conclusion that it was down to the pitch rather than the quality of batting without watching the play.

At times, a bowler bowls really well but the batsman is equal to the task and absorbs everything that the bowler throws at him.

[quotes]I have decided that a score of 260-300 is more balanced than a score of 320-360 because of the following: it is more likely for a match with a 280 to contain a century from the top batsman as well as a 5-fer from the top bowler of the opposition, than it is for a 340 match. [/quote]

You have this perception that if a top bowler does not take 5-6 wickets, the game was not balanced. This what you have been primed to believe because you have convinced yourself that 280 is a balanced score and anything beyond that tilts the balance towards the batting side.

But if you accept 320-340 to be the new balance, you will then also acknowledge a bowler taking a 3 wicket haul as a good performance.

It is the same with economy rates - an economy rate of 7 looks high to you because you have established, in your mind, that an economy rate of around 5 is balance.

The reverse is true for batting as well. If the pitches and the conditions become so batting friendly that teams find it hard to get to 200-220, an individual score of 60-70 would become equivalent to a 100-120 within the context of the game.

More often that not, batsmen these days are rarely challenged by effective swing and seam. “Above average” performers are easily able to generate “great” performances. My best examples to this are the ODI records of Jason Roy, Fakhar Zaman, and Imam ul Haq. This is a consequence of two things, the first is the rules/pitches/conditions/boundaries and the second is a decline in bowler quality. If you refuse to concede on the first as I am trying to argue, you will also have to concede that your modern day pet favorites in Bumrah, Boult, and co are vastly inferior and dare I say mediocre compared to the likes of Donald, Wasim, Marshall, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, and more.

Actually it is the other way around. If you want to discredit modern day openers like Fakhar, Roy, Bairstow, Finch, Imam etc. because they have inflated records because the rules/pitches/conditions/boundaries are in their favor, then you have to extend this logic and apply to bowlers from the previous eras.

If these modern batsmen are above average and are able to generate great performances because of rules/pitches/conditions/boundaries, then that means that previous era bowlers like Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath etc. were also above average and were able to generate great performances because rules/pitches/conditions/boundaries were in their favor.

If previous era batsmen were better than modern batsmen because rules & conditions were not in their favor, then that means that modern bowlers are also better than previous era bowlers because the current rules & conditions are not in their favor.

So if you want to say that de Kock is not a better ODI opener than Saeed Anwar because the rules/pitches/conditions/boundaries are in his favor, then you will also have to admit that Rabada is a better ODI bowler Wasim and Waqar because the rules/pitches/conditions/boundaries were in Wasim and Waqar’s favor but are not in Rabada’s favor.

However, that is not something people are prepared to do, so they will try to convince you that not only the rules/pitches/conditions/boundaries are in favor of modern batsmen, but quality of modern bowlers has also declined, and that is a laughable butchery of logic.

The truth is that it is really in between. Bumrah has horrible one day stats against England, New Zealand, and Australia because despite being a fantastic bowler, the game offers no balance to him.

The game offers plenty of margin of error for Bumrah which is the fundamental flaw in the rules of cricket, so if the balance has shifted to compensate for the no margin of error for batsmen, it shouldn’t be a problem.

Speaking of ODIs, Bumrah can have the worst game of his life and concede 80 runs in 8 overs, but he will still have the opportunity to make a comeback and pick up 4-5 wickets in the last 2 overs.

On the other hand, a batsman does not have this luxury. If Kohli and Smith have the worst games of their lives and they keep edging and missing the ball and get hit on the pads, they might survive for 20-25 balls due to luck but eventually they will get out cheaply because all it takes is one individual error for a batsman’s game to end.

That is why, it is far more likely for a bowler to take 4-5 wickets while bowling poorly than it is for a batsman to score an 80 or a 100 while batting poorly.

 

[viveks]

Yes exactly.

It is important to understand the difference between rules and conditions.

Cricket rules are extremely biased towards bowlers. However, the conditions of play i.e. pitches, outfield, state of the ball etc. serve to neutralize that imbalance to an extent.

If the conditions are also extremely biased towards the bowlers, then there is nothing left in it for the batsmen.

Cricket in its elementary form is a hugely unfair game because of the contrasting margin of errors that batsmen and bowlers enjoy.

A batsman does not get second chances. One mistake and it is over for him. Even if the wicket is flat and the bowling is poor, one error, one momentarily loss of concentration and his game is finished.

On the other hand, a bowler will always be in the game for a fixed number of deliveries no matter how many mistakes he makes (in terms of bowling poorly, not breaking rules).

That is why benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman. It is one way of negating the inherent imbalance - the inherit flaw - in the nature of cricket.

I always find it amusing when people say that cricket is biased towards batsman. That is an illogical statement and contradicts the very fundamental nature of the sport itself.

This is true only in Test cricket. In limited overs cricket, loosing a wicket is not that big of a deal, it's more important to be able to score fast. Particularly in T20s. So I would say it would be accurate to say T20 is in favor of batsman, but tests are in favor of bowlers.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Unlimited bouncers will cripple cricket, no one is going to watch a match where the bowlers just bowl at the head of the batsman. Yeah its fun to watch the odd bouncer but when it becomes the stock ball the match becomes unwatchable. The one bouncer rule was not introduced to make it easier for the batsmen it was introduced to prevent slow play.

It's 2 for tests. If it's unlimited bowlers also run the risk of overdoing it. Good batsmen will pick up on it and smash them around the park. I don't think it harms the game at all. It's more entertaining for the fans.
More blood, more glory.
Batsmen already have a lot of advantages. Why not let the bowler have some added weapons to showcase his potential.
If you can't get a wicket, take the batsman out of the game by hurting him. Nothing wrong with that.
Batsman's job is to learn how to handle the bouncer or throat ball etc.

Yes I know about the Bodyline series. It's different now. Batsmen have patta flat pancake pitches, smaller Boundaries, bigger gloves, arm Guards, boxes, thigh pads, helmets with rearguard protection. What more do they want? Game would be much better with unlimited bouncers. Besides it's actually taxing on the bowler's body to constantly bowl bouncers as the bowler could hurt himself or get fatigued.

 

[Gilly]

It's 2 for tests. If it's unlimited bowlers also run the risk of overdoing it. Good batsmen will pick up on it and smash them around the park. I don't think it harms the game at all. It's more entertaining for the fans.
More blood, more glory.
Batsmen already have a lot of advantages. Why not let the bowler have some added weapons to showcase his potential.
If you can't get a wicket, take the batsman out of the game by hurting him. Nothing wrong with that.
Batsman's job is to learn how to handle the bouncer or throat ball etc.

Yes I know about the Bodyline series. It's different now. Batsmen have patta flat pancake pitches, smaller Boundaries, bigger gloves, arm Guards, boxes, thigh pads, helmets with rearguard protection. What more do they want? Game would be much better with unlimited bouncers. Besides it's actually taxing on the bowler's body to constantly bowl bouncers as the bowler could hurt himself or get fatigued.

It has already been tried and didn't work, it slows down cricket and watching it was boring.

 

[MenInG]

Australia allrounder Glenn Maxwell has come under much scrutiny for his switch-hit shot that has left the cricket world divided. The debate on the controversial shot has intensified since former Australia captain Ian Chappell has deemed it as “unfair” means by a batsman to garner runs against a fielding team. Chappell has in fact gone as far as to asking the International Cricket Council (ICC) to ban the cricketing shot. Glenn Maxwell has defended it, but the debate refuses to die down.

Now, the BCCI President and former India captain Sourav Ganguly has opened up on the controversial shot and said that he has no problem with the popular stroke in the modern-day cricket.

“The game has moved on, so I don’t see we can take away this popular stroke from the modern-day batsmen,” Ganguly was quoted as saying by Mid-Day.

“You require a lot of strength to play such courageous shot. Apart from timing and feet movement, a lot of other things are required to play this stroke,” he added.

“Kevin Pietersen was the first to play this shot. Also David Warner’s name should come here. It’s a very good shot if you can hit it nicely,” he further added.

Meanwhile, Matthew Wade’s second consecutive half-century was well-complemented by Glenn Maxwell’s blazing strokeplay as Australia posted a competitive 186 for 5 against India in the third and final T20 International in Sydney on Tuesday.

Wade, who has played all his big T20 knocks against India, smashed his way to 80 off 53 balls with the help seven fours and two sixes.Maxwell, who struggled with his timing initially, also got into the act during the last six overs with a 35-ball-54 and a third-wicket stand of 90 runs in 8.4 overs with Wade.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...ricket-shot/story-3rkxLSynMr3PsZznIeNamJ.html