Switching sides
January 14th 2009 08:42
"Right arm over", mumbles the bowler as he walks past the umpire,lost in thought about what he was going to do this over to prevent the batsman from fatally harming his fledgling career. "Right arm over the wicket", thunders the umpire towards the batsman. The batsman nods civilly, scratches and fiddles around for a while with his guard before finally settling down into his stance - right handed, if you are particular about wanting to know. Hearing this shout the bowler reflects as to what would happen if there comes a time when umpires also announce that he was going to bowl a googly in the third ball of the over and a faster one to finish it off. Not surprisingly this does not do wonders to his confidence and outlook towards the effort of getting wickets.
In the meanwhile the captain is done setting the field for his bowler. As this is a slow bowler the captain feels that one man behind square on the offside should be good enough. Fair enough actually unless the guy batting plays only late cuts. Things settle down and the bowler sidles along to the crease with trepidation and lets go of the ball as flat as possible so that the batsman cannot get under the ball to hoist it over the ropes which, to the bowler, seem so close that he could reach it if he could make a big enough jump from the wicket. After the ball leaves the bowler's hand the batsman nonchalantly switches his stance such that he is now a left hander. He puts his right foot forward, lifts his bat high in the air towards where fine leg would stand for a right hander and crashes a swipe, er, sweep shot. The actleaves the short third man, the captain and the bowler mortified while there is a smirk evident in the batsman's face.
The bowler though is still young enough to stare adversity in the eye and say 'I defy you'. So he duly collects the ball and prepares to hurl another ball at the batsman. This one is also street smart. He has formulated in his mind a strategy to counter the horribly deceitful ways of the batsman at the crease. This time he floats the ball up for a change and has it pitch just outside the leg stump of the right hander and the spin that he imparted to the ball makes it veer sharply towards the stumps off the wicket. This time too the right hander has switched sides and is right now standing - ready to wallop the ball towards the offside with all the grace of a new born rhinoceros. Well since he is not actually a left hander he is not able to judge the ball which pitches outside his off stump (leg stump, if he had stayed put right handed). The ball swerves in the air, pitches on the wicket and evades the bat nimbly on its way to strike the pad squarely in front of the stumps. The triumphant youngster turns back to the umpire with a roar of an appeal. The gentleman in the white coat though is nonplussed. He wags a stern head and indicates that the ball has just pitched outside the leg stump and cannot be given out. "Excuse me, what leg stump?", says the bowler. That is cricket today.
Lets reflect on the above situation for a bit here. How much should the rules favour the batsmen? How much is too much when it comes to altering the balance of this noble game? Why is a bowler required to provide a guard when he wants to bowl from a particular side of a wicket. If he wishes to change even his line of attack he is expected to inform the umpire and therefore the batsman. And of course if he wants to change hands - to bowl with his left hand, if he is right handed - he will again need to inform the umpire. Not doing so would lead to him being noballed. So, how come there is no penalty for batsmen if they do this? And then there is the whole benefit of doubt factor which basically means that unless the batsman is so out that almost everybody in the stadium knows it, he gets to stay.
In my mind there is an explanation as to why the game of cricket evolved with an eye towards protecting a batsman's interests somewhat. In the days gone by the wickets were uncovered. Bounce and pace were anything but predictable. The batsmen did not have a jot of protective gear where it mattered. And the rules were the same. If the bowlers did not get something right they could try and try again. The batsman simply has to make a mistake once to find himself taking the lonely road back to a glum and grim dressing room. Well, times have changed. If a pitch exhibits so much as a tendency to deviate from the batsman's expectations as to what construes a 'good pitch', the surface is blacklisted and all manner of abuse is hurled at everybody from the curator to the home board to even the quality of soil in the country. And there is hardly a way in which a bowler can injure a batsman in anyway - at any rate not to the satisfaction of the long suffering bowlers! And lets not even talk about the boundary ropes which are being reduced in distance at the same rate at which the hemline of skirts is disappearing in modern fashion.
There is an urgent need to take another look at the balance of power in the game and see if it still makes for a true specator spectacle as a battle between evenly balanced powers rather than a gladiatorial sport where the result is known far in advance as when a man is pitted against two tigers and it is but a question of time. I am not saying that the batsman must not perform a switch hit manoeuver. But he cannot do so with impunity. If a right hander changes guard to become a left hander then all manners of adjudication from wides to LBW must change perspective based on his stance. That is but fair. This is a restrictive solution to the problem in essence a little negative. The powers that be may also look at a few empowering solutions for the bowlers' ilk such as the leather hurlers not having to announce a guard and the ability to deliver the ball with the right or left hand at will and without announcing in advance. Admittedly such mavericks with ambidextrous ability are not to be found on the field today, but as we cannot read the future we ought to give it a chance. Even up the rules and see how people can grow to take advantage. After all if the bowlers can still take wickets in modern cricket - even in T20 you have to concede that they are a tough lot! And adaptability and flexibility are certainly not their weak suits.
| 34 |
| Vote |
