posted Jun 19, 2008

Thank you, Reverend.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 19, 2008

DL - Under the current laws there is nothing to say that KP's shot was llegal. Surely what we're arguing about is whether or not it is right?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 19, 2008

Precisely, Dave_Weston. Many peoples’ view is that it cannot be right that the thought and planning that goes into setting a field is suddenly rendered worthless by a batsman changing hands.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 19, 2008

The thought and planning that goes into setting a field is rendered worthless every time a batsman finds a gap, a bowler pitches the ball too short/long/ off line, or the batsman does anything not expected. Such as hook a ball outside off stump.

Field placing is an art, not a science, you work the odds and cover the most likely areas, the more risk a batsman takes, the better.

Don't forget this is international competitive sport, not school sportsday, where no-one loses and everyone gets a prize for taking part.

There is no grey area between "cheating" and "gaining an advantage" there's a massive gulf - and this is plainly not on the cheating side.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 19, 2008

i totally understand your views DL and that shots like KP's could lead to comprimising cricket as we are used to.

But i think that these shots along with 20/20 is here to stay and these are the things that are not just keeping cricket alive but allow the sport to grow.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 19, 2008

Yes, DL - it is many peoples' view that it's not right.

It's obviously difficult to judge from the posts herein (and I am not going to count them); but it does seem to me that more than half of the posts are in favour of allowing the shot. I would also guess that if all the contributors were allowed one vote each, that this too would come down strongly on the side of allowing the shot. Moerover, the MCC have now indicated that they feel it's OK (albeit with the proviso that the LBW and Wide laws may need some tweaking).

I no longer play cricket myself and am not really in touch with those who do, but I suspect that the cricketing community as a whole would tend to support KP's shot (perhaps even the bowlers).

Of course, I'm not suggesting you discard your view in favour of that of the majority, since your view is one that has 'fairness' at its heart; and I respect it for this (perhaps even more than I respect your proper use of apostrophes); but my view also has 'fairness' at its heart, since I feel it would be unfair to restrict the batsman from being creative in his footwork and dexterity. If he had been trying to pervert the laws themselves by giving himself added protection from LBWs; or a better chance of hitting the ball into an area of restricted fielding, then I would come down on a different side of the fence.

Dave

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 19, 2008

“The thought and planning that goes into setting a field is rendered worthless every time a batsman finds a gap…”

Of course, but the fielding captain has at least been allowed to base his field setting on the batsman retaining his normal stance and just has to accept the concession of runs from a conventional shot. He has not, effectively had to employ a number of leg slips and a leg gully.

I’m all in favour of the sport growing, but not at the expense of allowing such a fundamental and to me, unfair shot, roakey.

I’m not sure that the weight of opinion on 606 is that reliable, Dave_Weston. I suspect that many people who would agree with me don’t know what a computer is and many of those who do wouldn’t contribute anyway.

It wasn’t a good day for those who believe that there are certain fundamental principles of cricket that shouldn’t be sacrificed on the altars of expedience and ill informed popularity. It won’t stop me watching it, however.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 20, 2008

Surely a batsman can do whatever he/she likes with their stance, i'm sure they could stand as if playing 'french' cricket if they wanted to! I don't see how using an interesting new style of shot is any way against the spirit of the game. Surely a doosra or googly etc would also be against the spirit of the game as they are deliberately deceptive.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 20, 2008

“Surely a batsman can do whatever he/she likes with their stance…”

No problem with that, but I’d add the proviso, as long as it doesn’t negate a carefully placed field setting, which is patently unfair.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 20, 2008

Well, I think that this particular horse has been flogged to death, so I'll sign off here.

DL, I can see what you're saying and don't disagree with it all in principle.

Just think that it's a step too far to start banning shots, and don't think that the "fairness to the fielders" is too important for a very high risk shot that's not going to be played often.

One of those subjects that will divide people for years, but it will be accepted eventually (if not banned), just like the reverse sweep the bouncer, the googley and the hook were.

It's been fun.

add comment | complain about this comment