Kevin Pietersen

[Beach Hut]

There is a rather silly debate about him on Sky.

When batting today he turned himself from a right hander to a left hander and smashed two amazing sixes doing it and now there is a debate on whether this is ethical.

FFS get over it, he is just bloody good at batting.

 

[Haydn-4]

I know, its pathetic. its a shot. It's not as if he's using carbon fibre in his bat

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Of course it is ethical. Those two shots were top drawer and a bit of gamesmanship, which is more than welcome in ODI cricket, in my opinion.

 

[Jake Manthorpe]

Was amzing.. he should do it more offen! 2 times 2 6'..


must add an amazing run out from collingwood

 

[Cecil]

It's entertainment ffs

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

[yt]SYOdrR3AzZw[/yt]

That's bloody good.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

surely the main reason as to why most batsmen don't do that is because they can't

if he's talented enough to do it then fine! cricket is sport and sport is entertainment

 

[Beach Hut]

I might be wrong but I am quite sure Michael Holding started the debate by saying this was unfair - stupid if you ask me the fact is Pietersen is very good and as they said on TMS when he bats most of the bars around the ground are empty.

 

[SNOOBS]

Quite amazing off 70+ mph bowling

 

[Jamon Jamon]

surely the main reason as to why most batsmen don't do that is because they can't

if he's talented enough to do it then fine! cricket is sport and sport is entertainment

indeed

 

[Muhammad - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

Quite amazing off 70+ mph bowling

exactly
if it was off a slowy you could (sort of) understand how he had the time to think about it.
to do that to TWO 70 mph deliveries? the man is class

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Awesome

 

[CHAPPERS]

The whole debate is about whether he should be allowed to switch hands as the bowler is not allow to declare that he's going right arm over and then bowl right arm AROUND. It's a valid arguemt ans it brings in the wide rule. Personally I think it should be allowed but umpires need to be a bit more leniant with wides if that is the way it's going.

 

[Skint Gull]

The whole debate is about whether he should be allowed to switch hands as the bowler is not allow to declare that he's going right arm over and then bowl right arm AROUND. It's a valid arguemt ans it brings in the wide rule. Personally I think it should be allowed but umpires need to be a bit more leniant with wides if that is the way it's going.

As in if the bowler see's the batsman change hands just he's about to release the ball he can pretty much chuck it where he likes. Fantastic stuff but I can understand bowlers being a bit narked about it

 

[keaton]

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, asl ong the umpires figure out what constitues a wide. If he gets out doing it he'll look fool.
They said the same thing about the bowler going from around the wicket or over the wicket but it's a bit different.There's a the technical thing where the umpire states where a bowler's going to deliver from, but doesn't state which hand the batsmen's gonna play with. The bowler can change what type of delivery he's gonna bowl (spin or pace) without informing anyone if he wanted

 

[Seagull over NZ]

The other thing is what Ian Smith pointed out - you can only have 2 fielders on the leg side behind square so when someone switches to left handed, what is the leg side?

Personally I think it is awesome, anyone who can pull that off needs to be encouraged, not restricted.

The argument about bowlers coming over or around the wicket just doesn't wash, its not practical as you have the non-striker standing there.

 

[Mendoza]

If people going to get annoyed with Pietersen batting left handed, are they going to be annoyed by Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson who bowl Right handed, but bat LEFT handed

 

[Stat Brother]

I thought it was fantastic.
As well as KP's interview after along the lines of 'we want to crush anyone who comes to this country to play cricket'.

Imagine if we had a footballer with enough ability to see through that sentiment. We wouldn't be depressed now.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

All the debate about wides here is correct. There are other issues with players moving a long way to the leg side as well (note all the debate when Ian Gould was giving wides to leg side balls that nearly hit the batsman when he was backing away in the 20:20).

But the big issue with this debate is the phrase "at the point of delivery".

Once the bowler has begun his run in, no one should be able to change anything but as soon as then bowler reaches the point of delivery, it's a free for all:

Fielders can run around
Batsman can change hands
Bowler can go fast or slow, wider or straighter

But prior to that, once the bowler is at his mark, everything waits for the bowler to reach the point of delivery.