Innovation Nation

Of all the sometimes absurd arguments that are raised by the sport of cricket, surely this is the most pointless and irritating. Last Sunday, Kevin Pietersen, whilst making a cracking hundred in a one day international against New Zealand, played two shots with a left handed grip, both of them going for six. And, as superb and innovative as those shots were, commentators and pundits are calling for a ban on this type of shot as it gives a unfair advantage to the batsman. For the life of me, I cannot understand this logic.


Now, the reverse sweep is a more common shot in world cricket, with players using their hands to manoeuvre the ball into their off sides as opposed to where a conventional sweep would go. What Pietersen did was similar but more staggering. As the medium paced Scott Styris was in his delivery stride, Pietersen changed his hands on the bat and spun around so he was pretty much batting as a left hander. He then thumped the first ball over the deep square leg boundary and the second over the ropes at long on.


The shots were not sweeps - more like left handed slogs. It was a tremendous sight and, of course, aided Pietersen in his search for a century. However, is this ‘switch-hitting’ entirely within the legality of the game? Many are now saying that the stroke should be outlawed as the batsman is changing his batting stance.


I cannot believe the stupidity in this. Innovation is one of the fundamental facets of limited overs cricket. Players have to find as many ways as possible of getting runs, not all of them conventional. Pietersen has extreme talent in the power he needed to clear the rope the way he did and he has come up with a new way of getting runs, a way that only a handful of players in the world could achieve.


Yet, we are now trying to ban him from doing it. Why would we want to stifle our best batsman? How does this make it unfair for the bowler. Test cricket witnesses the reverse sweep being played all the time - is this not what Pietersen did? Did he not simply change his hands so he could hit the ball the other way? I can’t see how this makes it unfair for the bowler. It is possible for him to see that batsman turning and deceive him with his delivery. It is also possible for Pietersen to miss-time the shot and scoop it straight up in the air for a catch.


In a contest between bat and ball, Pietersen had the extra edge and the boldness to play an extremely risky shot. It came off for him. Twice. How this shot is now facing extinction when it is so valuable and such a joy to watch is so far beyond me. With all the new idea’s and new methods being introduced to cricket every day, this is simply part of the process. And don’t forget how much the crowd enjoyed it either!


I’m all for the preservation of the basics of cricket and for Test cricket and its classical nature to remain at the forefront. But, this is surely another example of failing to keep up with the times. I’m sorry, but I feel cricket is shooting itself in the foot here.

Square Pegs and Round Holes

With the current batting malaise that the England cricket team finds itself in and the prospect of an extremely tough series with South Africa later this summer, many a question is being raised with regards to the selection of the team for said Test series. The hype surrounds one man: Andrew Flintoff. His long awaited return from injury has allowed him to be available for England for this crucial Test series and, there’s no doubt about it, when on his game, he is a definite starter.

But, if Freddie comes back in, then who goes? On the BBC Sport website today, Alec Stewart’s blog focuses on this problem. He, and many others around the land, believes that should Flintoff return then he should do as part of a four man bowling attack and not at number six in the batting line-up as he has done for years now. This is due to his perceived lack of form with the bat. Stewart justifies this by pointing out that England have won Test matches with just a four pronged bowling attack and that they do not need five bowlers to bowl out South Africa twice.

I take issue with this and for several reasons too.

For starters, examine the tests that England have won with this bowling attack. Away in New Zealand twice and home to New Zealand once. With all due respect, to both New Zealand and the England bowlers, I don’t think it is an achievement that proves a winning formula. New Zealand aren’t the sternest of tests for bowlers, either home or away, and though Ryan Sidebottom, Stuart Broad, Monty Panesar and James Anderson have bowled magnificently well over the last year or so, I don’t think that England will be able to just use the four of them when the South Africans come to call.

Besides the South African batting lineup is a formidable one - one needs only to look at their last tour of England, when Graeme Smith smashed two double hundreds, to see that. South Africa are ranked the second best team in the world and rightly so. They have class and experience in the likes of Smith, Jacques Kallis and Marc Boucher and their bowling attack is one of the most formidable going around. Dale Steyn is the most exciting young fast bowler in the world at the moment and with the enthusiasm of Makhaya Ntini and Morne Morkel, England will not find them easy, not by a long shot.

If you take England’s current four bowlers and add Flintoff to them, it looks like a great attack. What Stewart is suggesting is that Flintoff is incapable of playing the all rounder role so must replace a bowler. Who would you drop out of Broad , Sidebottom and Anderson? Broad makes crucial runs and is such an good prospect. Sidebottom has been England’s best bowler for the last year and adds the option of left arm over. Anderson just took 7-43 at Trent Bridge and when it swings, he is world class. So why drop any of them? Add Flintoff to the mix and just wait for the results.

Yes, Flintoff at six might weaken the batting. Or it could strengthen it. You never know what kind of form Flintoff could bring into the side and if they are that worried then play Flintoff at seven and stick Tim Ambrose at six. Either way I think it would be stupid to drop one of the bowlers to accommodate Flintoff when he could add so much to the already promising pace attack. England’s greatest recent successes have come with five bowlers - the Ashes in 2005, beating South Africa away, gaining their first Test win in India in 40 years.

I would drop Paul Collingwood, who has had a shocking summer so far. Ian Bell has too but he is an extraordinary batsman when on form and could contribute a lot to the England cause. Yes, England’s batting has been poor this summer but they are all capable players. I really feel that England need to revert to their five man attack as soon as possible and Flintoff makes that possible.

So that would be
Cook
Strauss
Vaughan [c]
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Ambrose [wk]
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

I can only hope the like of Geoff Miller and Ashley Giles read this blog and take my advice. Ash, you have my number.