Is it cricket...?

  Quickbeam 13:27 18 Jun 2008

Well we invented the game, so we can invent more strokes if we want to... so there!

Kevin Peitersen has caused quite a storm with his personal take on the 'reverse sweep' shot click here

But the games changed before and got better for the changes click here for a rundown of previous cases of 'caddish play'...

  anskyber 14:04 18 Jun 2008

To ban the stroke would be a pure nonsense.

I was lucky enough to be at the Riverside and witness the stroke which he played twice to perfection. At first I could not believe my eyes but when he repeated the exercise I could only applaud his great skill.

  galeforce8 14:17 18 Jun 2008

For once the MCC have seen sense, if a player gets run’s from playing a reverse shot or switching from right to left or left to right then that’s fine, but for some players their is a higher risk of getting out to an unorthodox shot.

  Legolas 16:15 18 Jun 2008

I agree with all the above. After all a bowler is always changing the way he bowls to try and get a batsman out so I don't see the difference in a batsman playing an unorthadox stroke to catch a bowler out.

  Stuartli 16:44 18 Jun 2008

That is not correct. If a bowler changes from bowling over rather than round the wicket or even underarm, the umpire will inform the batsman.

My own view is good luck to KP as he won't necessarily know if he's going to go right or left handed (although this didn't always seem the case the other day).

However, I've a lot of friends who have played either amateur or semi-professional cricket and, whilst admiring KP, think it's unfair on bowlers.

They don't count the reverse sweep in the same category by the way.

  laurie53 21:17 18 Jun 2008

Nothing, but nothing, can be unfair on bowlers!

  Quickbeam 00:44 19 Jun 2008

I'm looking forward to Edgbaston even more now:)

  Legolas 07:58 19 Jun 2008

On a slightly different vein, what a farce the end of yesterdays one day against New Zealand, one over needed to make it a game and the umpires call it off for a bit of rain, this after they had wasted a half hour giving them a tea break. Ther powers that be in cricket really should drag themselves into the 21st century.

  Quickbeam 08:19 19 Jun 2008

Now that just wouldn't be cricket...

  Legolas 12:29 19 Jun 2008

Ian Beefy Botham was scathing of whoever it was that decided they should have a full 30 mins as they had been in and out of the pavillion all day due to the weather, 10 mins he said would have been sufficient. I agree.

I think I would have been a bit miffed if I sat through the game all day just for it to have been declared a no-game only needing one over. Especially if I was a New Zealander when New Zealander appeared to be heading for a win.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 review

What went wrong at the Designs of the Year 2017

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment regarder des séries et talk-shows américains en France ?