Right Hand Left Hand

I dont know about you guys..... but I have to say I am slightly alarmed by this new batting shot that wots his name is doing for England.

Switch hitting is allowed in the States in Baseball..... but I believe.... and maybe Red can confirm this as he lives closer to the action than I..... When a batter goes into the batting box.... the way he statnds.... is the way he has to bat... left or right.

I think it should be the same here. Its wrong to allow the batsman to do this as a bowler would set his field for a right hand bat..... suddenly on delivery stride the batsman changes and a ball into his legs\body is now a juicy half volley or short pitched ball he can pull away to the boundry as a left hander.

Its not right and I am afraid the Cricket authoritys are being swept along on the wave that is 20\20 which worries me alot.

I am not into the game as much as I once was..... and in my youth I played the game to a fairly high level and could bowl very fast for the Middlesex\Hertfordshire league standard .... I have no doubt what I would have done if someone like ol whats his name switch hit me..... the next ball would have been a beamer straight for his head follwed by ..... oops sorry mate... slipped...

As a bowler I dont think this shot should be allowed - as a viewer (in this day where T20 and fast hitting is the name of the game) you cant deny that a shot like that does wonders for entertainment value - and thats what the big push is by the ICC, IPL and others. In terms of cricketing laws, and the basics of cricket this shot should be outlawed by the authorities.
Comparing it to the reverse sweep, or a bowlers variation (be it a spinners dhoosra or a seamers slower ball) makes no cricketing sense. A right handed batsman should only be playing shots right handed - not that hard to understand, no matter how risky it is.

I am going to go the other way and be in favour of the shot. I would suggest that batting left handed is a weakness for a right handed batsman, and therefore the bowler has more chance of taking a wicket when the switch is made than before. I think the fact that the switch makes a wicket more likely, makes the shot worth having.
Its a risk that the batsman takes that either reaps rewards or it doesnt. There is a bit of outcry because KP succeeded twice and everyone loves it, bowlers hate it--except the bowler who suffered the shots ironically. Had he scored a majestic six on his first attempt, followed by a woeful hack into the sky giving up his wicket, then there would be less speak of it.
On the point of a set field...the batsman can still hit the ball to extra cover if he plays right handed. So I think theres less issue of setting to a right hander.
I understand all the arguements against and they are surely valid, but I think there is enough in favour of the bowler when this shot is attempted to allow it to go on. Added to this that an overwhelming majority of batsmen will be unable to play this shot.
I wait in anticipation for the first bowler who can bowl right handed and left handed.

I think u both make some excellent points.

I got to say thou.... I fear for Test Match Cricket

At a time when as a Test nation we are struggling to produce top notch Test Match batsmen..... the introduction of 20-20 and these trick shots for want of a better description, it pains me to hear Sky speaking of players up n down the country practising this new shot!

I remember Ian Botham getting out to a reverse sweep in a test match against India (he had 200 at the time lol) and all the old boys at my cricket club saying how irresponsible the shot was. Well maybe as ABCDEF says….. when wots his name gets out to it…. People might start to see the shot in a different light.

Maybe I am starting to show my age.... but if it is to be made legal.... I hope a rule is brought in to say it can only be played in 20-20 games.

I am not familiar with Cricket at all so I have not seen what this batter is doing. Is he switching sides once he has seen the bowler's windup or is he switching sides after each ball is thrown?

Is baseball you can bat left handed for one pitch and bat right handed for the next pitch, can't really remember it being done but it is legal to do so. Once the pitcher is in his set position you can't switch sides of the batter's box.

Baseball rules that apply to your question:

6.02 (a) The batter shall take his position in the batter's box promptly when it is his time at bat.
(b) The batter shall not leave his position in the batter's box after the pitcher comes to Set Position, or starts his windup.

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when-
(b) He steps from one batter's box to the other while the pitcher is in position ready to pitch;

Rule 6.06(b) is interpreted to mean the batter will be called out for changing boxes when the pitcher is in contact with the rubber. Umpires can sometimes prevent this from happening and are expected to try by stopping the batter’s action before he completes it. Other than that there are no restrictions to a switch-hitter switching boxes during one plate appearance.

In baseball, pitchers when I was a kid would have stuck one in the guy's ear for messing them about, but baseball like football is becoming tamer as they outlaw things like the brush back pitch. You would think this Cricket player would take one in the head if he was doing something that went against the traditions of the game. But rules in all sports are being changed to allow for more offensive since that is what sells the tickets.

Firstly for red, the switch happens during the bowlers run up, namely just before the delivery stride or "winding up" as you so americanly put it .
Moving onward....
Test cricket will still be popular to purist cricket fans. I prefer test cricket to T20 and im sure the players do as well. Many have said that T20 is fun and a welcome break but its Test stats that people remember and what you base your career on. The money flowing into T20 may encourage young players to develop their techniques in a T20 fashion, that is the main problem.
The popularity of the test game will stay the same, as it is only the real cricket fans that like it anyway. T20 attracts new fans that the sport would not have had otherwise and so they are a benefit.
Test cricket needs to stay as it is, with all the traditions and anyone who gets into cricket will still understand that the Test arena is still the great proving ground. The big names in cricket have all prospered on this stage and their limited overs statistics are less important.
Cricket as a sport needs to find a good balance in the calendar for all of this cricket that people are now demanding. The limited overs domestic league has taken a back seat at the moment and I think this could be removed altogether. This is not because i believe that T20 should be the only limited overs competition, quite the contrary. The Friends Provident trophy is a 50 over competition which is much better than the 40 over league. It could be expanded to have more games, which will ultimately take less time out of the calendar compared with the current FP fixtures plus the 40 over league.
The money in cricket is a new phenomina that needs to be embraced and the governors of cricket just need to make sure that traditions are safe and that the sport moves forward in the best way.