You forgot about the 'slower ball' bowlers changing their grip at point of delivery to reduce pace. that's quite an innovation I thought

I completely disagree with your view on switch hit. This is in no way unfair to bowlers, in fact gives them a far greater chance of getting a batsman out. You have to try playing the shot yourself, and you will realise just how difficult it is to change grip and stance mid-delivery, not to mention the special ability needed to actually pull it off. Only Pietersen has done it consistently well, and I'll say good luck to him, as that is a tough shot to pull off. Then you suggest batsman playing that shot should be give out LBW if a ball pitches outside leg and turns in, so are you then suggesting that they be given not-out for a ball pitching outside off? That would be far greater injustice to the bowler, as that is what the bowler would be aiming for to begin with (he obviously doesn't know switch is coming). Or do you suggest LBW be given no matter where the ball pitches, which again is an absurd notion. Being able switch hit requires great skill, and you need to appreciate that.

Well written article. I would like to add 2 more things to your list that have in my opinion decisively tilted the balance in favour of batsmen.
1. Restriction of bouncers in Test matches
2. Introduction of helmets to protect batsmen thus eliminating one of the most thrilling strokes from the batsmen's armoury, the Hook.

Thanks
Arun

"Allowing a switch hit is akin to bowlers being permitted to change without notice from over the wicket to around the wicket."

I never understood why this is constantly seen to be the case. Padding up with a reverse grip is akin to switching bowling hands during your run up.

Consider a batsman like Chanderpaul who faces up square. Generally, if he takes a step forward, it is with one leg, and if he takes a step backward, it is with the other, maintaining his 'conventional' stance upon striking the ball. What should stop him from doing the reverse and taking a 'switch-hit' position? And why would a bowler assume that he would not?

Perhaps the LBW rule needs to be overhauled generally - allowing leg-side LBWs would force batsmen to take action against negative bowling, as well as reducing the need to make switch-hit specific laws, which may be hard to implement.

Well, a very balanced piece indeed. Something I believe must be done as the game is getting more and more batsmen friendly.
Yet, regarding the reverse swing you mentioned "What Sarfraz Nawaz started, Steyn and Zaheer have converted into fine art" ... I had cramps laughing. Come on Steyn and Zaheer.. you can do so much better. No doubt they both are great fast bowlers ... but reverse swing, mastered, art... lolzz!!
What happened to Gul, waqar or for that matter wasim.

Mate loved the article- I'll just say this short piece. The key to balance between bat and ball is more bowler friendly wickets. Accountants that want a guaranteed 5 days have discouraged the real turner or green top that used to be the norm 30 years ago. Keep the pitches covered but give them pace, carry and the chance to get some movement off the seam. Job done. One last thing- isn't it funny that batsman are listened to when they complain about a "dog" of a wicket, but no-one complains (or doesn't listen to complaints) from bowlers when they are presented with yet another dead, concrete hard strip.
God bless bowlers (:

The "runner" issue is becoming increasingly common, when ODIs are being played in April/ August at temperatures in the 40's. I remember a particular ODI in Jamshedpur recently at a temperature of 44 degrees. If cricket has now become a round the year game, we probably have to pay this price.

Good article. A lot has been made of the skew in favour of batsmen in recent years, and the consequent improvement in the number of averages over 50. Something that is rarely mentioned is the effect of improvements in fielding in recent years. Whilst there have always been great fielders capable of brilliant catches and run-saving stops there is now the case that absolute duffers in the field are rarer, with all bowlers expected to be able to put in a run-saving dive here and an athletic catch there. I wonder how many runs are lost to batsmen as a result of improved fitness and technique in fielding.

I agree that the game is tilted in favour of the batsman. Changes need to be made to give bowlers a fairer chance. The idea that a switch hit somehow gives the batsman an unfair advantage though is wrong. Rather than taking any action against a batsmen, would it not be better to scrap the rule whereby a bowler must indicate which side of the wicket and with which arm he should bowl? If a player has the ability to do these things, then surely he should be allowed to do so.
The best innovation for international cricket would surely be to employ neutral groundsmen. The sub-continent teams produce slow and/or turning pitches as they rarely have pace bowlers of note. England and NZ produce pitches which seam and suit their bowlers. Whatevever happened to the WACA? Or the WI tracks? Lillee, Thompson, Garner, Marshall and Holding would struggle in their own back yard these days. It is the playing surface which should be changed. A six is no more exciting than a middle stump cartwheeling

I've never really seen where people are coming from when they say the game is dominated by the bat. More test matches are currently won, rather than drawn, than has ever previously been the case. From this you can infer that (bowling)strike rates are higher than they have been previously. Sure batting averages and bowling averages are perhaps 4-5 runs higher but is this really a problem? Is the old balance between bat and ball the correct balance simply because it is the old one?

What statistics tell us is that more scoring action, be it batting or bowling success is happening at current than has previously been the case. While I can see that this is not necessarily a good thing and that defensive cricket is to be admired as well, I would point out that that many commentators have described test cricket in the 50's and 60's as slow and turgid and that the current balance may be an improvement. Whether this balance is better than that of the 80's and 90's may well be another question.

I tend to disagree with your point on runners being provided for Batsmen...In Saeed Anwar's case, he was not batting in England/NZ, where the weather is Pleasent, it was Chennai in the peak of Summer!!! Even the Best of atheletes will be dehydrated in Chennai...Remember Dean Jones' Double hundred..He was on drips after that, and the match was played in october..Need I say more? I would have agreed if the example provided had to do with Someone like Arjuna Ranatunga or David Boon...Now we are talking fitness :-)

@captain nibbles: The point is that the laws have been bent in the favour of batsmen. Improvement in fielding is not the consequnce of change in laws. So you cannot canel them out like you are suggesting.

I find the sight of mis-hits going for six instead of being caught in the deep distressing and boring. Lets move the boundaries back to where they used to be would be easy. Some grounds are small anyway> cricket needs more homogeneity, not less. Lets have some more (spin- or pace-)bowler-friendly wickets, for the same reason. And how about a volume limit on bats? This would reduce the mega-sweet-spot problem. And how about a limit on the number of laminations in the handle? That would help too.

You don't necessarily get cramps only from lack of fitness. You get cramps from dehydration. On the switch-hit, it is a nighmare for an umpire to make judgement. A batsman deciding to switch-hit should forgo his protection of outside the line of the leg stump. You can't decide to change what is a leg stump during the course of a delivery! And a switch hit is fair. Otherwise the bowler should ell the batsman what sort of delivery he is going to bowl.

It has always seemed unfair that a batsman can visit a bat maker and have his bat specially made. Perhaps bowlers should do that, adding a bit of weight to one side, a higher seam, more shine on one side etc. Then each bowler can have his own ball during a game. Of course that won't happen, but why should inferior batsmen gain an advantage from custom-made bats?

I don't think switch hit is in favour of batsmen, It is just like fast bowlers bowling slower ones.I would like to see bowler alllwowe to bowl more than one bouncer.

If one can have seaming trampolines of a pitch, then dust bowls should be part of the deal. Different batters and bowlers have different talents and a good team should have them all. The easiest thing to do in the short term would be to make a new ball available in 60 or even 50 overs in a Test match and 25 overs in ODI. Even "dead" pitches can be brought back to life, for Holding & Co ran through sides on slow wickets too. I think what is also ignored these days is the fact that bowlers have a very heavy work load all through the year and just cant maintain their "fizz" if you will, all the time. So FTP/scheduling etc. comes into the picture.

With regards to the LBW rule, I think the 'pitching outside leg stump' bit is hogwash. For me, the rule is simple—if the ball is hitting the pads in front of the stumps, you're out, whether it pitches 10 yards outside leg stump and turns in (that's the bowler's skill, give him credit). This way batsmen will be forced to play at ALL the deliveries and will constitute an even battle between bat and ball. For me, this pitching outside leg stump has to go.

Okay so you spoke about bat and ball, and about bowlers,batsmen and wicket-keepers. How about the fielders - hasn't life changed for them? Yes, gone are the days when our slip fielders used to lazily bend down to try and catch an edge.....these days even fielders who have razor-sharp reflexes need acrobatic skills and magic potions to stop singles and catch that flyer from Raina or Kallis!
At one time, a miffed captain could banish a bad fielder to the boundary ropes. Now with 20-20 matches morphing into the test cricket arena, you need some of the sharpest guys on the edge of the field!
How cricket has transformed from a languourous waltz in the sixties to a frenetic trance in 2010!! And if you believe me, soon one won't be able to tell the difference between cricket and baseball! (with due apologies to fans of both forms ofsport!)

Hats off to the research. As usual the article facilitated my journey for the understanding of cricket. I find the idea of switch hit an interesting one and want to have my favour for it to be favourable to the bowler who is the real scapegoat in current state of cricket,

BCCI was unhappy with Indian players failing to win any match in stage 2 of the game, despite so much hu ha about our team being well prepared after IPL tamasha-circus. Well in a circus clowns and animals come and go and please the crowd of children and forced-to-go adults. This is what happened at IPL where there was game but for other reasons......you all know what...

In the enquiry about failure and fist fight by some players in the pub the enquiry by BCCI Officials goes like this:

BCCI: OK Player X what can you tell us about our team failing to win any match in stage 2 of the game:

Player X: Sir there are many reasons but we tried our hard.

BCCI: What non-sense, do you call this trying hard when you can not win any match and nor come near winning..always failing.

Player X: Sir winning and loosing is part of the game and we tried very hard all the time and by different ways.

BBCI: Shut up, for you all, loosing is always part of game. You all seem to be to have taken every thing for granted with lot of money you made during IPL.

Player X : Sir that may be true that we made lot of money but we tried various ways to win at least one match like Pakistan and get in to semi.

BCCI: Tell us what were the various ways you tried.


Player X: Like we prayed a lot.

BCCI: Prayed...what non-sense, what has game got to do with prayers.

Player X: Sir Lagaan way. we sang and prayed.

BCCI: Lagaan. oh. I see. What do you mean, elaborate.

Player X : Sir we sang the song which goes like: Hamri Uljhan... Kalley Badal Kaley Badal Pani Tou Barsao....I do not remember the full song. But we all sang this many times.

BCCI: You nut do not know the Song. it is Megha and not Badal in lyrics.Any way what was the purpose of prayer.

Player X: Sir as we were not able to win any match, we thought if match is drawn, we will get one point. So if two matches are drawn, we can get 2 points and may be we can go to semis.

BCCI: Utter Non sense. You all do know the rules of the game also. If all teams get 2 points without playing how can you be in semis.

Player X: Sir, we prayed for all three matches to be in rain so that we could get 3 points.

BCCI: Oh Shut up. You come to my nerves. OK Tell us about the fight you had after the match.

Player X: Sir that is also part of Lagaan song sir- I think.

BCCI: Oh come on, don't tell me in the pub you were singing song. You should be ashamed of yourself, when after loosing so badly go and have fight with fans who came to cheer you if you were winning. What is this about song and fight.

Player X: Sir in one of the song , it says like:

Bund Ungli Tou Ban Jaye Muthi: Closed fingers in hand it becomes a fist....

As our hands were closed with any win, it became a Fist and we had fist fight. QED.

BCCI: You come to my nerves, you are good for nothing. You can go now.

BCCI to secretary taking notes put a note that these guys not only do not only do not know to play well butthey also do not know correct Lagaan song as this player kept saying I do not know full song. Recommend all players must watch Lagaan again and memorise full song and at every match a Singer Trainer should be with the team to sing the song.