Nobody lost money overestimating the ability of the world's cricketing authorities to tut-tut at any innovation that risks animating a sport which, sadly, no longer draws the crowds it once did - however colourfully the teams dress.

On Sunday Kevin Pietersen, among the most magnetic batsmen in the world, hypnotised spectators by hitting a New Zealand bowler for six with a reverse hit after switching to a left-handed stance. And today? Today Marylebone Cricket Club, custodians of the laws, meets to discuss whether to ban such strokes on the ground that they might be unsporting (see page 70). Is the MCC not looking a gift horse in the mouth? Isn't such entertainment just what cricket needs? It wasn't that long ago that even fans wondered if the 50-overs game had a future in the era of the rat-a-tat pace of 20-overs matches.

Of course, there is room for debate. Bowlers must tell the umpire if they plan to bowl over, or around, the wicket. Why shouldn't batsmen have to be similarly open? If a batsman switches his stance, how should an umpire adjudicate which is leg side and which is off for the purposes of giving a batsman out, leg before? Also, the bowler has set his field for a right-hander. On the other hand, it takes huge skill for a right-hander to wallop a six with a reverse hit: in the attempt he risks missing the ball, being caught after a mis-hit, or injuring his underprotected right hand.

But just think of the magic. The anticipation of the crowds. Bowlers have monopolised the element of surprise: would they unleash a googly? Reverse swing? Here is a chance for both batsman and bowler to shield their trump cards. Not cricket? Innovation is the essence of cricket.