The heat generated by this extraordinary stroke brings back memories of one comment John Buchanan, the ex-Aussie coach made some years ago where he prected that in some years cricket will be a sport of ambidexturous people. Seems time has come, a tad sooner than predicted. Sachin too practices it.

Pritam Sinha, New Delhi, India

Many of you are missing the point that a bowler MUST declare which arm he will bowl from and sets a field accordingly. You cannot let a batsman do whatever he likes but enforce rigid laws on the bowler. Fine, let him switch but then let a bowler do the same!!

@John - my comment undermines nothing

Timothy, London, UK

But the bowler has to declare whether he is coming over the wicket or around it, but can choose the type of delivery. On the other had, the batter can run down the crease, step back to leg , step across to point or back-foot to deal with a ball. Interesting one, not sure whether it is fair or not.

ipd, London,

Dear Mr. Atherton,

The Umpire judges the off side of the striker's wicket in terms of Law 36.3. viz the striker's stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery.

Hence there is no need to change the law. 2 fielders behind square leg, wide-ball and lbw can be adjudicated thus.

Ajit S Datar, Mumbai, India

This tactic's been used sparingly over quite a long time without complaint.
The difference with KP was that he managed to execute it in a way not achieved before - he employed a full(er) left-handed style and stance.
Batsmen normally just paddle it along the ground without moving their feet much.

Padraig, Perth, Australia

Totally agree with Matthew from London. The bowler does not have to declare "bouncer" or "slow ball" before delivery, so I see no reason why the batsman has to declare his shot either. Sit back and enjoy!

Mike, L'Isle Jourdain, France

I think this will bring more wickets than sixes, as lots of less gifted batsmen try this very dangerous tricl. So in a way it might create a very attractive high risk / reward situation that benefts the game

Ernst, Binsted, UK

Dear Editor,
The most abused is that batsmen get the benefit of doubt.
Ordinary games and special camera rules must still agree to this.
If a batsman changes defence then original rules should apply so leg stays leg and sixes are sixes.
20/20 is bad and soccer drains supporters funds for aliens

Dr MI Barton MA. MBA.PhD, Oxon., uk

Bowlers can choose their delivery, LBW issue is a non starter, if the stance is right handed at the start of the run up the batsman is to be judged on the starting stance regardless of how it is actually played, bowlers can adjust prior to actual delivery and/or pull out of delivery, relax and enjoy

Robert, Brighton,

the solution is simple: a batsman shd tell the umpire that he is batting RH (or LH) and will be that until he informs the umpire otherwise, fixing the LBW/fielding rules. Same as the rule about bowling over or round. What the batsman does next (goes fwd, back, sideways or inside out) is up to him.

OJ, Frant, UK

I did this a few times at school. i bowl left-handed but bat right-handed only due to the kit when i first learnt so switching wasn't a problem, batting left-handed felt the same as right - no 6s tho. got clipped round the ear and told to pull myself together by the teacher. no need for the MCC

Giles, Singapore, Singapore

Boxers frequently change from left to south paw. Ronnie O'Sullivan cues left or right, Bowlers bowl either side of the wicket (telling the umpire of course).Change the Lbw law to suit the occasion and then let the bowlers devise a strategy to counteract the advantage created by the batsman

Norman West, Truro, uk

"Allow that which happens occasionally" is the foundation of poor rules. Should a bowler be allowed the odd chuck on the grounds of its rarity? Rules prevent occasional play from becoming habitual (cf. Bodyline). What if KP switched every other ball? The notion of a RH bat would become meaningless.

Dr Alistair Braden, Oxford,

A mark of sheer brilliance. Why should it even be questioned. Cricket needs the likes of KP for the entertainment value they add. Whats more, KP has got himself out so many times playing this type of shot. Does this not prove that it is extremely risky to switch to being a left hander.

Ian, Milton Keynes, England

This is a balanced view on Petersen's innovative skill. No need for changing The Laws. Umpires only have to interpret Laws and Regulations considering the situation in front of them. If the batter backs himself to change his stance, he also must confront the risk of being judged as a lefthander.

Bill Monkau, Middelburg, Netherlands

Becoming a left hander before the ball is delivered could make a perfectly legal ball a no ball, through no fault of the fielding side, by transforming say 2 slips and a gully into more than two fielders behind square on the leg side. As soon he pulls this stunt the ball should be called dead.

Robert, Oakham, England

Can you imagine FIFA telling Ronaldinho that he can only play with his right foot because playing with both is unpredictable? If creative shots like Petersons are outlawed I will stop watching cricket.

James, London, UK

What a pile of pap? If anyone plays the shot, well done! You are risking your wicket for it. If you take your stance as a right hander at the beginning of the innings then you are a right hander and all rules apply LBW etc...Why such uproar for a fleeting moment of genius?

Neil Edwards, Bishops stortford, England

As a sunday bowler, I'd love someone to try that shot against me. As a batsman I can't hit a 6 like that right-handed.

It's really only going to affect top level cricket - i.e. spectator sport. It is clearly possible to legislate to allow this entertaining shot to be fair, which must be done.

Josh, london, UK

yes, wait until he tries it again and gets out. the advantage is quite minimal - just two shots - and perhaps a justifiable response to tedious medium pacers in the middle of a 50 overs innings

Andrew , Cambridge, United Kingdom

If a player switches hands then the lbw law needs altering as does the ruling about wides in one day games. Having a variable leg/off side will put the umpires under even more pressure but they can always use a bit more video technology - especially for lbw decisions - which they should do anyway.

Mary, Langdon Hills, England

Allow it, but then lose the “legside” rules which benefit the batsman: lbw immunity, restrictions on field placements and the automatic wide call. Or, an individual batsman may declare himself “two-sided” with the above trade-off.

joe, birmingham, uk

These were two shots of outrageous brilliance where the risk of getting out was very high. They were the main talking point of an otherwise one sided match. The number of batsmen who could execute this shot without making fools of themselves is tiny. Cricket has other far bigger problems to resolve.

Roger Goodacre, London,

The youtube clip shows clearly that Pietersen in fact did not switch to being a left hander until the bowler was already in his delivery stride, not as Athers suggests "well before".
What a shot!

Chris, Manama, Bahrain

It takes great skill to execute such a shot and the bowler should relish the challenge. The news that the MCC is to get involved is bemusing.

Wilf Bell, Farnborough, England

The only modification to the laws (or the playing regulations of various competitions) should be to state that a batsman is at all times deemed to be right-handed if that is is normal stance (and this could be registered per season). When switching, he loses the benefit of the LBW and fielding laws

growltiger, London,

I agree with Matthew and Paul. If the 'powers that be' decide to change a law because of this, they should be aware that it is the paying public who are saying that they like this type of freedom in the game.
Timothy, I understand, but your last sentence undermines your previous comments.

John, London,

So this is what happens when a guy tries something new in cricket? He had barely unstrapped his pads and the old aunties were already talking about banning the stroke. But a weird Yankee millionaire wants to buy the sport & that's OK?!

Luca, Cheltenham, England

Perhaps a way round the LBW argument in this is simply to say if the batsman switches and is hit on the pads by a ball that would have hit the stumps, then no matter where the ball pitched he is out - I think that evens things out.

Pearse, Bristol,

I agree with Matthew - 2 strokes from one player hardly needs prompt a change in the Laws. Mikey might not like it from the commentary box, but I doubt too many batsmen would have been switching their grip as Whispering Death was running in to bowl. I'm sure he would have relished the prospect.

Paul, Singapore,

Though fun to watch I don't think it's right. If allowed, as a left-hander I could take guard as a right hander, forcing the oppo to set a field and then simply switch over during the bowlers run. It could get silly very quickly. The bowler should simply pull out of his run.

Timothy, London, UK

Until more batsmen successfully execute the switch-hit (and avoid egg on their faces) the need for urgent action seems remote. Bowlers already get to decide the type of ball a batsman faces, the batsmen has a fraction of a second to react. Clarify the position on lbw and let the fun continue!

Matthew, London,