Michael Holding

Is anyone else thoroughly fed up with him whingeing about pretty much everything in the modern game? I Can't remember the last time he said something like,"Wow, what great cricket we have seen". I used to quite like him, but now it's nearly always a whinge about how bad the bowling is, and then when a batsman gets out, it's a whinge about how poor his technique is, and then when Kevin Pietersen becomes left handed and hits a 70 metre six, whilst everone else is going,"Wow!", the first thing he says is," That type of shot should be illegal".

He talks as if no cricketer ever made a mistake in his day, and it's getting tiresome.

Hehe, funny...I read the thread topic, and my immediate thought was to finish the sentence with ..."is a whinging tw@t".

At least he sticks to his guns...

Beefy, along with Holding was slagging T20 off for the past 3 years & never wanted to commentate on it.

So it was a bit of a surprise when they wheeled him out with all that Stanford cash t'other day.

He's too much of a traditionalist. He's like Morgan Freeman when he's released from prison in Shawshank; wizened, whingy and stuck in his ways. We need an Andy to fix him...

He's quality.

He's another overseas commentator that Tony Greig likes to stir up when Nein hires them in when their home country is touring Aus. He doesn't quite wind him up as much as he does Smuthy but he does give him a gentle poke, particularly if Mikey thinks the umpiring count is going against the Windies.

He's good.
Very knowledgeable and tells it like he sees it.

His comments as "Third Man" during Test Matches on bowlers, their actions, run ups, mental toughness and 'out-thinking' a batsman are a revelation.

PS They've ALL whinged in the Sky box ... at one time or another, it's a frustrated
commentators (ex. player's) trait ('cept perhaps Benaud) .

His analysis of bowler's really is quite awesome. He's a bit grim though, yes.

For all those who didn't see it - here's Mikey whining on about the 2nd six

I don't really see the argument that Holding is making. I'd describe it as a lot of unworkable and improbable nonsense. The batsman played a shot that enhanced the bowler's chance of getting a wicket. Had Pietersen holed out, he'd have been laughed at. In theory, you might argue that a bowler should equally be allowed to alternate between over and around the wicket, but without adjusting the sightscreen that endangers the batsman's safety. The only thing that should change when a batsman does that (which isn't going to happen very often) is the LBW rule; the batsman should be adjudged out if he's hit on the pads without taking into consideration where he was hit or where it pitched, for me, assuming the ball will go on to hit the stumps. That would be 'punishment' (should genius be punished?) enough for altering the dynamic of the game.

You can't go around encouraging chaos on the basis of one shot. Different shots are unearthed at different times, almost invariably at great risk to the batsman ('s wicket). The idea when setting a field is that you do so to try and pre-empt the batsman's strokes, and that is no different here. Likewise, your bowling tactics, et cetera, change to suit the strokeplay. Holding, though usually an interesting and engaging character, is talking rubbish there. And I'd like him to find a bowler who can change hands on a whim too.

I remember him going on and on about the stumps being broken but the bails not fully off in the case of close run outs too.

I respect Mikeys judgment on various players but he's way over pernickity with the rules...

Why did nobody in the commentry team mention Paul Nixon - didn't he invent this shot?

I certainly not aware that anyone had hit a 6 like that before.

THICKEDGE wrote:Why did nobody in the commentry team mention Paul Nixon - didn't he invent this shot?

I certainly not aware that anyone had hit a 6 like that before.

KP hit one against Sri Lanka did he not?

Lance Klusener hit one, apparently. Not sure if that was internationally though. I'd certainly never seen one go for six before KP. Hanif and Mushtaq Mohammad are credited for inventing it. The old boy goes on about Mushy doing it up the caynty.

Mickey Holding's a legend. Very astute and insightful. I particularly like it when he's chuckling at one of Bumble's jokes.

He's harsh when there are mistakes and players are playing poorly (probably because he had ridiculous;y high standards when he played) but he often says things like "what great cricket" and "shot!" so I don't know what Trev's talking about.

I don't think he's right on this though. If talented batsman want to play risky and extravagant shots, let them.

Yeah. I agree Lara - though I'd say that if he switches, I agree with Daniel Vettori. No wides, either side should be given(within the lines).

THICKEDGE wrote:Why did nobody in the commentry team mention Paul Nixon - didn't he invent this shot?

I certainly not aware that anyone had hit a 6 like that before.

I thought it was fat Gatt some years ago.
I remember he was heavily criticized for having the damn cheek to do it.

problem with a shot like kp's is that there are a fair few ambidextrous players in world cricket. for them to switch over may not entail great risk, but will enable them to switch a packed offside field into an empty one. there are many implications here for a full hand switch-over, as opposed to the classical reverse-sweep

i expect it to be banned

Pietersen was playing the reverse drive off spinners trying to bowl "the Giles line" outside leg-stump as far back as the England A tour to India in 2004.

Seemed like a clever ploy to counter-act negative bowling.

I think it's fair enough. They probably need to clarify the LBW law in such instances: either that the off stump is taken from the stance settled on at the start of the bowler's run up, or that by switch-hitting you forfeit the "can't be out if the ball pitches outside leg stump" option and are dead in the water if hit in line regardless of where the ball lands.

Other than that, I don't really see the problem. The risk is all the batman's. Pietersen's balance on those shots yesterday was all over the shop - as you'd expect by switching stance at the last second. He'll hit it straight up in the air as often as he tonks it out of the ground. He'd have been absolutely screwed if the bowler had served up a fast yorker. He was in no kind of position to play defensively.

If they could somehow sort out the sightsrceens so that they covered both sides, I actually think it'd be a cool thing if bowlers were allowed to bowl either side of the wicket as a when they felt like it. It'd be an added skill to change the angle of attack at the last second.

They could run up directly behind the umpire, and then veer off one way or the other. I reckon that'd be quite exciting. Brings a bit more cat-and-mouse-ness to the art of bowling.

They'd probably be front foot no balling all over the shop though.

And if the indecisiveness of which side to put your penalty kick takes a hold in cricket we could have umpires being taken out with a last second change of mind from the bowler.

I'm all for it...

Love to see a few bowlers balloon a few over the bar, in the Waddle stylee.

JKLever wrote:

THICKEDGE wrote:Why did nobody in the commentry team mention Paul Nixon - didn't he invent this shot?

I certainly not aware that anyone had hit a 6 like that before.

KP hit one against Sri Lanka did he not?

against murali but he didnt change his grip on that occasion. it was a RHB's reverse sweep rather than a LHB's pull/hook

holding may whinge on occasion but at least his whinging is neutral and as merlin says, he calls it as he sees it - no hidden agendas.

i think he is spot on in this instance. it fcuks up the lbw and wide rules and isnt fair to the bowler. changing the grip crosses the line imo. people comparing it to bowlers swinging it both ways and the slower ball forget that those are delivered with the same or similar action.

Mikey joss want jostice for bowlers.

He has the greatest voice of any commentator.

Reasons he is barking up the wrong tree here though: .....


There are sound reasons for the Laws to require prior announcement of a switch of hand for bowling, but not batting ...

The bowler's switching his/her delivery hand at the last moment may have consequences:

1. for the positioning of the sightscreen, hence the batsman's fair chance to sight the ball.

2. for questions of "over vs.round the wicket", especially:

a. for the umpire to be ready and able to adjudge on "in line" (or outside) for LBW appeals.

b. for the umpire's readiness to adjudge on leg-side wides in one-day games.

With batting, none of these problems apply. And once might add, the bowler should reasonably to be prepared for however the batsman (fairly) wishes to play his or her shots.


In short, it is no mere anomaly of the Laws of the game that allow batters to switch hands freely at the last moment, but bowlers not.

I'd simply instruct umpires to give more latitude on the leg side as well as the off side (i.e. treat each side similarly for wides) in cases where a batsman changes hands/grip. Because the batsman is thereby forfeiting any legside advantage in wides. That's enough.