What is more astonishing than the shots themselves is the debate that followed Kevin Pietersen's so-called switch-hit strokes off Scott Styris in the England/New Zealand one-day cricket match this week.

The issue was that as Styris ran in to bowl, England's Pietersen, normally a right-handed batsman of sublime talent, switched grip and stance to that as a left-hander. If he had been beaten or bowled or by some other means got out, that might have been the end of the matter. Except, perhaps, for the excoriation Pietersen might have received in the press for assumed arrogance, and in the dressing room from his teammates for self-indulgence, especially if England lost.

As it turned out, Pietersen, from his switched position, hit a six. Not once, but twice, sparking an avalanche of questions about the legality of the strokes.

Point of argument

There have been issues about the implication of the strokes for other laws of the game, such as batsmen being out leg before wicket, which is determined, in part, by where a ball is pitched to a right or left-handed batsman, or whether a bowler has delivered a wide.

But the greatest point of argument is a claim that a shift, as executed by Pietersen, is unfair to bowlers. They, unlike what Pietersen did, have to indicate beforehand whether they intend to bowl over or around the wicket and with which arm they intend to bowl. The assumption, therefore, is that the bowler is placed at a disadvantage and hence such switch strokes should be illegal.

We, of course, do not agree. The Marylebourne Cricket Club, the guardians of cricket's laws, makes an important observation in noting that while a bowler indicates with which hand he intends to bowl, the kind of delivery he sends down is entirely his business. Indeed, bowlers are constantly attempting to bamboozle batsmen with swing, spin, pace, bounce and whatever else they have in their armoury. Moreover, with nine ways to get out in an innings, circumstances are weighted against batsmen.

But we feel that there is a far more compelling reason why strokes, such as were played by Pietersen, ought to be allowed in the game of cricket. It is summed up in a word: innovation.

Evolution

The fact is that cricket, like other sports, as well as life itself, is in a constant state of evolution, change and adaptation. It helps the game to remain relevant as sport and as metaphor for life - as revealed by James and other serious writers on cricket.

Shots of the kind played by Pietersen are risky, but that switch-hit had as its precursor the reverse sweep, which not that many years ago was deemed odd and overly unorthodox. These days, the inside-out drive through the covers from balls pitched outside the leg stump is commonplace. It used to be tried, before the surfeit of one-day cricket, by only the most daring and talented of batsmen. And with the emergence of Twenty20 cricket, many more shots that are not currently in the armoury of batsmen will become commonplace.

Life, after all, is about the human being's capacity to adapt and change, and the most successful societies are those that innovate. Which is why we say three cheers to Kevin Pietersen.