The cricket conversation should not be about "fairness" when it comes to onfield skills - it is about revolution verses evolution.

Is it fair for a batsman to move right across his crease, or run down the wicket as a bowler is about to deliver? (Because as the bowler runs in, his plan is based on the batsman being in his current batting position)

Is it fair that a bowler stacks his offside field to take out 90-180 degrees of a batsman’s scoring possibilities?

Was it fair that Jardine introduced Bodyline to reduce Bradman’s ability to score, as well as other accomplished players of the time such as Woodfull, Ponsford, McCabe, Richardson etc, in order to win the Ashes?

Was it fair to the game that Packer contracted the best players in the world to conduct his own World Series cricket?

Was it fair the Clive Lloyd slowed the game down when bowling, to such an extent, that he only needed 4 fast bowlers, no spin, to bowl 70 odd overs per day, and bowl teams out?

Was it fair for the game that Australia had such a good team from 99-2007, and so dominated world cricket?

Was it fair that Murali was the world’s best spinner operating with slightly bent arm due to physical peculiarities?

And of other sports was it fair that Walter Lindrum dominated world billiards for 17 years; that Phar Lap was so much better than other thoroughbreds of the time; that the ALL BLACKS have dominated Rugby Union for over 100 years; that America was unbeatable in the Americas Cup till Bondy and Bertrand turned up; and the list could go on forever…

The question is never one of ‘fairness’, because ‘fair’ for one, is often ‘unfair’ for another.

For all intents and purposes, “The Spirit of Cricket” is the written code that all cricket teams aspire to delivering on a cricket field, and embodies the concept of ‘fairness’.

The real questions that a Maxwell reverse sweep or switch hit should engender is around the principles of evolution or revolution to the game of cricket.

To the questions of ‘fairness’ raised above, history shows us that administrators of the time do not like ‘revolutionary’ tactics, or at least ones that they have not been part of designing.

But it is the revolutionists who shine a light on what needs changing in the game; and also, what the game does not need due to its capacity to inflict injury, or its impact on the integrity and entertainment value of the game.

I have always advocated for sport to encourage from an early age, children to use both sides of their body in whatever activity they undertake - not to be stereotyped into being right or left handed.

The fundamental principle here is that it provides young children with all-round development not only physically which helps injury prevention; but also mentally as the brain receives additional stimulation in its development. There is plenty of scientific research these days that outlines these benefits.

With the right nurturing through teachers, parents, coaches and sports regulations, there will be a small number of talented children who can play a chosen sport from both sides of their body.

As a coach, I was always seeking ways and means of taking more skills onto a cricket field than my opposition. So if I could add to the highly technically skilled players like McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Ponting, Hayden, Lee (to name only a couple), incredible athleticism, batting and bowling allrounders, or players like Funky Miller, Andrew Symonds who could bowl medium pace and spin in the one over, then we had competitive advantage before taking the field.

Imagine if as a coach you had two players in one – equally competent on one side or the other. Then pending the situation, the individual would choose which was the side of the body to use to be in best situation to win the moment of the game he or she was about to encounter. Eleven players on a cricket field becomes 12 or 13 or more……………

Nothing will ever guarantee winning in sport. But is essential as a coach to keep finding ways and means of improving the chances of success.

So back to Maxwell and his switch hitting.

As you will have guessed, I am a total fan of bringing such new skills to the game.

The revolutionist has shone the light on the fact that batsmen in the current era have a lot more time and opportunity to develop new sets of skills, than bowlers.

Batsmen will typically train by having a net against the bowlers. The bowlers then basically retreat to the ice bath, the massage table to repair a body that is being pounded by the duress of training, competition and insufficient recovery times. The bowlers cannot physically spend the time to continue to hone all the balls they need to have in their armoury. Unless of course, a bowler chooses like an Andrew Tye or a Ben Laughlin to become a T20 specialist and that is all they are doing.

For the batsman though, he or she will then turn to the coach and ask for another session of hitting where he or she continues to fine tune the craft.

Once the coach’s shoulder, even with modern aids, can no longer provide what the batsman needs, they can then generally turn to a net where there is a bowling machine set for further training on precision.

So administrators need to look at the ‘evolution’ of the game – where do they want it to be in 5, 10, 20 years? Do all the current formats fit into that? What are the stakeholders in the game seeking? And therefore what type of cricket athletes and accompanying skill sets do we need to be developing currently, for the future.

For now, one simple suggestion that will not discourage Glenn Maxwell to keep reverse hitting and experimenting with other revolutionary shot making, and will encourage bowlers to believe that the game still cares about them would be – as soon as a batsman changes his or her position at the crease with movement away from their facing position, or changing of grips to adopt a different way/direction of hitting, then wides and no balls to the bowler are nullified.

Of course, back to danger or injury, then a normal no ball will occur as the ball passes the batsman in the ‘new’ position. And the integrity of the game from a wide perspective will be maintained by the two indicator lines adjacent to the stumps being the channel through which a ball must pass.

And it will certainly make umpires adjudicating these tasks much simpler.

The game needs more revolutionaries to protect its future, provided the evolutionists can define the right changes along the journey.