Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: jonpinson on April 17, 2011, 08:41:14 PM
-
I've been thinking for a while now about how there has been a general trend in the last...say 50 years or so to use heavier bats. Recently Boycott mentioned that he used a 2'4 and I know that before that bats around 2 pounds were the norm.
So why is it now that 2'8 seems to be the standard, 2'6 is used but not as much, and alot of folks seem to favour 2'10 plus?
There is an indeniable fashion for big bats. Whether that be through over drying, or concaving to give a bat with misleadingly sized edges, but go back only a decade and concaving wasn't a word used in this business. Sure we had funky shapes, scoops, ridgebacks etc but if you wanted a big bat, you'd buy a heavy one.
I wonder if in this search for big (or more properly, visually big) bats is leading us in general to maybe go for 2'10 when our optimum is 2'8? Ok I realise there are those of us who use very light bats by todays standards so I don't really need to hear from those people, I am aware of it and I don't need to hear that because you use 2'6, this idea is wrong.
Likewise we have always had those who are exceptionally strong and can get away with using a big bat. Simmy falls into that catagory. Again though, they are the exception rather than the norm.
It was interesting to hear what PW said about borrowing a lighter bat and finding himself favouring it over his heavier examples. Could this be true for more of us if we gave ourselves the chance to find out? I remember in school when I got my first SH bat, the master of cricket telling me it would be too heavy for me to make full use of it against fast wide bowling. The bat only weights 2'8 but it was a step up from my previous Harrow offerings. He was right of course, now I think about it. But being a kid, I wasn't going to let things like practicality reduce my enjoyment of my first proper bat. We've all been there, I'd bet.
So why is it that we consider a bat of 2'8 light yet 30 years ago it was actually quite heavy? Have we as batsmen suddenly become stronger? Are our reactions quicker? Are pitches slower? Or are bowlers not what they once were? Is the fear that once existed about getting cracked on the head by a quick somewhat reduced with the advent of helmets and therefore the bat is no longer seen so much as a line of physical defense?
Or are we just all caught up in it a bit? Is it not manly to use an ultra light bat? A bat that perhaps can't hit a ball 40 metres beyone the boundary rope?
I'm honestly thinking about having a bat made which fulfills these criteria. It won't be big, it won't have 'gun ping', but if it gives me that fraction longer to adjust, maybe it is worth a try?
-
Interesting as our opener has gone down from 2lb12 to 2lb10 this season as he said it feels much better but he wanted a bigger bat personally 2lb11/12 is the lightest I go as any lighter no matter how big feels too light
-
Oh my god Jon. Indeniable? What the hell am I on?
-
Oh my god Jon. Indeniable? What the hell am I on?
What?
-
I think this is a good idea as I've always gone back to lighter bats although 2.4 I can see as being a bit too light and won't generate much power although it's a very interesting concept and wouldn't mind trying it
-
What?
Check my initial post. I said 'indeniable' when clearly I should have said 'undeniable'.
Failing at what I hate most. :)
Anyway.
-
With covered wickets the batsman doesnt need to adjust as they wouldve had to on uncovered wickets. so to me this partly explains the trade off between heavy and light weight bats. there is no doubt that cricketers are fitter and stronger than ever. they spend all winter in the gym.
-
I used to use 2lb 9oz in my younger days. 3 years ago changed to a 3lb bat just for a laugh and found it quite comfortable. I then tried the other end of the spectrum and went for a 2lb6oz bat and found my timing was all over the place so I went back to my 3lb bat and what do you know my timing came back.
It might be all in the head but I will stay with the 3pm bat thanks
-
3lb* bat
-
i bet the 3 pounder picks up lighter than that, i actually make my bats heavier to pick up better. two grips
-
With covered wickets the batsman doesnt need to adjust as they wouldve had to on uncovered wickets. so to me this partly explains the trade off between heavy and light weight bats. there is no doubt that cricketers are fitter and stronger than ever. they spend all winter in the gym.
Although perfectly true when speaking about the professional game, it isn't really the case for alot of us, which is more what I'm aiming at here.
The pro game is interesting in that despite as you say, cricketers are fitter and stronger now with the onset of professional physical training, many pros use bat which we would consider light. Indeed those pros who we regard as being exceptionally strong, the bigger hitters as a rule uses surprisingly light bats. Symonds for example, I believe one of his was weighed at around 2'6. Yes of course it can be argued that in the pro game, faster bowlers exist than you or I will ever face. But pros will be used to that, as we are used to those who we come up against.
-
I used to use 2lb 9oz in my younger days. 3 years ago changed to a 3lb bat just for a laugh and found it quite comfortable. I then tried the other end of the spectrum and went for a 2lb6oz bat and found my timing was all over the place so I went back to my 3lb bat and what do you know my timing came back.
It might be all in the head but I will stay with the 3pm bat thanks
Thats fair enough and as I said in the first post, if a heavy bat works best for you, so be it. I'm thinking more about those of us who might benefit from loosing a couple of ounces to see the results.
-
with 20/20 bats are going to get bigger and bigger imo. there are far more sixes hit nowadays than in boycotts days, the bigger bats have quickened up the game. in tests the average score would be 250 runs in a day, its more like 350 now. amateurs want to be like pro's.
-
With covered wickets the batsman doesnt need to adjust as they wouldve had to on uncovered wickets. so to me this partly explains the trade off between heavy and light weight bats. there is no doubt that cricketers are fitter and stronger than ever. they spend all winter in the gym.
I think uncovered wickets at club level are far less common than 30 years ago. I actually started a thread on the subject of wickets getting flatter today.
http://custombats.co.uk/cbforum/index.php?topic=11166.0
Less movement means less need to adjust, ditto variable bounce. I personally think it's unhealthy as alot of batting skill is replaced with bowling machined honed flat track bullys.
-
I'd benefit from losing a few ounces though not from my bat
-
technically batsmen are poorer now than in the good old days. that is if you think the mcc coaching manual is corret.
-
As someone who up until relatively recently I was in the big heavy bat camp. In the last two years I've got lighter and lighter. My instinct is 2 lb 9.5. I find it easier to brandish than most I've used previously and I'm timing better at the lighter weight. Just an observation, but I think you are right.
-
Thats fair enough and as I said in the first post, if a heavy bat works best for you, so be it. I'm thinking more about those of us who might benefit from loosing a couple of ounces to see the results.
I went to a lighter bat for the reasons you mentioned. I was facing faster bowlers and was hoping the lighter bat would help with bat speed etc etc. Don't know why but it didn't help my game at all
-
My 2.7 was flying today
-
Agree with the op i have always used under 2lb 10oz and through my twentys playing on better wickets went to around 2lb 6oz
My main worry is then juniors as to many of them use bloody heavier bats than me and wonder why there late and play with just there bottom hand..
-
Forgive what may well be a daft question but is it fair to say that a lighter bat is a less powerful bat?
I equate weight with power so I use a 2' 12 in the belief that I hit the ball further. Thinking about it, if I used a 2' 7 - 2' 8 my bat speed may well be higher but, if a heavier bat is a more powerful one, would the increase in bat speed of a lighter bat make up for the difference?
-
I have noticed the poms on this forum tend to use 2.10 plus where as here in oz we usually max out at 2.9, are the pitches that low and slow in england?
-
In high grade cricket in Aus it is rare to find anyone batting above 2.10 as the surface is a lot harder than in England so the ball tends to bounce and come on a lot more so a higher bat speed is required. A lot of our visiting UK players tend to have to go down in weight as more often than not they find their bat to be a little to heavy for Aus condition.
-
I think it is fair to say that most club pitches, even good ones, are generally not terribly hard and bouncy.
having said that, momentum is equally proportional to velocity and mass, and that the force required to change momentum is limited by strength, a lighter bat will allow greater acceleration for a given force and therefore create greater momentum. All Newtonian.
You have one way to hit further - increase your strength, as that's the only way you are going to increase the force available to accelerate the bat.
-
I have always used around the 2.10-11 mark, i cant physically pick up anything heavier than that lol I ordered my newest bat 2.8-9 and i cant feel much difference if i'm honest. I would say at club level, theres probably alot of people under misconception that if you have a huge 3lb 2oz bat your gonna hit loads of sixes because its more powerful, when actually for most people a bat that heavy is probably gonna effect there range of shots and timing too.
-
I am often early on shots when using a lighter bat 2.12 seems to be perfect for me
-
I think it is fair to say that most club pitches, even good ones, are generally not terribly hard and bouncy.
having said that, momentum is equally proportional to velocity and mass, and that the force required to change momentum is limited by strength, a lighter bat will allow greater acceleration for a given force and therefore create greater momentum. All Newtonian.
You have one way to hit further - increase your strength, as that's the only way you are going to increase the force available to accelerate the bat.
Surely if you are striking the ball with an object that has more mass then more power is transferred to the ball? ie if I drive into the back of a range rover on my 'blade at 30 mph then I will probably dent it a bit (and die) but if I drive into the back of the range rover in my car at 30 mph then I will probably push it forward a few feet?
I'm confused!
If bat weight really doesn't make any difference at all to shot power then I think I might have to buy something light.....which is as good a reason as any to buy another bat!
-
I think we are forgetting that Acceleration = Mass x velocity - which is why having a heavier bat can increase the acceleration of your swing speed thus mean you can hit the ball further - but you need to have worked on your guns... to keep the velocity high.
or something.
where is someone who knows what you are talking about when you need them
-
Force = Mass x Acceleration, or f=ma. a = (v-u)/t, therefore, f=m(v-u)/t, f=rate of change of momentum.
If f is a constant i.e. you can't give your muscles additional strength in a short period of time to increase the force they supply, then u=0; At the top of the backlift there is no velocity. As m increases, v must therefore decrease and vice versa for a given f. Bear in mind that g (gravity) will also help accelerate.
To this end, the only way to increase v for a given m is by increasing f, or in other words, increasing your strength.
Surely if you are striking the ball with an object that has more mass then more power is transferred to the ball? ie if I drive into the back of a range rover on my 'blade at 30 mph then I will probably dent it a bit (and die) but if I drive into the back of the range rover in my car at 30 mph then I will probably push it forward a few feet?
I'm confused!
If bat weight really doesn't make any difference at all to shot power then I think I might have to buy something light.....which is as good a reason as any to buy another bat!
Yes, this is true, but what you are looking for is force. In both these cases, the acceleration, a is huge, and the bike has a lower mass so therefore exerts much less force on the car in front.
Equally, the force required for the bike to accelerate up to 30mph is much lower because the bike has a lower mass, so your 'blade does 0-60 with an engine producing 120 hp in 3 secs, whereas your car with an engine producing 150 hp takes 8 seconds because it has only 1.25 times the force to apply and weighs more than twice as much...
-
mass x velocity is momentum, not acceleration
-
surely you mean momentum buzz. momentum = mass * velocity
-
And i like a lighter bat to increase my bat speed but that me..
Get a bat that is right for you all i say
-
Forgive me for being dense! I'm still not getting this at all ???
Quote from Tim:-
"Yes, this is true, but what you are looking for is force. In both these cases, the acceleration, a is huge, and the bike has a lower mass so therefore exerts much less force on the car in front"
So a car with more mass will exert more force on the car in front and move the car forward? If that's the case then why would a heavier bat not exert more force on a ball it strikes? Is it because you would not be able to swing the heavier bat as powerfully as a lighter one therefore negating the difference in mass?
Sorry, I'm really trying not to be difficult here, I did chemistry and biology at school not physics......and it was a long time ago!
Basically I just want someone to tell me whether using a heavier bat is actually having no effect on the distance that I hit the ball! Then I can buy a new bat and be able to justify it!
-
The thread has gone off on an interesting tangent which I think answers more than it seems.
At no point was this thread designed to be a discussion on bat power, yet that has what it has turned in to. People are clearly more concerned by having a bat that in their eyes will hit the ball a long way than a bat which they can actually swing.
Very interesting.
-
Is this one of your Frankenstein experiments Jonpinson???
-
Nope, it's a cricket bat forum and this is a thread about the theory.
-
Forgive me...I thought you were enjoying this go off on that different tangent...heheh
-
It is a good topic Jon i know for not hitting the ball much of the sqaure and use a flightweight bat cmpaired to some of the monsters on here.
Ask most top level coaches Gary Palmer and a few others most of them advocate a nice light bat...
-
mass x velocity is momentum, not acceleration
arr ok - but you need that to smack a cricket ball.
-
Forgive me for being dense! I'm still not getting this at all ???
Quote from Tim:-
"Yes, this is true, but what you are looking for is force. In both these cases, the acceleration, a is huge, and the bike has a lower mass so therefore exerts much less force on the car in front"
So a car with more mass will exert more force on the car in front and move the car forward? If that's the case then why would a heavier bat not exert more force on a ball it strikes? Is it because you would not be able to swing the heavier bat as powerfully as a lighter one therefore negating the difference in mass?
Sorry, I'm really trying not to be difficult here, I did chemistry and biology at school not physics......and it was a long time ago!
Right....
In this system we have two masses, the ball and the bat. When hitting the ball we are imparting velocity to it. Velocity is directional. We are therefore changing the velocity of the ball. Let's take hitting a straight six as an example.
Going back to first principles, Newton's first law states that a body remains at rest or a constant velocity until a force is applied to it.
Then, applying Newton's second law, a body of mass m subject to a net force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, ie, F=ma.
acceleration = (velocity at end - velocity at start)/time
The bat held at the top of the backlift is in a state of rest, and will not move without applying the second law. To move the bat, we have to apply a force.
The force will cause acceleration of the bat to a velocity at which it will hit the ball.
When we strike the ball, lets assume we are trying to hit it as hard as we possibly can, which means, for a given bat mass, m, we need a maximum acceleration, amax. To achieve amax we have to apply as much force as we can, fmax.
As a person, you are restricted to fmax being governed by your strength. Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass.
If you therefore use a lighter bat, for fmax, acceleration will be higher and the speed at which you hit the ball will therefore be higher.
What none of this theory covers is your ability to hit the ball however. If you have a lighter bat, you will be able to swing the bat faster, but more importantly, you will also be able to control the swing better as you will require less force (strength) to adjust the path of the bat (which is a function of acceleration).
This therefore goes back to the comment made earlier that when pitches are less reliable in terms of bounce and predictability, a lighter bat is required to allow the batsman to control their shot playing dependent on bounce.
-
if you time a ball in the middle of a cricket bat and are of a full grown stature then the ball should go well.
The size of the bat in line with the pressing may give your a bigger mass to hit the ball better due to the bigger middle.
the holy grail is a big a bat as possible with the lightest weight with the biggest middlem no more no less (shame i do not like big profiles though)
-
But what if you don't use force but instead use gravity with the middle of the handle as a pivot point...Which bat then would move the ball the farthest???
-
arr ok - but you need that to smack a cricket ball.
dont worry, i got your point :)
-
But what if you don't use force but instead use gravity with the middle of the handle as a pivot point...Which bat then would move the ball the farthest???
Gravity only acts in one direction, and once you get beyond vertical, gravity has a negative acceleration. As I said, f=ma, and the key point is that a has to be in the direction that you want the object to move. If you pivot around a point, given that f=ma, if a is constant, i.e. g, then greater m will result in greater f.
So if you are only pivoting about a point, then greater mass will impart greater force. We aren't doing this though!
-
Ok then point taken.. So given that everything is equal apart from bat mass if we hit the ball with the exact same bat speed with both bats then which will hit the ball the farthest???
-
Or should this be the topic of a new thread?
-
Ok then point taken.. So given that everything is equal apart from bat mass if we hit the ball with the exact same bat speed with both bats then which will hit the ball the farthest???
If we apply the same amount of acceleration to the bat in the swinging arc, then a bat with greater mass will apply greater force to the ball.
However, we as humans have a maximum force we can apply given our strength and unless we are extremely practised, we should use a weight that allows us to swing the bat optimally providing the greatest acceleration while also allowing us to control what we are doing best.
-
Hmmm so how do we know what weight allows us to swing optimally..I guess we can come to the conclusion that we are all individuals and there is no 1 optimum weight..Would that be correct?
-
Ok I've abandoned the thread, many thanks for all replies.
-
Hmmm so how do we know what weight allows us to swing optimally..I guess we can come to the conclusion that we are all individuals and there is no 1 optimum weight..Would that be correct?
As we are all individuals and, I assume, our optimum swing speeds are different based on our physical strength etc then surely it must be possible to create a formula to tell us what are optimum bat weight is?
-
Hmmm so how do we know what weight allows us to swing optimally..I guess we can come to the conclusion that we are all individuals and there is no 1 optimum weight..Would that be correct?
Yes.
-
Seems to me that I have been labouring under the misconception that using a heavier bat enables me to hit the ball further, I've learnt something today.....thank you!
-
Gee I am glad we got that cleared up...Thought I was going to have to sell my new 3lb bat and I haven't even got it yet...lol
-
Seems to me that I have been labouring under the misconception that using a heavier bat enables me to hit the ball further, I've learnt something today.....thank you!
It can enable you to hit the ball further...if you can swing it at the optimum speed...I think
-
It can enable you to hit the ball further...if you can swing it at the optimum speed...I think
Only if you have the strength to control it properly.
-
but what about if your different handed bat left handed but are right handed and you want to keep the top hand in control any method behind that..
-
but what about if your different handed bat left handed but are right handed and you want to keep the top hand in control any method behind that..
The same theory still applies. You need a weight that you can control and will provide you with an optimal swing.
-
Thought this might be of interest to some.
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html