Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: Tom on March 01, 2013, 01:53:10 PM
-
Committee initiates research into the size of bat edges
Following a request from ICC’s Cricket Committee to report formally to them with opinions from MCC and its World Cricket committee, the group discussed a number of issues relating to the Laws of Cricket.
The World Cricket committee discussed the balance of the game between bat and ball and feels that the size of bats – and particularly the thickness of the edges – needs to be investigated. MCC will therefore research this matter over the coming months.
-
so a batmaker makes the edges the agreed thickness but goes beyond that a mm or two in from the edge?
-
could be an interesting conversation and to see how they go about it. whats a fair edge size if they were to limit it? surely that would be based on weight. a 2lb 9 bat with 40mm edges or a 3lb 2 with 40mm edges. does one make more of an impact that the other?
-
this shows a lack of understanding about making bats and the drying of willow. What could the outcomes be? Thick edges don't mean you hit the ball further out of the middle?
-
Well, I have at home a 2lb 10 Short Handle with 43mm edges and a 3lb 2 long blade with 44mm....one is surely more offensive than the other...
-
I don't understand how their findings could be used to limit a bats performance? Unless we are going to go down the route of 'approved profiles' then what changes could they possibly make? They can't put limits on weight so therefore they can't put limits on size! Seems like a waste of time....
-
The MCC have previously looked at putting a performance limit on a bat, but opted for the banning of non cork handles as an easier option. They may re-investigate that avenue.
-
I would go for a limit on weight and leave the batmakers to the rest. Even that is a tricky one as many pros have lightweight clefts and many weigh 2'9/10. However, limiting weight to 2'10, for example, would at least restrict off centre hitting by those favouring huge willow eg. gayle . It also misses the point that Pros are so well drilled that they don't hit many shots off centre like us village hacks, so the edges play less part in their games.
They could do worse than increase boundary sizes, bat technology has made them easier to clear but the boundaries have come in, not out!
-
I completely agree with you on your second point.
-
Are they going to limit how much a spinner can turn a ball and how fast someone can ball it as well?
Maybe they will limit the amount of yorkers or good lenth balls bowled as well?
Pointless
-
I would go for a limit on weight and leave the batmakers to the rest. Even that is a tricky one as many pros have lightweight clefts and many weigh 2'9/10. However, limiting weight to 2'10, for example, would at least restrict off centre hitting by those favouring huge willow eg. gayle . It also misses the point that Pros are so well drilled that they don't hit many shots off centre like us village hacks, so the edges play less part in their games.
They could do worse than increase boundary sizes, bat technology has made them easier to clear but the boundaries have come in, not out!
valid point. for t20 they want runs scored and lots of boundaries so leave the bats and the boundaries as they are. for everything else make the boundaries slightly bigger. that would however mean no cricket except t20 can be played in NZ! :D
-
Are they going to limit how much a spinner can turn a ball and how fast someone can ball it as well?
Maybe they will limit the amount of yorkers or good lenth balls bowled as well?
Pointless
misses the point. The cricket bat is an aid to the ability and strength of the cricketer. Using a bat 40 years ago would give a totally different experience to a 2013 bat, in terms of power and off centre hitting. In that respect batting technology has surpassed bowling/fielding gains made over the same period. That's before we talk about helmets making batsman less concerned about being hit or boundaries coming in. It's happening in club cricket as well, how many sixes does your club hit a season compared to 40 years ago?
-
it isn't as if we are seeing an increase in injuries related to fielders attempting to field with these "more powerful" bats.
Are they going to stop batsman pumping iron too, so they aren't as strong. This is a joke.
-
Or give each batsman 20 pints before they go out to bat. That should punish them for their talent.
-
I couldn't see a downside to reducing bats in some way. It would be a terrible shame if they had to play proper timed shots or improve their techniques to work the ball around more effectively. With my bowling hat on, what a shame if the big slogger couldn't walk out with his 3'4oz monster and flick it for six. What if he was fearful of not reaching the boundary with his 2'11 twig. My heart bleeds for the poor batsman lol
-
Or give each batsman 20 pints before they go out to bat. That should punish them for their talent.
This I like!
-
Well, the received wisdom is that most pros use bats in the 2-9 range, but as we all know, you can get very big edges on a bat that size. However, when you look at pics of the pros in action, the majority don't appear to have bats with ultra large edges. Are we missing something here I wonder?
-
Well, the received wisdom is that most pros use bats in the 2-9 range, but as we all know, you can get very big edges on a bat that size. However, when you look at pics of the pros in action, the majority don't appear to have bats with ultra large edges. Are we missing something here I wonder?
Thats a very good observation, I was looking at Dhoni & Kholi bats and yes those looked good but I would not have said they were exceptionally massive (even if they were 2'9-2'10)...now the really massive ones are some of Aussie GN's and Gayle's but that is also a very heavy bat...
-
Seems that the MCC are looking to go down the R&A route in golf - listen to grumbling that it's getting too easy because the equipment is so much more forgiving than before, make some noise about bringing in some restrictions, and then realise that the genie is already out of the bottle and they can't do a thing about it. As many have already pointed out, edge size is only one of the components. Lams are already banned because of their rebound properties, carbon handles went the same way, so unlike a golf club there isn't a while lot of 'technology' left to tackle. At the end of the day, it's a lump of wood with a cane handle...
-
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b560/JoeyyColes/7FA28904-871E-4150-AB87-0F38F633E6C9-10251-00000345BE7C4D1E_zpscd4c5d42.jpg?t=1362150353)
29mm edges vs 38mm edges. I know which one performs better. MCC you're wrong.
-
Where did that Jack Daniels sticker come from mate?
-
eBay mate, need to get another really it's a little scuffed up.
-
This is my collection
Taken a while ago, now have another full cabinet and other stuff waiting to go in another!
(http://i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o678/Kieron_BT/13_zpsf5d359b0.jpeg)
-
Agree with most. Complete waste of time them looking into this as has been discussed many times before on here and by batmakers its a myth that bigger edged bats perform better.
-
I think Andy Saf and "Ping" the gorilla should be involved in the q and A session with the MCC technical committee...!
-
If they limit edges are they going to limit spine heights?? As tempo style bats will just come in
You can't limit weight as some just feel comfortable with heavier weights and should not be obstructed from there enjoyment just because of moaning farts
-
Yes I was chating to john stephson last summer he said what did I think about it I said well if big chris gayle hit ball it don't matter about the edge size I think its more to do with how about pressed and what bat speed he put in to the shot
-
I think Andy Saf and "Ping" the gorilla should be involved in the q and A session with the MCC technical committee...!
Love it :D - he will knock their heads of with his engineering knowledge.
-
I think it devalues the art of batting when miss hits go for six and leading edges go for four. Not sure if reducing the size of edges is the answer, but I feel something needs to be done.
-
not sure why they would want to limit edge sizes, it's not like the batting really has any huge advantage over bowling. the game is more interesting now than it has ever been, all formats included, IMO.
-
This is my collection
Taken a while ago, now have another full cabinet and other stuff waiting to go in another!
([url]http://i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o678/Kieron_BT/13_zpsf5d359b0.jpeg[/url])
Haha this is totes amazeballs
-
misses the point. The cricket bat is an aid to the ability and strength of the cricketer. Using a bat 40 years ago would give a totally different experience to a 2013 bat, in terms of power and off centre hitting. In that respect batting technology has surpassed bowling/fielding gains made over the same period. That's before we talk about helmets making batsman less concerned about being hit or boundaries coming in. It's happening in club cricket as well, how many sixes does your club hit a season compared to 40 years ago?
Well last season my side managed a new record of 1! Thats right 1 six.
-
The one thing the MCC must not do is limit the weight of the bat - that penalises people who used bigger bats way before the performance advantages came into being!
-
not sure why they would want to limit edge sizes, it's not like the batting really has any huge advantage over bowling. the game is more interesting now than it has ever been, all formats included, IMO.
Batting has a huge advantage at the top of the game. Lower levels not so much but at the top it's all about small boundaries (which should be huge, it should be only v v well hit or timed shots go to the boundary and immense shots go for 6) and that's why top edges etc go for 6's more now. It's probably always gone for 4's etc but now with the boundaries it's just so much easier for them to hit boundaries and 6's. NOt saying bats don't help of course but i think they need to look at other things before messing with bats.
I still question the bowling talent pool of current international cricket though, I'd suggest it's more to do with the 'average' international batsmen is better than ever before yet your 'average' international bowler is poorer. This means more runs when coupled with smaller boundaries and better roads.. sorry pitches. As someone just said, when you add in helmets and the increase in chest, arm, thigh, inner thigh protection meaning batsmen at all levels are more inclined to hit more. I'd suggest it's just an accumulation of things aiding the batsmen that have led to more runs etc than the 'ping' of the bat.
Not sure I'd say it's more interesting now though. It's more televised certainly but is it more interesting?? Would you not have preferred watching Sir Viv? Lara? Holding? Warne? McGrath? Botham? Flintoff? than watching Dhoni, Sharma, Lyons etc
-
Batting has a huge advantage at the top of the game. Lower levels not so much but at the top it's all about small boundaries (which should be huge, it should be only v v well hit or timed shots go to the boundary and immense shots go for 6) and that's why top edges etc go for 6's more now. It's probably always gone for 4's etc but now with the boundaries it's just so much easier for them to hit boundaries and 6's. NOt saying bats don't help of course but i think they need to look at other things before messing with bats.
to be fair, I think top edges went for six plenty in the past - its just that they occur that much more often now that players are conditioned by helmets and a surfeit of one day and T20 cricket to swing at every short pitched fast ball!
-
misses the point. The cricket bat is an aid to the ability and strength of the cricketer. Using a bat 40 years ago would give a totally different experience to a 2013 bat, in terms of power and off centre hitting. In that respect batting technology has surpassed bowling/fielding gains made over the same period. That's before we talk about helmets making batsman less concerned about being hit or boundaries coming in. It's happening in club cricket as well, how many sixes does your club hit a season compared to 40 years ago?
There was a special presentation at my cricket club on Saturday night to an old guy who back in 1972 blasted a century off 34 balls!
Now, our home ground is massive, the bats those days were tiny (2.4 ounces about average) and this guy was no taller than 5 ft 5.
Guys like Keith Miller, Sam Loxton, Gary Sobers, Graeme Pollock etc had no problems smashing sixes on bigger grounds with tooth pick bats. "The Croucher" Gilbert Jessop smashed a century in no time with those old bats, as did Jack Gregory who hit a test century against SA in 71 minutes (just over half a session) one fine day in the early 1920's with a tiny bat.
This enquiry is a total waste of time.
-
With all the bat technology etc, nobody has yet matched this effort in the 114 years since:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/463786.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/463786.html)
-
Batting has a huge advantage at the top of the game.
I don't see that to be honest. There are less shocking tracks at international level these days which gives the batters a fairer chance but the bowling and especially the fielding has improved so much over the past 20-30 years it's harder to score runs. I think the MCC and/or ICC do a fair job keeping the balance right across the formats. I just don't think they need to worry about edge size, it's really not that big a deal whatever level you play at and it's probably not so great an advantage. You may get the odd one that goes for 6 instead of 4 but you also get more catches at 3rd man. Six and two 3's.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/21616932 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/21616932)
-
I aprreciate the effort MCC is taking although late. I dont really understand the debate which I feel is biased towards batting, although I am a batsman.
The argument is if the batsman is strong enough to use a 3 pounder he can as he is strong enough to use it and he likes the feel, pick-up and so on. Than why cant a bowler who is strong use a ball whic is 6 oz, custom shaped for more swing ( off center hits for batsman :) ). Come on there should be some balance
-
Rather than investigating edge size, shouldn't the MCC think about pushing the boundary rope back to the edge of the field?
-
love it, let's ask several batsman about the change. No bias there! Ask a bowler whose been smashed all over the shop and you'll get a different reaction.
The problem is it's becoming the norm, not the exception, for fast scoring to occur. Players are stronger, boundaries shorter yes but bat sizes enable modest players to achieve what we once considered exceptional performances. I can see the benefit of getting less value for off-centre shots by reducing the edge size. However, I still think the weight needs to be looked at, to avoid just using no concaved massive spine bats. Maybe even adding weight into the handle as a penalty for using heavier weights? Whether they can simply revise the law with any changes is a different matter.
-
Than why cant a bowler who is strong use a ball whic is 6 oz, custom shaped for more swing ( off center hits for batsman :) ). Come on there should be some balance
If the BCCI see this, as a batsman, we're doomed.
-
Of course, this could reverse the current mega-size cleft trend, with the pros opting for (currently) maybe perceived lower standard, heavier for their size clefts, to get their optimum weight without big edges...
But will we scufflers in the deep follow the trend?
-
Rather than investigating edge size, shouldn't the MCC think about pushing the boundary rope back to the edge of the field?
This.
The guy on the committee even says "With the rise of Twenty20, and boundaries getting shorter, there are more sixes being hit."
Push the boundaries back, more chance of being caught on the boundary. Simples.
As a second point, shirtfront wickets with near enough guaranteed bounce for five days in a test match also disadvantages the bowler, but there are no rules about creating a "competitive wicket".
Finally, as we well know on here, just because a bat is larger, it doesn't mean it weighs more, and most of us aren't supremely capable of timing the ball such that we hit sixes. Limiting the depth of the bat really is the most insane approach.
It's all about conservation of momentum, and batmakers can press a piece of wood weighing 2lb 10oz a number of ways, depending on what they want to achieve. limiting the size doesn't change this.
-
The changes won't make a big impact on the game.
Cricket bats is a competitive market, every brand is trying something to create a better performing bat.
We've had carbon backs, handles, laminates. All improved bats and were banned but the 6s are still being smashed. Any changes they make won't stop bat makers finding a way to make their bat outperform the competition.
-
To put it into the laws of the game it has to be simple. Giving the physical dimensions of a bat or the maximum weight can be written easily. Most other things can't but they did go into detail when they changed the bat handle law.
-
To put it into the laws of the game it has to be simple. Giving the physical dimensions of a bat or the maximum weight can be written easily. Most other things can't but they did go into detail when they changed the bat handle law.
Stating maximum distance for the boundary rope from the edge of the available field isn't exactly hard though...
-
Just because they are talking about it, doesn't make a change imminent.
These committees need an endless supply of tripe upon which to feed to ensure they justify their existence.
They are just a bunch of ex-players who enjoy a junket a couple of times a year.
That's one view.
The other side say's they carry out valuable examination of the trends and changes to the game to ensure the rules and laws of the game are both relevant and fair.
Is it about sides?
Personally, the depth of the bat is irrelevant. When you consider most top players use 2lb 9 bats. There is a finite amount of wood you can incorporate into a bat which is useful.
-
There is a finite amount of wood you can incorporate into a bat which is useful.
Which in your case is around 3lb+!!!
-
love it, let's ask several batsman about the change. No bias there! Ask a bowler whose been smashed all over the shop and you'll get a different reaction.
The problem is it's becoming the norm, not the exception, for fast scoring to occur. Players are stronger, boundaries shorter yes but bat sizes enable modest players to achieve what we once considered exceptional performances. I can see the benefit of getting less value for off-centre shots by reducing the edge size. However, I still think the weight needs to be looked at, to avoid just using no concaved massive spine bats. Maybe even adding weight into the handle as a penalty for using heavier weights? Whether they can simply revise the law with any changes is a different matter.
It's funny that this has come up. I had a fielder come up to me on Saturday while I was batting and said "it's good to see someone using a traditional shaped and size bat and still hit the ball as hard and far as these big edged bats"
At club level in the 25+ years I have played cricket I haven't noticed any massive difference in performance of bats...
Watching international cricket however is a different story.. Balls seem to come off bats at an alarming rate and hit the boundary fences before you can blink.
-
It's funny that this has come up. I had a fielder come up to me on Saturday while I was batting and said "it's good to see someone using a traditional shaped and size bat and still hit the ball as hard and far as these big edged bats"
At club level in the 25+ years I have played cricket I haven't noticed any massive difference in performance of bats...
Watching international cricket however is a different story.. Balls seem to come off bats at an alarming rate and hit the boundary fences before you can blink.
Which really tells you one of two things.
The first, and least likely, is that International Players use bats made differently to regular amateur players.
The second, and far more likely is that Pro Cricketers employ far more practice, sports science and strength improvement and have thus enabled themselves to hit the ball harder and with better timing than ever before, whilst using the same tools as the amateur player...
-
Which really tells you one of two things.
The first, and least likely, is that International Players use bats made differently to regular amateur players.
The second, and far more likely is that Pro Cricketers employ far more practice, sports science and strength improvement and have thus enabled themselves to hit the ball harder and with better timing than ever before, whilst using the same tools as the amateur player...
While I agree in part are batsmen better now than in the past? If so have we really seen a jump in averages to prove this?
And also have you noticed similar Tim or is it just my opinion?
-
Rather than investigating edge size, shouldn't the MCC think about pushing the boundary rope back to the edge of the field?
agreed but if you notice a lot of sixes end up in the stands anyway so not sure it would help. I think it might make hitting 4 a bit more difficult as hopefully fielders would have a chance to get around and batsman would most likely run more 2's & 3's (Unless you are Indian) which would in turn tire them out and maybe impact big hitting that way...
-
Which in your case is around 3lb+!!!
So long as I'm happy wearing the occasional snorter!
-
While I agree in part are batsmen better now than in the past? If so have we really seen a jump in averages to prove this?
And also have you noticed similar Tim or is it just my opinion?
I started properly playing cricket in the early nineties and I don't think we see anymore sixes being hit. There are some grounds with small boundaries that have always had loads, but for the most part, on "average" grounds, as a bowler, I am not hit for more now than I was 20 years ago.
-
agreed but if you notice a lot of sixes end up in the stands anyway so not sure it would help. I think it might make hitting 4 a bit more difficult as hopefully fielders would have a chance to get around and batsman would most likely run more 2's & 3's (Unless you are Indian) which would in turn tire them out and maybe impact big hitting that way...
The ones that only just clear the short boundaries wouldn't go, so it'd reduce the number. You'd also get more spectacular catches in the deep.
-
I started in the early/mid 80's.
Bats where thinner, much thinner, and a lot harder pressed. Even going to Warsop and having them custom made back then you got less wood (read that how you wish!).
Hitting a six was rarer then, but we where coached very differently. Proper cricket (as GB would say).
-
The ones that only just clear the short boundaries wouldn't go, so it'd reduce the number. You'd also get more spectacular catches in the deep.
I agree, I am in favour of bigger boundaries...especially because I am a bowler :D
-
I started in the early/mid 80's.
Bats where thinner, much thinner, and a lot harder pressed. Even going to Warsop and having them custom made back then you got less wood (read that how you wish!).
Hitting a six was rarer then, but we where coached very differently. Proper cricket (as GB would say).
started the same time and agree.
-
Pro Cricketers employ far more practice, sports science and strength improvement and have thus enabled themselves to hit the ball harder and with better timing than ever before, whilst using the same tools as the amateur player...
Not cricket, but similar perhaps - when the Beatles had a residency at the Star Club, Hamburg, they were not even rated as the best band in Liverpool. However, playing for a minimum 8 hours per day, day in, day out, didn't half hone their technique.
-
Can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear though either....
-
I started in the early/mid 80's.
Bats where thinner, much thinner, and a lot harder pressed. Even going to Warsop and having them custom made back then you got less wood (read that how you wish!).
Hitting a six was rarer then, but we where coached very differently. Proper cricket (as GB would say).
I'm the same era. I think as much as anything else it's attitude towards batting that's changed. Batsmen are more aggressive and try hit boundaries and 6's more often. There was a time when a batting team would all but give up chasing 6 or 7 per over.
I think sometimes we can forget just how good the professional guys are at hitting a ball. This is what they do day in day out.
You wouldn't expect a hack golfer to smash his 7 iron 200 yards round a dogleg and land it dead 3 feet from the pin so why expect a league cricketer to be able to do what the international boys can do. The truth is no matter what bat they have in their hand the chances are they will hot the ball further.
-
Golf isnt a great example. My old man is nearly 70 and thanks to his modern alloy composite thingy driver he can not only hit it further than before (he was boasting this fact the other day strangely enough) but also straighter. Some clubs have actually been banned from the pro circuit if memory serves me right.
-
An update on this:
"Balance between the bat and ball
The committee heard presentations from Jeremy Ruggles of JS Wright (Willow producers) and Andrew Kember, the master craftsman at Salix, concerning the process of making cricket bats. This initiated a discussion on the balance of the game between bat and ball, the increase in six-hitting in the game and the weight, width and pressing techniques associated with modern bats.
One suggestion was that there should be a restriction on the size of a cleft used in a bat, thus limiting its overall depth and therefore its power. Manufacturers would be free to develop their skills in distributing weight and balance in bats as they see fit, albeit within a tighter framework.
Opinions varied on this matter, from members who thought that increased six-hitting was entertaining for the game, to those who see bowlers getting an increasingly raw deal with ‘mis-hit’ sixes, whilst others highlighted the increase in the percentage of Test matches ending in results as evidence that bowlers are indeed able to take wickets.
It was also noted that better pitches, shorter boundaries and stronger players, allied to the rise of T20, have had an impact on batting styles.
With no consensus, MCC has decided to undertake more research in this area, consult a range of bat manufacturers, and conduct laboratory testing to determine the power of modern bats of varying shapes and weights."
-
Will be interesting to see which bat makers they chat too. AC at salix is a good start as they are not just looking to GN, GM kook, etc as the 'main' boys.
Would be great if the likes of those guys we have on here were consulted as well.
-
Maybe get rid of the ropes and get groundsman to prepare wickets with a bit of life in them.
-
Maybe get rid of the ropes and get groundsman to prepare wickets with a bit of life in them.
This!
One of the things that annoys me most about cricket is a ground that is only being half used. Yes, you have a valid argument for having a rope maybe three feet in from the advertising hoardings to allo for some safety when sliding around, but so often now you see already small or smallish grounds reduced by a further 10 yards on all sides. Joe Root's six at Lords yesterday was a classic example - it cleared the rop but was, what, eight yards shy of the actual edge of the playing area...
The other thing is also valid - Id like to see a move toward faster pitches. Too many turgid, boring ones nowadays!
-
Maybe get rid of the ropes and get groundsman to prepare wickets with a bit of life in them.
I think this get's missed in all the arguments - boundaries are not as far as they were. Yes there are 6's being hit into the stands but anyone who watches some of the classic replays on TV will see that 6's were hit into the stands in days gone by with the supposedly worse bats and before the current strength & conditioning training, improvements in diet etc. became the norm.
I've hit less 6's in the recent years despite using a 'bigger' bat, my biggest 6's were hit with a pretty thin edged Slazenger v500 and a fairly thin edged GM GMax, but I am more consistent with my 'modern' bats.
Technology and fitness improvements are seen in most other sports so why not cricket?
-
This is true - when I was young, I hit loads of sixes on big northern grounds - then I got older and fatter and it stopped happening. And then I went back in the gym and, lo and behold, turns out I can still hit them after all!
-
I cleared a ground and the house next to the boundary with a bat that's a 12mm edge
It does have a 73mm spine though!!!
MH distinction
-
dont know how they could inforce this as no 2 peices of wood are ever the same!
-
pissing in the wind two ways of skining a rabbit other ways of makeing big bats its been done before just mcc useing there weight ;)
-
I'm not really sure what this investigation is trying to achieve. ODI and T20 are batsmen's games and always have been. Crowds go to these game to see the big hits.
In terms of test cricket, we've had far less draws in recent years compared to the 80's and 90's. This would suggest that more wickets are actually being taken. And if that's the case then where is the problem? Do they want to see more matches petering out into draws?
-
If they want to limit anything, just limit the weight. 3lb (naked) is more than enough for most batsmen.
The best bat in our club is a 1970's GN that has been handed down to the grandson, it's got a middle the size of the moon.