Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: tim2000s on July 16, 2014, 05:57:44 PM
-
With significant changes since 2009. So says imperial college...
http://www.espncricinfo.com/mcc/content/story/760927.html
Regardless of shape, apparently bats now have bigger sweetspots. Have you found this?
Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
-
i just read this article and was about to share the story.
im sure modern bats have a bigger sweetspot but it doesn't guarantee that they will hit the ball in the first place
-
My old shape purist and my traditional shape Chase both had lovely sweet spots, if modern bats are better I'm yet to see the evidence (and I own a few!)
Maybe a bat off is required, pre 2010 bats vs post 2009 bats, which is truly better!
-
this appears to be a load of ill researched waffle.
there is no menton of concaving vs conves shapes.
no mention of moisture content
the Asian, particularly the Pakistani bat makers were making overdried concaved lumps well before 2009.
some geek on here will know when the first Malik sher was released, the mid 90's or something
and that is before we start taking about changing techniques, range hitting, different weight training, flat dead pitches to induce hitting.
useless.
carry on!
-
This mean you can't really compare batsman across Eras simply based on the strike rate and runs.
Also the records being broken in terms of fastest 100s or 50s are not due to superior skills but due to better bats.
-
This mean you can't really compare batsman across Eras simply based on the strike rate and runs.
Also the records being broken in terms of fastest 100s or 50s are not due to superior skills but due to better bats.
Afridi hit a 37 ball hundred in a test match before the modern bat era.
-
Afridi hit a 37 ball hundred in a test match before the modern bat era.
I think it was an ODI mate, but a valid point, if he played the same innings with a modern bat would he get there quicker? I doubt it!
-
whilst there are all sorts of "buts" in there, the fact is that any advances are pretty minor save the psychological ones.
-
Boundary sizes need to be considered too.
Ihsan had a very concaved bat in the late 80, can't recall the name with certainty but possibly the Hilux. A proper W shaped concave it was too.
-
I have the full disclosure, and unless I get any complaints is available here:
https://drive.google.com/a/masevans.co.uk/file/d/0B1saMLnJZq0fVHBWRF8xQU5qSmc/edit?usp=sharing
-
Thanks Tom. Interesting choice of 2003 bats. Not sure the Nemesis should have been there considering half the spine is missing, thus shortening the length of the sweetspot. That bat is certainly at the top of my 'avoid at all costs' list. GN100 lovers will be feeling warm. E41 or Legend or 4x2 would have outperformed the Nemesis.
-
One other point of interest is that thick edges increase the rotational resistance. I have heard others say the opposite.
-
One other point of interest is that thick edges increase the rotational resistance. I have heard others say the opposite.
This is one of those statements that is endlessly repeated as "fact" as though it makes a difference.
With two bats of the same weight, the additional mass that is moved to the edges by making them thicker is actually very small and is offset against the amount lost due to concaving near the spine. Both of these components of the mass have an effect on the torque "generated" by the mass of the bat.
When you consider that the key aspect of the force implied by a cricket ball on the edge area of a bat is the rate of change of velocity of that cricket ball, of which velocity is the key part, and that the change in the inertia generated by increasing the edge size is something in the region of 0.05 times, you start to see that the reality is very different.
Yes it does "increase the resistance to twisting", but it does so by such a small margin that it makes no difference. It is purely marketing hearsay bs.
Better ways to stop the bat twisting are to use an oval handle and hit the ball out of the middle of the bat.
-
On a slightly different note, the biggest flaw in the whole study is the use of bats of different weights and less so, middle positions. Forget what batsmen do differently, the simple fact that there is more mass in the bat skews any results.
Is it really any surprise that a bat weighing around 2lb 11oz can hit the ball further than a 2lb 5oz bat for the same bat speed, or that the size of the sweetspot is somewhat bigger....?
Secondly, that they use bats with different profiles is also a rather disturbing error. Yes, some modern bats do have lower middles, but plenty have high middles. Comparing a 1978 Scoop with the 2013 version would have been a much more realistic and sensible comparison, and I'd be tempted to do the same with a 1998 Dynadrive versus a 2014 version.
I suspect the whole discussion about pick-up and MoI would be signficantly changed if they did this properly.
-
They aren't really comparing like with like. Probably the biggest factor is weight. The 'popular' weight nowadays is 2-9 which is some 5-6oz heavier than the norm in the Bradman/Compton/Sobers eras. If you can use it effectively a heavier bat will hit the ball further IMO. I think that modern understanding of pressing techniques has also had an effect. Bats used to be pressed for durability, now they are pressed for immediate performance.
-
What a horribly flawed study, they could have at least used 5 'standard' shaped bats.
-
What a horribly flawed study, they could have at least used 5 'standard' shaped bats.
Couldn't agree more...
I'd love to get B3 to make a copy of a 1970's Scoop, a 1980's Powerspot, a 1990's Dynadrive and a 2004 Powerbow to the exact same weight and see what the modern manufacturing techniques actually did to these designs....
-
this appears to be a load of ill researched waffle.
there is no menton of concaving vs conves shapes.
no mention of moisture content
the Asian, particularly the Pakistani bat makers were making overdried concaved lumps well before 2009.
some geek on here will know when the first Malik sher was released, the mid 90's or something
and that is before we start taking about changing techniques, range hitting, different weight training, flat dead pitches to induce hitting.
useless.
carry on!
I agree Buzz. I appreciate its an article specifically on bats; which in itself suggests the should have researched all area's (as your mention). However, the argument about it being more of a batsman's game and the increased ability to hit big must surely account for the fact that players now days have far more targeted training, both strength and skills. IMO its not all down to the bats!
-
I never realised till I visited cricinfo that this was commissioned by the ICC, it reads like some sort of 6th form project.
Given the circumstances (potential rule chances) you think they could have invested a big of cash to get someone like B3 to make copies of a fairly standard shaped bat from say each of the last 10 decades.
I really don't see how you can make a judgement on the future of the game based on a study that used the bats they did. Very odd.
-
I agree Buzz. I appreciate its an article specifically on bats; which in itself suggests the should have researched all area's (as your mention). However, the argument about it being more of a batsman's game and the increased ability to hit big must surely account for the fact that players now days have far more targeted training, both strength and skills. IMO its not all down to the bats!
It's not, and while this is relevant, it's harder to test/police, however, if they were going to focus on the equipment used, they really should have done that properly.
-
I don't know where to start on the article or the "study". Between the MCC and the Department of Bioengineering at Imperial College London they've produced something that's good for toilet paper.
Tim2000s - The claims of "fact" infuriate me and I always wonder, Where is the evidence?
-
The people who wrote this probably don't play cricket, who weighs bats in kg? They also chose the wrong bat in the nemesis as it is not a standard shape that is used by batsmen in all formats. It is a T20 bat that shouldn't be compared to older bats as the T20 was not played until about 10 years ago.
-
On the subject of this 2 further studies which some may be interested in:
The reliability of the tapping up test - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1saMLnJZq0fV3QxaXFlcDI1enM/edit?usp=sharing
Finding a finite element model for testing a cricket bat - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1saMLnJZq0fbTA2SHpRZ1VXV0E/edit?usp=sharing
-
Wonder if they find the mysterious second middle?
-
On the subject of this 2 further studies which some may be interested in:
The reliability of the tapping up test - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1saMLnJZq0fV3QxaXFlcDI1enM/edit?usp=sharing
Finding a finite element model for testing a cricket bat - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1saMLnJZq0fbTA2SHpRZ1VXV0E/edit?usp=sharing
The first is quite amusing in that it is too small a sample to really count, but finds what we already know, in essence, some people are better at tapping up a bat than others....
The second is quite interesting, in that the work done to produce the report finds that experimental data shows a slightly different result from the initial FE model created and suggests that further work would need to be done to fine tune the FE model. For me what's most interesting is that the FE model would show roughly what the anticipated performance of the perfect bat would be and to apply this to different batmakers you'd have to adjust the model to take into account the various pressings that different makers do. Worth a read though.