Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: Nmcgee on February 04, 2015, 10:51:54 PM
-
An interesting development.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/icc-set-to-crack-down-on-bat-sizes-on-eve-of-world-cup-20150204-136a28.html (http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/icc-set-to-crack-down-on-bat-sizes-on-eve-of-world-cup-20150204-136a28.html)
-
Yes but if you read it they say they arnt going to do anything ...SO .......Not News
-
To repeat what I said in the other thread bat size was mentioned:
Size of the bat is irrelevant. If they enforce a size restriction on bats the market for low density clefts will be reduced, and high density clefts will be more sought after.
A well pressed 3lb bat in Chris Gayle's hands will send a ball into orbit regardless of size.
Take two bats weighing the same, a big modern bat and a smaller traditional shape bat, both well pressed and the "middle" in the same place. It will be the same mass behind the ball and the same transfer of energy.
-
surely though a 3lb bat from a denser cleft is going to been the same as a 3lb from a lighter cleft. just being ridiculous
-
Your all looking into this too much.
So Cam are you talking weight or volume of wood because there is a big difference massive difference in fact.
But to be honest a good batsman could use anything the mental side of size is important to as mentioned previously
-
The game has just become more aggressive in terms of shot choice since the invent of t20.
T20 style crept into odi's for the end if the innings, then the invent if powerplays(rules to encourage scoring!!) meant attacking cricket crept into the early part of the game.
Then with Warner, etc making it work in tests, it's creeping into the long format.
Let's face it, if a batsmen gives himself room and smashes it back at an umpire, a edge loss of 5mm isn't gonna suddenly give the umpire masses of reaction time is it.
-
Yes but if you read it they say they arnt going to do anything ...SO .......Not News
"The MCC (World Cricket Committee), as law makers, and the ICC will be looking at giving perhaps some consideration to placing limitations on the depth of a bat in particular."
I would say that is an interesting development.
-
A new ball at each end in ODI's is the key change in recent times for me.
It could be argued that Kookaburras balls going out of shape in test matches after a matter of minutes over the past 18 months (and ending up being replaced with a ball of 'similar' age but one that is presumably a bit harder as it hasn't gone out of shape) is having an impact too.
-
I think its rubbish that the credit is given to big bats etc., especially by commentators/ex-cricketers and media. The batsmen of this generation and cricketers in general are more professional, innovative and physically more fit. They are full time cricketers, all they do is play cricket, learn newer and aggressive way of scoring and stay physically fit. Not long back, cricketers were in most nations were all part timers who had fulltime jobs and cricket was a bit more than a hobby. The professionalism has made lot of difference and created innovation.
-
To repeat what I said in the other thread bat size was mentioned:
Definitely not true, don't know the magnitude of the effect but stiffness of cleft (which will increase with depth) clearly will have an effect on energy transmitted to a ball.
For me it's a collective conciousness thing, e.g. almost every top order player can routinely hit cover drives for 6 these days, hardly saw that at all even 5 years ago. Is that because of a huge improvement over 5ish years ago in batsmen or bats? Obviously not, just everyone now realises it's possible, so they try it, practice it and become able to hit those shots. The same with scoops and sweeps, in particular. Switch hits haven't got there yet, but give it time and they will.
Whereas bowling (in terms of pace/swing anyway) reached the limits of what is humanly possible a long time ago (noone these days bowls faster than Larwood/Trueman/Thompson etc or swings it better than Akram). This is an inevitable process, so maybe try improving the balls so that half the world doesn't use crap Kookaburras and improve pitches so that less cricket is played on easy paced featherbeds, rather than blaming bats for the recent progression in shotmaking.
-
i would like to see a modern big hitting batsmen be given an older style bat and see if it makes any difference
-
Your all looking into this too much.
So Cam are you talking weight or volume of wood because there is a big difference massive difference in fact.
But to be honest a good batsman could use anything the mental side of size is important to as mentioned previously
Both (I think) mate, my explanation was poorly worded.
I was trying to say that two bats weighing the same will theoretical hit the ball the same distance, regardless of the dimensions of the bat. 3lb of willow is 3lb of willow, it doesn't matter if the edge is 20mm or 50mm
Does that make more sense? And ami getting weight and volume all wrong? Haha
-
I think the game is unbalanced due to to new rules introduced in last 20 years that favor batsman over bowlers. Field restrictions, restrictions on bouncers, shorter boundaries in the name of entertainment. There is a little to do with bats but not much.
-
3lb of willow might not be 3lb of willow though thats the point.
Volume is linked to density and voulme inside a shape is the size.
Two bats the same weight could not be equal but 2 bats the same volume in the same area will.
Bats are bigger and inline with what has been mentioned strength and better wickets and smaller grounds have aided in hitting the ball harder and further.
For me the sub continent started this with there shapes they where naturally creating through overdriving.
Pro's want bigger lighter bats by and large
-
3lb of willow might not be 3lb of willow though thats the point.
What does that mean?
Volume is linked to density and voulme inside a shape is the size.
Alright, some high school physics...
Density = mass/volume; or mass = density * volume;
Two bats the same weight could not be equal but 2 bats the same volume in the same area will.
Weight = mass * gravity.
How can two bats of the same weight "not be equal"? Is gravity different? Or more importantly, weight of the handles, stickers and toe guard will make one bat (or rather blade) have less mass? Basically, are you implying one bat has more wood than the other?
"2 bats the same volume in the same area will" only be equal is the bats had the same mass - same amount of wood. What am I missing here?
Bats are bigger and inline with what has been mentioned strength and better wickets and smaller grounds have aided in hitting the ball harder and further.
You mean heavier bats when you say "bigger"?
For me the sub continent started this with there shapes they where naturally creating through overdriving.
Pro's want bigger lighter bats by and large
What does bigger mean? More volume (bigger edges and spine) but weighing 2-7? Or more weight? Would a 2-7 bat with 38 mm + edges and 68mm+ spine hit a ball further than a 2-7 tooth pick used by Gary Sobers?
-
They should get rid of field restrictions.
-
So many factors in play and it's not just the bats fault (although, they are now huge for the size)
1) silly field restrictions make it too easy to hit runs
2) stupid boundary size make it too easy to score runs ( miss hit 6 just shouldn't happen)
3) wickets are just roads so players are able to just hit through the line.. Spice them up a bit, make them bounce, be faster, seam etc.
4) players are fitter and stronger than before but I suspect there were still those around in the less pro era who could hit it as hard. Little billy root isn't some super strong man afte all. Accept it, but just make he outfield bigger to make that fitness.. Make them run more!
5) give bowlers a chance, give them a decent ball that keeps its shape and seams/swings for longer
Do that and the balance would be more equal without changing the bats.
-
Pro cricketers spot on. Its a cumulative effect. Whats the point giving bowlers a new hard ball if the thing doesn't swing it just goes to the boundary quicker. Edges carry further with a modern bat, so with 60 yard boundaries its a six not a catch in the deep. You cant stop manufacturers making new developments. An example even in our cricket is the balls we use. They last forever without deteriorating. 10 years ago I used to come on after 20 overs when the ball had got rough on one side and swing it round corners with contrast swing. Now after 20 overs you cant even tell which side we are working on. Bad sloggers in the leagues can just walk down the wicket and swing thru the line of the ball with no fear of missing it. At least it means spinners are more valuable then ever before if they can survive the start of there career when they will just get launched.
-
What does that mean?
Alright, some high school physics...
Density = mass/volume; or mass = density * volume;
Weight = mass * gravity.
How can two bats of the same weight "not be equal"? Is gravity different? Or more importantly, weight of the handles, stickers and toe guard will make one bat (or rather blade) have less mass? Basically, are you implying one bat has more wood than the other?
"2 bats the same volume in the same area will" only be equal is the bats had the same mass - same amount of wood. What am I missing here?
You mean heavier bats when you say "bigger"?
What does bigger mean? More volume (bigger edges and spine) but weighing 2-7? Or more weight? Would a 2-7 bat with 38 mm + edges and 68mm+ spine hit a ball further than a 2-7 tooth pick used by Gary Sobers?
Yes think I got myslef middled up here what I'm trying to say is with low density I can get more "mass" in my bats for the same weight. So the volume of wood is bigger for the same weight.
It means I can either have a 2-100z trott profile or a 2-15 same people same volume.
Or as bat nerd I can supersize the trott by 5mm all over with the 2-10 oz bat and make it 2-15 and have much more
Volume
So in theory I would have 2 bats same weight but one would be much bigger so different volume of wood yet same weight
Ask batmakers it not hard to make a big decent bat because they genrally play better because of the volume plain and simple
All I will say is get a cleft pressed and handle it tap it up then it will be stiff as hell and go like a rocket
-
To be clear here, volume = 'size' or dimensions of a bat. Mass/weight = how much it, er, weighs.
Pro cricketers spot on. Its a cumulative effect. Whats the point giving bowlers a new hard ball if the thing doesn't swing it just goes to the boundary quicker. Edges carry further with a modern bat, so with 60 yard boundaries its a six not a catch in the deep. You cant stop manufacturers making new developments. An example even in our cricket is the balls we use. They last forever without deteriorating. 10 years ago I used to come on after 20 overs when the ball had got rough on one side and swing it round corners with contrast swing. Now after 20 overs you cant even tell which side we are working on. Bad sloggers in the leagues can just walk down the wicket and swing thru the line of the ball with no fear of missing it. At least it means spinners are more valuable then ever before if they can survive the start of there career when they will just get launched.
The longer a ball stays shiny the better! Decent bowler should definitely be able to make a brand new ball swing, if it stays that way then great. Problem comes when it stays hard but the shine dulls quickly, which does seem to be on the increase.
-
That's sort of what I meant. The high gloss goes and you end up with a dull red thing (but still very much intact) unless the pitch is like concrete you cant get the roughness on one side you used to get.
-
Old ball contrast swing is quite different to new ball swing. You had to get the seam bolt upright straight down the pitch (not canted) and the ball will swing either way depending on the rough side. Reverse swing wont happen under 80mph+ so doesn't really happen much in club cricket.
-
Wouldn't bat manufacturers be happy if bat sizes were reduced, I assume they might be able to reduce the size of a cleft and make more bats from the same tree?
-
Why don't the ICC just cap the volume of the bats used in International / first class cricket? thats all that has changed since 'the good old days'
That way if you use a 3lb bat, you use a denser cleft and if you use a 2.7 bat then you use a less dense cleft to give you, either way, a bat of similar volume to those which would have been used say 10 years ago, which seems to be what they're angling for, as it's the additional volume which makes the 'modern' bat more forgiving to the mishit.
I expect my ICC royalties to be in the form of a comedy cheque, for my services to saving cricket.
-
That's sort of what I meant. The high gloss goes and you end up with a dull red thing (but still very much intact) unless the pitch is like concrete you cant get the roughness on one side you used to get.
That does hack me off to be fair, played a few games for my uni in the past with balls that stayed rock hard but didn't swing after the first few overs. Given that I bowled first or second change, just felt like cannon fodder on a good deck.
-
That's sort of what I meant. The high gloss goes and you end up with a dull red thing (but still very much intact) unless the pitch is like concrete you cant get the roughness on one side you used to get.
You haven't tried hard enough ;)
-
I'm not sure I know enough about bat making to form an opinion, but these are two interesting articles I read recently...
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/feb/05/cricket-bat-size-debate-russell-jackson (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/feb/05/cricket-bat-size-debate-russell-jackson)
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/826821.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/826821.html)
-
You haven't tried hard enough ;)
I have No idea what you mean :D