Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: The Doctor on October 28, 2016, 10:18:10 AM
-
After mulling over the proposed new law on bat design being rail roaded in by the MCC/ICC - I thought I would have a play at a bat design of the future and what that might look like.
After spending a little time I have come up with the below - and actually may have the opposite effect - a longer middle......
Interesting to hear your thoughts on this, and also on the design;
(http://i63.tinypic.com/rwmmmo.jpg)
Streaky
-
Nice concept. The MCC want to restrict edge and spine size; and like you say the weight has to go somewhere.
With bats have to be made solely of wood you're not going to have ballast on the back, if you're a 3lb 2oz user, like Chris Gayle. It's just going to result in profiles like this.
-
Nice concept. The MCC want to restrict edge and spine size; and like you say the weight has to go somewhere.
With bats have to be made solely of wood you're not going to have ballast on the back, if you're a 3lb 2oz user, like Chris Gayle. It's just going to result in profiles like this.
And also with the likes of warner having access to low density you will end up with a cleft like design with a handle. This design is coming out at 2lb 12oz with a 400 cleft.
-
Put a cleft in the machine mate and see what it's like in the flesh!
-
^ I agree - get one made up and let's see how it goes in a net! I'd be interested in the pick up experience on that design.
It's so shortsighted by the powers that be; can't help thinking there's a lot of ego involved there for ex-pros offering advice who don't seem to want to accept that players now are fitter, stronger, more flexible, etc. than they were...
-
Put a cleft in the machine mate and see what it's like in the flesh!
Already done it....
-
Already done it....
Whack some pics up!!!
Certainly an interesting take on things what's the pick up like?
-
(http://i64.tinypic.com/vxkkz4.jpg)
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2iqjrth.jpg)
-
Can I just say bloody ugly :D
-
I call this...The Submarine
-
The top section makes it look odd only but the design for a ccm is brilliant.
I like it I would get it drilled down to 2-10 from a 400
It goes with the throes of spine in which my theory is spine size does not have any added benefit over a certain range
Goes with coverage theory across the bat with even weight distribution across the playing area.
What's really not to like would maybe like to feel pick up but I think we are looking at the future/past of bats
Circle is coming round
-
What's the pick up like on this Streaky?
Is this prototype going to be available to buy?
-
Hmm. I'm not sure if this is new or retro. The bat gauge proposed severely limits the full convex option...boooo. This design is at the extreme of what wood can be left in the blade I'm guessing.
I love a radical departure from crowd, but there appears to be too much wood in the splice and it needs a bit of rework in that area improve the look. The toe area looks like a Beluga Whale's forehead. That said nothing is in the laws about counterbalanced handles.
Good effort Streaky.
-
How's the pick up on a design like this and what sort of weight is the one made please
-
Reminds me of a stretch limo style adaptation of the Kookaburra Menace, wasn't popular but this is almost certainly because of the graphics, which even now are a challenge to look at!
(http://shoptrics.com/image/data/Kookaburra/Kookaburra%20Menace%20450%20English%20Willow%20Cricket%20Bat2.jpg)
(http://www.cricketequipmentusa.com/content/images/thumbs/0002190_cricket-bat-ultra-menace-by-kookaburra.jpeg)
-
There's a hint of Tusker in this as well:
(http://r01t.imgup.net/20160618_0f0c5.jpg) (http://r01i.imgup.net/20160618_0f0c5.jpg)
(http://m21t.imgup.net/20160618_0d35f.jpg) (http://m21i.imgup.net/20160618_0d35f.jpg)
(http://s55t.imgup.net/20160618_0b613.jpg) (http://s55i.imgup.net/20160618_0b613.jpg)
-
Time for the Turbo 333 all over again....
-
It's jumbo time.
You can make something much more elegant but the affect will be the same. The proposed restrictions will just create more forgiving bats, not less. Any idiot can see the wood off the edges and spine will simply be spread across the blade instead.
-
I think Centurion had a similar model in the 90s. They had a load of crazy shapes!
-
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2q1ct95.jpg)
anybody else just see this?
-
([url]http://i63.tinypic.com/2q1ct95.jpg[/url])
anybody else just see this?
I WAS JUST ABOUT TO POST THIS EXACT PLANE!! Great minds bud!
-
Let's pretend you add 50g to the top of the handle like some companies out there claim makes a massive difference. How much difference can a counterbalance make in people's practical experience?
You still end up with a heavier bat even if the balance or pickup may improve... it goes to the eternal dead weight vs pickup weight discussions I guess. A 3lb dream pickup bat is still 3lbs to lug around.
The current bat laws say the handle must be made principally of wood/ cane and only be covered by materials for grip but another part suggests a steel counterweight on the top of the handle may be ok ,"No material may be placed on or inserted into either the blade or the lower portion of the handle".
It's all academic anyway as it will most likely only be enforced at the upper end of the game and those guys and gals will still be more than capable of hitting big shots within the proposed laws. Daft all around but then we knew that :)
I'm fairly certain that there will always be examples in every game of a big knob attached to the handle of a cricket bat, especially at international level ;)
-
a big knob attached to the handle
Aah come on now, thats no way to talk about Davie Warner!
-
I'd give that a go. Been thinking about a bat like that for a while, forget "it picks up 3oz lighter" and give me as much wood as possible!
-
May not be as modern as the other photos posted in this thread but drove John of @Red Ink Cricket nuts for this bat.
(http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag4/avkrish/aa720713-f6fd-4834-94ca-76daf6a5b640_zpsd6dzaini.jpg)
-
Picks up well, and got a long middle!!!
-
So why don't all bats currently look like that? :) Fairly weighty given all the meat and not fashionable?
one of the reasons is we all want bats with profile similar to what pro players use
so something like kohli duckbill
but then pro players don't need long middle
-
Nearly finished bat;
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2vl8idi.jpg)
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2m2j7r5.jpg)
-
Yep, I wouldn't mind using a bat like that.
-
After mulling over the proposed new law on bat design being rail roaded in by the MCC/ICC - I thought I would have a play at a bat design of the future and what that might look like.
After spending a little time I have come up with the below - and actually may have the opposite effect - a longer middle......
Interesting to hear your thoughts on this, and also on the design;
([url]http://i63.tinypic.com/rwmmmo.jpg[/url])
Streaky
What are the real benefits of this design? Any ball hit high on the bat is not going anywhere no matter how long the middle is. I doubt if cricket bat shapes will change drastically in future. Baseball bats have not changed for decades...
-
Nearly finished bat;
([url]http://i63.tinypic.com/2vl8idi.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i66.tinypic.com/2m2j7r5.jpg[/url])
Actually looks alright finished up that! Need a tester? ;)
-
I quite like that! My batting would still be rubbish mind you.
-
Nearly finished bat;
([url]http://i63.tinypic.com/2vl8idi.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i66.tinypic.com/2m2j7r5.jpg[/url])
When can we expect test results / feedback?
-
The BELUGA is coming......
-
The BELUGA is coming......
Love the name. I had a Chase 175 Beluga, bought it back in 2011, for a few seasons
-
The BELUGA is coming......
Do I get one to test Streaky for the name inspiration? ;) Please say yes...
-
Do I get one to test Streaky for the name inspiration? ;) Please say yes...
B3 have posted a YouTube video talking about it, it's definitely an odd shape and I'd much prefer the shoulders being a tad thicker.
No mention of you ch1p sadly :-(
-
Ugliest bat I've ever seen
-
not ugly exactly...just...lacking in streamlining. It looks odd - almost like a squased in SS Jumbo.
-
not ugly exactly...just...lacking in streamlining. It looks odd - almost like a squased in SS Jumbo.
Video can be seen here - https://youtu.be/QXSe1Vua4-M
Granted it is unusual and even ugly, but once you play with it those will become secondary factors and soon ignored.
-
The jumbo was once considered ugly and unusual....
-
Never saw anyone in club cricket score consistent runs with a jumbo.
They were just too heavy
A bit of a novelty bat
You'd see the odd big six hit with one, but I can't honestly remember anyone batting for long with one.
I'm a big fan of the thinking, would just prefer the spine to taper down more to the toe,and the spine to run more into the handle.
That's just me
Main thing is, if it picks up well, and it sounds like the 'pro' in the factory was very impressed
-
Never saw anyone in club cricket score consistent runs with a jumbo.
They were just too heavy
A bit of a novelty bat
You'd see the odd big six hit with one, but I can't honestly remember anyone batting for long with one.
I'm a big fan of the thinking, would just prefer the spine to taper down more to the toe,and the spine to run more into the handle.
That's just me
Main thing is, if it picks up well, and it sounds like the 'pro' in the factory was very impressed
You must remember Mick Chapple, and Iain Clarkson did.. Clarky was a mammamoth man mind and hit the balls miles...
-
Did clarky use one?
Crikey!
How good a batter was he!
He'd just gone to nelson when I was at earby
I remember a guy who used one a bit like a golf club
When he connected, it went miles
I couldn't even pick it up!
-
Never saw anyone in club cricket score consistent runs with a jumbo.
They were just too heavy
A bit of a novelty bat
You'd see the odd big six hit with one, but I can't honestly remember anyone batting for long with one.
I'm a big fan of the thinking, would just prefer the spine to taper down more to the toe,and the spine to run more into the handle.
That's just me
Main thing is, if it picks up well, and it sounds like the 'pro' in the factory was very impressed
Please remember - this shape starts at 2lb 10oz - so not in the Jumbo weight category.
Not a fan of the design - you can tweak until your hearts content!
-
Non official forum net at eversley on the 27th if you want us to put one through its paces?
-
I actually quite like that shape, wasn't so sure of it to start with, but looks to have a HUGE playing area. Is the spine around 65mm throughout? Any prototype/trial ones available for sale? ;)
-
I'm lead to believe they have 5 made up???
-
As has been said - not the nicest looking profile!
But if the rules do come in, then it is a reasonable idea to look at the best performing bat under he new legislation.
From a logic point of view this bat should have a very long middle! And should perform really well as well!
But also from a logic point of view the pick-up should be heavy!
Saying that, 95% of us can look past an ugly profile if the performance makes us go "CORRRR BLIMEY! Sorry bowler, do you need an ice pack for that lump?"
Would be interesting to try one of these babies!
-
I LOVE IT!!!!! It's a beautiful shape, very exciting, and bound to make me a better batsman!
They start at 2.10 you say.......................
-
As has been said - not the nicest looking profile!
But if the rules do come in, then it is a reasonable idea to look at the best performing bat under he new legislation.
From a logic point of view this bat should have a very long middle! And should perform really well as well!
But also from a logic point of view the pick-up should be heavy!
Saying that, 95% of us can look past an ugly profile if the performance makes us go "CORRRR BLIMEY! Sorry bowler, do you need an ice pack for that lump?"
Would be interesting to try one of these babies!
Not logic really yes the cut outs at the top but because of the bill lower down and the fact the bat has moe wood than most higher up through the spine equal it out nicely but agree will be nice to try out will see what I can do for you southern guys....
-
They'd be pretty easy to manufacture - a couple of tapered ends and one long consistent profile. Certainly a lot easier than concaving and custom profiling bats with variable pick ups and consideration into where to put the mass of the weight and spine. If thats the future of bat design then there will be a lot of bat makers able to churn those out with absolute minimum effort. If the MCC change the law then it'll just be a question of where the tapers go depending upon weight preferences. As it stands the bat may well essentially become one long profiled cleft with a huge middle. It hopefully means controlling bat size may need to be given a little more consideration before they stipulate a set parameter otherwise the MCC are just creating a new issue - batsmen that can smash miss hit sixes off the splice. Batsmen who like a huge bigger bat like Chris Gayle may opt for a new design of a super mini short handle and a lot of wood in a longer shoulder - a full profile cleft with a toe. What if a batsman likes a 3lb plus bat - will there be room for just the one toe taper on a bat!?
Kiln drying changed the cricket bat size (and longevity) but is there a way of turning back in regards to that ? The alternative would be to control drying methods and moisture content as thats where the real secret to a big bats is. Control the cleft not the bat. If the MCC did restrict kiln drying technology in some way then maybe that would be a better answer than just regulating measurements - but far more difficult to oversee (unless umpires carried moisture meters and batsmen allowed them to stick metal prongs in their bats instead of carrying a plastic size template). You can air dry clefts using natural (and innovative) methods to a reasonable weight content without a kiln - it just takes a lot longer (4 or 5 years instead of 4 months) and the moisture levels aren't quite as dramatically reduced to 10% and below. They'd balance out at about 14% in the UK - and thats with serious effort. Id get the MCC to start looking there rather than them being misled into thinking that simply reducing bat measurements are the key to reducing bat sizes.
Well done B3 for highlighting what might happen should bat sizes become restricting - the MCC would just create a brand new way of batsmen having an advantage. No longer big fat edges just huge long spines. Cleft technology is what needs looking into before the bat maker gets knobbled and the market gets completely flooded by Beluga shaped cleft-esque bats. There has been a huge rise in bat innovation in the last 15 years and introducing size restrictions will backfire I think - for both the game and the bat maker. As the saying goes a tonne of feathers weighs the same as a tonne of lead - regardless of the container shape.
-
This will destroy cricket, showing that having a fixed size to conform to, you can spread the rest of the weight that you're over by to the rest of the bat without a swell... and as it was said in the video... its basically a railway sleeper with a handle! Where's the variety? where's the difference between bat and ball? You not just have fairly decent sized but as a decent wait with a promising middle that offers no help to the bowlers. This is a bit like when they created A1 where all the cars were the same and the drivers were different, which was apparently supposed to be bigger than F1... whats happened to that again? oh yeah...
-
This will destroy cricket, showing that having a fixed size to conform to, you can spread the rest of the weight that you're over by to the rest of the bat without a swell... and as it was said in the video... its basically a railway sleeper with a handle! Where's the variety? where's the difference between bat and ball? You not just have fairly decent sized but as a decent wait with a promising middle that offers no help to the bowlers. This is a bit like when they created A1 where all the cars were the same and the drivers were different, which was apparently supposed to be bigger than F1... whats happened to that again? oh yeah...
or it will mean the bats your currently use will be the same just a lot smaller.
Coverage on bats has been immense for a long period I think it restrictive the size but hey that's my theory size means nothing compared to weight.
As for a railway sleeper with a handle it been happening for years Tendulker shape was basically that and used more weight from a JS Wright standard cleft as almost possible...
Not agreeing with the potential rule but all it means is bats will be smaller..
If you will, what happening now is basically taking the extra swell and edges that only oversized clefts can bring...
-
It'll be interesting to see what happens at our level. In the amateur m game.
So you've saved and scrimped and bought a bat you want for around 400 quid. It's got to last you ten years.
Yet every time you trott out to use it an ump says "not today bats to big, get another one"
How pissed off at the game are you gonna be?
What if no team mates are interested in lending you one?
What if they do and you break it? Who's gonna lend you another?
5 games in to a season you think, sod this. And you stop playing.
Have the Mcc thought about the casual cricketers that will just see it as another hindrance to play if there current willow doesn't conform???
It's meant to be all about playing numbers this days, yet non off the ideas that get implemented seem to help.
-
If this "rule" actually starts being enforced, it would be the most stupid thing the mcc has done. Balls will still fly over the ropes but it will just piss off people that want a game of cricket at the weekend because they are being told to use a different bat. The size won't make a difference according to Newton's law f =ma
-
They'd be pretty easy to manufacture - a couple of tapered ends and one long consistent profile. Certainly a lot easier than concaving and custom profiling bats with variable pick ups and consideration into where to put the mass of the weight and spine. If thats the future of bat design then there will be a lot of bat makers able to churn those out with absolute minimum effort. If the MCC change the law then it'll just be a question of where the tapers go depending upon weight preferences. As it stands the bat may well essentially become one long profiled cleft with a huge middle. It hopefully means controlling bat size may need to be given a little more consideration before they stipulate a set parameter otherwise the MCC are just creating a new issue - batsmen that can smash miss hit sixes off the splice. Batsmen who like a huge bigger bat like Chris Gayle may opt for a new design of a super mini short handle and a lot of wood in a longer shoulder - a full profile cleft with a toe. What if a batsman likes a 3lb plus bat - will there be room for just the one toe taper on a bat!?
Kiln drying changed the cricket bat size (and longevity) but is there a way of turning back in regards to that ? The alternative would be to control drying methods and moisture content as thats where the real secret to a big bats is. Control the cleft not the bat. If the MCC did restrict kiln drying technology in some way then maybe that would be a better answer than just regulating measurements - but far more difficult to oversee (unless umpires carried moisture meters and batsmen allowed them to stick metal prongs in their bats instead of carrying a plastic size template). You can air dry clefts using natural (and innovative) methods to a reasonable weight content without a kiln - it just takes a lot longer (4 or 5 years instead of 4 months) and the moisture levels aren't quite as dramatically reduced to 10% and below. They'd balance out at about 14% in the UK - and thats with serious effort. Id get the MCC to start looking there rather than them being misled into thinking that simply reducing bat measurements are the key to reducing bat sizes.
Well done B3 for highlighting what might happen should bat sizes become restricting - the MCC would just create a brand new way of batsmen having an advantage. No longer big fat edges just huge long spines. Cleft technology is what needs looking into before the bat maker gets knobbled and the market gets completely flooded by Beluga shaped cleft-esque bats. There has been a huge rise in bat innovation in the last 15 years and introducing size restrictions will backfire I think - for both the game and the bat maker. As the saying goes a tonne of feathers weighs the same as a tonne of lead - regardless of the container shape.
Cleft technology nor bat moisture content will have no effect either - the bat will still be 2lb 12oz, and being swung at the same swing speed .... and how would you monitor it???
What NEEDS to happen is the MCC need look at alternate ways, and when I say alternate ways, I mean methods that will actually work - been highlighted on a previous thread.
-
Come on guys, it's a daft rule but it won't destroy cricket, and it won't affect the amateur game in the slightest. Previous rule changes (carbon handles/backs etc banned) have been banned from manufacture but not use in the amateur game, I'm sure there's still a few Ricky Pointing graphite Kahunas out there in club cricket for example. MCC have I think even already said that the same would apply in this case should the change go through. Plus let's be honest, lams are banned and it's not like you can't buy or use them.
Worst case scenario, all batmakers stop making big bats and we have to make do with 35mm edges. Last time I looked batting was about the batsman rather than the bat anyway (sacrilege!), and it's not like you couldn't still pick a bat you like. Most of my bats probably wouldn't quite make it through the new rules, but the one I own that definitely would is the best bat I've ever owned anyway! Life, and cricket bat marketing, will move on.
-
Cleft technology nor bat moisture content will have no effect either - the bat will still be 2lb 12oz, and being swung at the same swing speed .... and how would you monitor it???
What NEEDS to happen is the MCC need look at alternate ways, and when I say alternate ways, I mean methods that will actually work - been highlighted on a previous thread.
Im not so sure - a modern light 2lb 12oz cleft allows a long parallel profile. A heavy old fashioned 2lb 12oz cleft would restrict the possible length of the parallel edge and the spine so innovation would be necessary again. Its the moisture and kiln drying that allowed the large modern bats to evolve. The concaving allowed the big edges to become bigger. As innovative as the bat makers are I don't think the modern shapes would have been anywhere near possible without the modern form of the raw material in the trade. 6% for some pro's bats like Warners Im led to believe with all sorts of additional drying. I have it in mind that Wrights - who staunchly refuse to manufacture clefts above 45mm in edge thickness - are part involved in the desire for bat restrictions for their own end gain. They're MCC old boys after all and run the willow trade - hand in glove. All that aside, if the MCC want to reduce bat size they need to do more than just look at bat measurements. Thats a pretty numb approach to it. That'll just squeeze the same amount of wood into new areas. Its like a balloon - it'll have the same amount of air inside so just change shape when you squeeze it. Unless you take some of the air out. Monitoring moisture would be pretty difficult I agree - maybe impossible. Maybe not. Its when it leaves the merchants where it could be assessed - they're the root cause of it all despite them trying to pass the buck onto the bat maker. The bat maker only took advantage of the raw materials that they were given during the last 15 years and utilised it to their full potential - and why wouldn't they ? Unless they restrict bat size AND weight then they're just morphing one problem into another (if it is in fact a problem). But you can't restrict bat weight - that'd be unfair on the big lads who actually need to use heavy bats - its a relative thing. Maybe they need a sliding scale for profile sizes available for different weights - so if a bat weighs 3lb then they would have the option of increased spine and edge size. The umpire could still have a template to check profiles against but maybe a series of them that differ according to the bat weight. Thats just an off the cuff thought written as I type though !
You'd also churn out more Baluga bats a day on a saw than on a CNC machine - theyre like posh clefts basically ! Not great for bat making or bat makers.
-
Monitoring moisture would be pretty difficult I agree - maybe impossible. Maybe not. Its when it leaves the merchants where it could be assessed
Then bat makers will buy kilns (the ones that have n't got them already).
This argument is as equally as bad as the MCC's.
The best way to readdress the balance is to look elsewhere;
1. Ball - longer periods of use/ more pronounced seem / engineered irregularities
2. Fielding restrictions
3. Uncovered wickets
-
How about, make the pros, use the same bat for a season?
That would stop the stupid over drying for a start
-
How about, make the pros, use the same bat for a season?
That would stop the stupid over drying for a start
What happens when it breaks due to it being a natural product(over dried or not). Is that the pros season done? Does he start on minus ten for every innings?? Does he have to bat left handed??
I can't think of a single punishment that won't make cricket look pathetic
-
What happens when it breaks due to it being a natural product(over dried or not). Is that the pros season done? Does he start on minus ten for every innings?? Does he have to bat left handed??
I can't think of a single punishment that won't make cricket look pathetic
I've played cricket over 40 yrs now, it's only in the last ten years I've seen bats break
The percentage that break because it's a natural product, against the percentage that break due to being dried to 6per cent or lower?
The whole things a joke
Are they gonna restrict stokes going to the gym? Are they bol@@cks
Sort the fielding restrictions,boundary size etc first
-
I've played cricket over 40 yrs now, it's only in the last ten years I've seen bats break
The percentage that break because it's a natural product, against the percentage that break due to being dried to 6per cent or lower?
The whole things a joke
Are they gonna restrict stokes going to the gym? Are they bol@@cks
Sort the fielding restrictions,boundary size etc first
About 20 years ago my dad was going through 3 or 4 Duncan fearnleys a year. He was a hard hitting batsmen, but not great, so toes and edges galore went.
He'd only buy that brand though, no idea why.
Agree that they need to help bowlers out more, not try and restrict batsmen with stupid unforcable changes.
Going of local league issues and complaints regarding cricket clubs and ground sizes, I wouldn't be supriced if the law makers added a "six and out" rule to the amateur game.
-
REVOLUTION BLACK 👍👍👍👍👍👍
These rules and regulations will not apply to ammatures just like in the Golf Industry Proffesionals only
-
These rules and regulations will not apply to ammatures just like in the Golf Industry Proffesionals only
That's not what we have been told.....
-
Then bat makers will buy kilns (the ones that have n't got them already).
This argument is as equally as bad as the MCC's.
The best way to readdress the balance is to look elsewhere;
1. Ball - longer periods of use/ more pronounced seem / engineered irregularities
2. Fielding restrictions
3. Uncovered wickets
Not so sure. You did say that cleft moisture wasn't the issue but I think it is the root cause of the 'problem' (if it is indeed a problem). It has certainly revolutionised the amount of willow available for bats these days. Not sure it can be monitored though - not unless there was an app made. Even then what would you do ?! Umpire - "Your bat has 12% moisture according to my app - now go and soak it in water to get it back to 14%". Where you play in the world changes moisture anyway. That was just me throwing out ideas that I hadn't spent hours pondering on - just thoughts. If they do decide upon measurements I do like the idea of a sliding scale. Nightmare for a bat maker - but better than one size fits all. Again, I'm not actually saying I think they should introduce new restrictive laws either - but if they do (and it looks like they might) then surely its better to throw the suggestion of incremental changes according to weight. If you can hold a 4 lb bat surely it should be BIG ! Thats natural - Not just heavy but big. So 2 lb 10 = 35mm, 2 lb 14oz = 39mm.....etc etc. If you can hold a heavy bat then surely you deserve it to have big edges otherwise whats the point ?! You'd end up with innovation as well as a huge range of bats, and batsmen would need to be selective on weight keeping in mind balance. Again, not a great scenario but better than ALL bats having to be 35mm edge and a 65mm spine. There'll be a middle ground and a solution somewhere - but its clearly not all bats being the same size regardless of weight.
-
They could always stop making bats from wood and specify a material, weight range and max dimension
-
Could put a counter balance in the handle and put the weight there instead of in the willow. Would still allow for innovation in bat making, help the pickup and make it less easy to make big bats without limiting creativity.
-
How about, make the pros, use the same bat for a season?
That would stop the stupid over drying for a start
F1 style, only allowed 4 bats per calendar year, i like it!Means more pro clefts for us too.
-
Could put a counter balance in the handle and put the weight there instead of in the willow. Would still allow for innovation in bat making, help the pickup and make it less easy to make big bats without limiting creativity.
Not a bad idea - the issue isn't just size of the bat as you say its the available light willow when compared with 15 years ago. Again Im not saying I have a strong opinion either way. I quite like the idea of uncovered pitches - restricted to say the first 15 minutes of rainfall otherwise it could wipe out play unnecessarily too often. But with health and safety more of a concern in the modern game I really cant see that being chosen as a way to improve the balance between bat and ball. It'd be fascinating from a spectators point of view though.
-
Not a bad idea - the issue isn't just size of the bat as you say its the available light willow when compared with 15 years ago. Again Im not saying I have a strong opinion either way. I quite like the idea of uncovered pitches - restricted to say the first 15 minutes of rainfall otherwise it could wipe out play unnecessarily too often. But with health and safety more of a concern in the modern game I really cant see that being chosen as a way to improve the balance between bat and ball. It'd be fascinating from a spectators point of view though.
Uncovered pitches might sound an interesting proposition but actually it would be detrimental to my favourite area of the game; leg spin. Back in the days of true uncovered pitches flatter finger spin proliferated because of the extra assistance (deadly derek underwood for instance). Harder truer pitches are actually better because the extra tweak generated from the wrist is needed to really spin and bounce the ball. And I'd say promoting leg spin is only going to make life harder for batsmen ultimately and redress the balance between bat and ball in a more meaningful way. Last thing anyone wants to see is a generation of flightless, boring spinners who can only bowl well on a sticky dog.
-
This bat shape and design is still unfair! It seems to have a bias in favor of the batsman.
I hope ICC puts a restriction on the length of edge at its fatest point to be not more than 3 inches in length.
Edge width should decrease in both directions from the 3 inch sweet spot for shoulder to be not more than 15 mm and toe should be not more than 12 mm
This will separate boys from men, and put those batsmen to test who are dreaming to go after the bowlers with this kind of bat.
-
This bat shape and design is still unfair! It seems to have a bias in favor of the batsman.
I hope ICC puts a restriction on the length of edge at its fatest point to be not more than 3 inches in length.
Edge width should decrease in both directions from the 3 inch sweet spot for shoulder to be not more than 15 mm and toe should be not more than 12 mm
This will separate boys from men, and put those batsmen to test who are dreaming to go after the bowlers with this kind of bat.
Are you on some sort of stupid comment quota?