Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: aman on March 07, 2017, 12:48:35 AM
-
http://www.cricket.com.au/news/bat-sizes-limit-restrictions-mcc-laws-of-cricket-code-warner-mankad-handling-the-ball/2017-03-07 (http://www.cricket.com.au/news/bat-sizes-limit-restrictions-mcc-laws-of-cricket-code-warner-mankad-handling-the-ball/2017-03-07)
New rules to be applied by October this year
-
Don't know what level you play at, but it will take an age to work its way down to the basement level some of us play at!
Interesting for the Pro players though ;)
-
Don't know how much difference 18mm will make. But I like the other rules the only one I'm more unsure of is the mankad one could be get silly at times.
-
Got plenty of super thick wood to last many lifetimes so I'm all set to continue blazing boundaries with ease and top edging sixes to the foul dismay of opponents anyways :)
-
I am glad to see big bats and bouncing run outs go. I was never a fan of big bats. I have always preferred bat with 32-38mm edges.
-
Does that mean halestorm will be discontinued next season?
Majority of OZ team plays with these big bats.
-
Whats the next for cricket bats though? They have all these super light clefts, so are they gonna have middles that run all the way through the bat or wider spines? They do say how thick the bat can be at the spine and edges but not how long that thickness can run through the bat
-
To hell with the bats, look out Worcerstershire League because I'm going to be Mankading you lot every Saturday!
-
Hopefully this won't filter down to pleb level leagues any time soon! I've not owned a "monster" and was looking forward to getting one. :(
-
If it filters down to village cricket I'll be appalled . Law makers have never played on wickets that are grass covered , so wet that the ball takes half inch of mud as it seams and bowling so slow that it never ' comes on to bat'
We need all the help we can get
-
MCC announces bat size limit
https://www.lords.org/news/2017/march/mcc-announces-new-code-of-laws/ (https://www.lords.org/news/2017/march/mcc-announces-new-code-of-laws/)
-
MCC announces bat size limit
https://www.lords.org/news/2017/march/mcc-announces-new-code-of-laws/ (https://www.lords.org/news/2017/march/mcc-announces-new-code-of-laws/)
im volunteering my bat in for checking at St Johns Wood compliance dept, anyone else in London want to join me we can have a pint in the tavern
10am 1st April
-
Will be interesting to see what comes out after this. Being an F1 fan, I know just how hard designers work to circumvent the rules. For instance, it doesn't say how wide the deepest part can be. You could have a bat with 40mm edges, then chamfer the back so that it doesn't look like a continuation of the edge, but have a flat back 90ish mm wide, but 60mm deep across its width. Nowhere in the rules does it state a bat HAS to have a discernable spine.
Then of course, the complaints flood in that the bat looks awful and the rules are changed again and so on and so on........
-
Does that mean halestorm will be discontinued next season?
Majority of OZ team plays with these big bats.
I still think this only affects Warner.... 40mm edges are still pretty big and not that long ago were the extreme
-
40mm edges and 67mm spine is still a big bat, if we think back only 10 or so years we had the bats like gm purist/maxi/catalyst and gm predator, original powerbow etc and these bats we much smaller than 40mm edge size, for me this is the daft this about it, this wont affect anything that we are currently seeing excpet gayle/lynn/warner will look like they're using toothpicks! the ball will still be hit miles by those who are hitting it miles already!
-
So what happens when these professional extremely strength and conditioned players continue to smash sixes once these rules kick in?
What do they ban next? Head height shots?
-
I agree, won't make any difference.
-
So what happens when these professional extremely strength and conditioned players continue to smash sixes once these rules kick in?
What do they ban next? Head height shots?
6 and out rule will come in!
-
1 hand 1 bounce will be soon!
-
Looks like it's "Beluga" time...
-
Does it have to do anything with the fact that not many brands can make these (warner kind) big bats as only a few have access to these over sized clefts?
-
i think the line of 'to redress the balance between bat and ball' is a load of rubbish.
i just think this is a way for the powers that be to simply get a handle on things and stop the bat sizes getting what they consider out of control - because i don't think they realised what was physically possible until Warner's bats came out.
until they do things like - move the boundaries back, change the fielder limits, stop groundsman producing corporate roads - bat will always win over ball no matter what they are using.
-
Just shows what a bunch of tools they are
The games moved on, players are encouraged to play big shots nowadays.it used to be frowned upon to hit over the top, go ariel etc
I noticed Atherton dropped the big bat remark/excuse while on about the recent one dayer.
I remember Vaughan doing a Saturday morning coaching thing on TV ,years ago, about hitting over the bowler for six.
He played the shot and I'm sure he said that , that was the first time he'd ever done that
-
Atherton's said for a while that he doesn't think it'll make any difference to be fair. I always enjoy when you see the commentators go and do a range hitting drill or something similar with an international player, borrow a monster bat and then plink it every shot. Think it was Nick Knight recently even saying 'i thought these bats were supposed to make this easy?'
I doubt even your average pro bat is much bigger than 67/40 anyway, everyone carry on. Get rid of Kookaburras and use a ball with a bloody seam!
-
In my eyes the restrictions are pointless as most bats will fit within the requirements, 67mm spine is still huge and compared with 40mm edges.
You might have seen a difference if they had decided to implement the original suggestions of 60mm spine and 35mm.
You will still get boys like Stokes, Warner, Butler smashing it to all parts no matter what twig they have in their hands due to their skill, strength and natural ability.
Are we going to see super light bats weighing around 2lb 5oz since having to stay within the limits?
-
Atherton's said for a while that he doesn't think it'll make any difference to be fair. I always enjoy when you see the commentators go and do a range hitting drill or something similar with an international player, borrow a monster bat and then plink it every shot. Think it was Nick Knight recently even saying 'i thought these bats were supposed to make this easy?'
I doubt even your average pro bat is much bigger than 67/40 anyway, everyone carry on. Get rid of Kookaburras and use a ball with a bloody seam!
Watch this space.
There could be a lot more Nics in ODIs soon though!
-
for us ameteurs we may get a bit of an advantage using the bigger bats with large edges...
but if you watch any old you tube clips of Richards or Botham for example it's hard(impossible for me anyway) to believe a ball can be hit further now than it was then......with the old style bats.
Botham used a pretty heavy bat at his peak, and he was immensely strong. I was in the crowd at Lords when he hooked McDermott into the stand and I just can't see a ball being hit harder.
that's my opinion anyway :)
-
If it puts and end to virtually every pundit referencing bigs bats every day it'll be worth it. Such a boring comment. They rarely mention all the work they do improving hand speed, weight sessions, general fitness that allows them to hit hard all game and a change in mindset that lets batsmen try to hit 6s all game not just at the end.
The mankad thing, I think is fair. The bowlers have to stick to the line, so should batsmen. The run out law makes sense too.
-
Bit isnt the weight still the same so the power put into the ball would be the same regardless of the thickness? I'm no physics expert but that sounds about rite.
As for these retired players going on and on about bat sizes increasing the scores in modern cricket, they should ask them selves how many practice sessions did they actually practice hitting sixes as compared to players nowa days and if they had half a brain they'd put two and two together and stop bagging on the modern player simply because they didn't have the balls to play in the fashion that the modern player does.
-
Bit isnt the weight still the same so the power put into the ball would be the same regardless of the thickness? I'm no physics expert but that sounds about rite.
As for these retired players going on and on about bat sizes increasing the scores in modern cricket, they should ask them selves how many practice sessions did they actually practice hitting sixes as compared to players nowa days and if they had half a brain they'd put two and two together and stop bagging on the modern player simply because they didn't have the balls to play in the fashion that the modern player does.
F=ma so the force on the all equates to the mass of the bat times the acceleration (speed through the ball) of the bat, the mass being equal for a bat of the same weight even if one has 40mm edges or 60mm edges as there's the same mass of wood, the size is purely down to density of the wood
-
So it doesn't make a difference, makes sense
-
It isn't as simple as F=MA gents, go buy yourself a very heavy mahogany cricket bat with a 20mm spine and see how it compares. That said, when pro players are hitting it out of stadiums with a 70mm spine bat, making them use one with a 67mm spine isn't going to stop them clearing the 65 yards to the boundary.
-
yep the biggest differences for me are the following (not necessarily the bigger bats) -
more practicing of specific big/range hitting etc...
better players strength conditioning + lighter clefts = more bat speed in players shots
smaller boundaries
-
It isn't as simple as F=MA gents, go buy yourself a very heavy mahogany cricket bat with a 20mm spine and see how it compares. That said, when pro players are hitting it out of stadiums with a 70mm spine bat, making them use one with a 67mm spine isn't going to stop them clearing the 65 yards to the boundary.
im talking purely willow vs willow rather than other woods vs willow
i think were all in agreement that its daft and seamless balls, small boundaries and flat wickets are bigger issues
-
Ban the wrong un'.
It's unfair that I have to work out which way it's going to turn.
On a more serious note, the more I think about it, the more I like making it easier to mankad.
I'd be ashamed knowing me/my team mates won the match by stealing yards.
-
Don't see the Mankad much because of the spirit side of cricket, that won't change much now just because it's easier to do, it'll still be frowned upon.
Mankading isn't a problem effecting the game really anyway, changing rules regarding it won't change anything. Just a rule change for the sake of it in my eyes.
-
Does that mean halestorm will be discontinued next season?
Majority of OZ team plays with these big bats.
From what i see in the test series - DW is playing with a big GN bat. Rest of them don't look that huge .. which other player are you referring to?
-
Imaging someone playing with 2lb 15oz - 45mm edges and 75 mm spine. Now if he wants to maintain the same shape and bring down edge/spine size but still want the same weight then the willow will need to have higher density.
Does this mean low density clefts are going to get cheaper then :D :D ??
-
From what i see in the test series - DW is playing with a big GN bat. Rest of them don't look that huge .. which other player are you referring to?
Check starc's
-
Imaging someone playing with 2lb 15oz - 45mm edges and 75 mm spine. Now if he wants to maintain the same shape and bring down edge/spine size but still want the same weight then the willow will need to have higher density.
Does this mean low density clefts are going to get cheaper then :D :D ??
No, they simply spread the wood across the blade. Wouldn't be surprised if we see more convex bats and big toes. The pros will still hit it miles as the MCC have just made all cricket bats more forgiving! The pros will swing them quicker thanks to reduced weight of the lighter clefts so the ball will travel further.
-
I think the check will be via a bat gauge which will have a straight line from the 40 mm edge to the 67 mm spine and the whole bat needs to pass through it. So as some are stating that next shape will be the spine height of 67 mm spread wide, is not going to pass the test. Similarly convex back profiles with 40 edge and 67 spine wouldn't pass either due to the straight line restriction from edge to spine peak.
-
I think the check will be via a bat gauge which will have a straight line from the 40 mm edge to the 67 mm spine and the whole bat needs to pass through it. So as some are stating that next shape will be the spine height of 67 mm spread wide, is not going to pass the test. Similarly convex back profiles with 40 edge and 67 spine wouldn't pass either due to the straight line restriction from edge to spine peak.
I think you are right, which is a shame. From what I read there is 7mm for the curve on the face, 40mm on the edge and 60mm spine. Basically any remaining innovation will stop if you have a cut out to check the shape of the bat.
-
I think you are right, which is a shame. From what I read there is 7mm for the curve on the face, 40mm on the edge and 60mm spine. Basically any remaining innovation will stop if you have a cut out to check the shape of the bat.
Wait, so a flat faced (F2) bat can only have a 62mm spine, while a F7 faced bat could have 67mm?
-
Back to F7 faces then, did someone say GM Icon 😉
-
None of this matters. The sixes will continue unless pitches are changed or boundaries made bigger. This really is one of the dumbest things the ICC has spent time in.
-
If someone is really taking the p1ss backing up then there are already ways to handle it, I don't see any changes needed. I don't like the rule change as a way to encourage more wickets like that in the clip. I'd be bloody ashamed to be on the winning side in those circumstances
The Mankad in that clip was brilliant tbf
-
The template is a 40 mm edge and 60 mm spine and a maximum 7 mm cambered face...a flat faced bat with 40mm edge and a 67mm spine will fail the test. spine is measured from the face of the bat, not the base of the edge. Hope that clarifies.
(http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p570/marcinadelaide/2017-03-08%2012_48_15-Photo%20-%20Google%20Photos%20-%20Iron_zps856vuq9w.jpg) (http://s1156.photobucket.com/user/marcinadelaide/media/2017-03-08%2012_48_15-Photo%20-%20Google%20Photos%20-%20Iron_zps856vuq9w.jpg.html)
Tested my new Blank Bat B1 Mk II with one at 3 mins in this video
https://youtu.be/64OFalN1P44 (https://youtu.be/64OFalN1P44)
-
That's nasty :(
-
Why does the MCC make the rules in regards to bats? Why not the ICC?
-
It isn't as simple as F=MA gents, go buy yourself a very heavy mahogany cricket bat with a 20mm spine and see how it compares. That said, when pro players are hitting it out of stadiums with a 70mm spine bat, making them use one with a 67mm spine isn't going to stop them clearing the 65 yards to the boundary.
I agree..F=MA is a factor but it is not the only factor to explain cricket bat ping. I don't think anyone quite understands the exact science of cricket bat ping. Expert batmakers know what to do at least to get great ping, though they might not fully understand the science happening inside the willow. Personally, I have experienced that for same weight, the bat with greater edge and spine generally ping more than the thinner ones. Not always the case but it happens quite often...I am guessing this is vaguely similar to the spring effect , the longer the spring (bigger the edge/spine) the longer it can push back when compressed compared to a shorter spring...not a one to one comparison, but maybe at the micro level willow structures, something of that sort happens with bigger bats at same weight...
-
I am not handing anything back in. Honestly i see myself playing for another 4-5 years - for which i have sufficient number of bats in my collection. MCC new rules are for the newer generation. I believe manufacturers are going to have a difficult time explaining to amateur/village cricketers when they come in expecting a big bat or low density cleft.
-
The uniqueness of bat designs will be gone :(
-
I agree..F=MA is a factor but it is not the only factor to explain cricket bat ping. I don't think anyone quite understands the exact science of cricket bat ping. Expert batmakers know what to do at least to get great ping, though they might not fully understand the science happening inside the willow. Personally, I have experienced that for same weight, the bat with greater edge and spine generally ping more than the thinner ones. Not always the case but it happens quite often...I am guessing this is vaguely similar to the spring effect , the longer the spring (bigger the edge/spine) the longer it can push back when compressed compared to a shorter spring...not a one to one comparison, but maybe at the micro level willow structures, something of that sort happens with bigger bats at same weight...
As Mr Dorset said above, the difference (ignoring properties of low density willow vs normal/high, which I don't know enough about) is down to stiffness. A thicker bat will be stiffer in bending than a thinner one of the same weight, so less energy will be lost in the blade flexing = more energy transmitted to the ball. Quantifying that accurately is anyone's guess though!
-
...That said, the only thing that matters is that a bat goes!
Exactly
-
the changes in law will limit a number of bats that are currently being made, but there will be plenty of designs that wont change or wont change much. what we will see is less concaving and fuller shapes. alternatively, we may see a change in how the willow is dried, certainly less overdried willow where the maker has purposely dried it beyond the recommended range for size. we may therefore see longer lasting bats as they may have more moisture.
it probably wont impact our levels much for a while which is good news as I have a couple of huge bats in the workshop which will be appearing in a for sale topic on here soon. an xp70 style bat and a couple of others.
-
Genuine question for the bat makers... at the pro level, is the willow dried for size or dried for performance? I can imagine that many do it thinking it is just about size but water does not have the most elastic of properties!
I'm not in a position where I make for a lot of pros so I'm not sure how many makers or who over dries for pros but other than getting a bigger bat at a lighter weight, I cant see there being any benefit. the way I look at it is that most things have an optimal moisture/ water level. take Humans for instance, we have an optimum water level. when we are dehydrated, things stop working or we become sluggish etc. in my eyes taking too much moisture out can only have a negative impact, that's if the determined moisture level is the optimum to start with. I'm sure those who handle the drying side of willow may be able to shed more light on it and advise why the 10-12% range is ideal.
-
Ok here are a few examples that illustrate how the pros will not lose distance:
1. Warner...he's nowhere close to being the biggest hitter in the game. Don't umar akmal and kp hit it at least just as far? And aren't their bats much smaller and more normal?
2. Kohli couldn't hit many sixes. Now he can. Did his bat chance? No. His technique and strength did (look how chubby his face was a few years ago)
3. Abd tried Warners bat for a few games. He went back to "normal specs".
-
Umar Akmal is a unfit fat piece of joke that shouldnt be compared anywhere near the real big hitters.
Anyways pros do get their bats super overdried for huge bats and less weight.
It is even stated on the Laver and Wood site, where you can request a pro style double dried willow that wont last but will perform excpetionally.
-
Warner may not hit the most sixes, but the ease which his bat allows him to smack fours even with a slight push is what makes his bat so good.
With a little of timing the ball just rockets everywhere.
-
Umar Akmal is a unfit fat piece of joke that shouldnt be compared anywhere near the real big hitters.
Anyways pros do get their bats super overdried for huge bats and less weight.
It is even stated on the Laver and Wood site, where you can request a pro style double dried willow that wont last but will perform excpetionally.
Try and stay objective. Not trying to say how good or fit he is...but he hits a long ball. Let's look at this 6: https://youtu.be/h0ELBssxDkg
It's massive. And he is using a "tiny" bat. That's my point- they don't need Warner sized bats. The ICC is wasting time.
-
Yeah one hit years ago when he was still fit.