Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: Hoover on June 23, 2018, 01:31:02 AM
-
So England have just hammered Australia to all parts of the country in recent times. All this with the reduced size of bats that was supposed to have the complete opposite effect.
When the MCC released their study “Balance of The Game” (https://www.lords.org/assets/Uploads/Balance-of-the-Game-Paper-V9.pdf (https://www.lords.org/assets/Uploads/Balance-of-the-Game-Paper-V9.pdf)) in May 2016 a number of seasoned cricket bat manufacturers contacted the committee to express a combination of relief and concern. Relief that we didn’t have to try and make the biggest bats on the planet to satisfy fashion at the expense of performance, and concern that the size of a cricket bat was not the primary reason as the why records were being broken. Fitter players, much smaller boundaries, different preparation and new techniques (Jos Buttler e.g.) were ahead of bat size in our opinion and the opinion of some of the batmaking professionals we consulted.
We ( and the other manufacturers) tried very hard to share this with MCC and they would have none of it. Bats for today’s professional batsmen are made using different techniques (not technology, but technique) that are improving rapidly. As a sidenote we woud love to make these available to the general public but our experience is that the non professional has an issue wih the maintenance involved with the upkeep of these bats, no matter how good the performance.
My business partner submitted a reply to the committee outlining all of our concerns ( shared by at least one of the big 3 Indian manufacturers) including that we supported the new gauge but we don’t believe it will have the desired effect. The answer was “ we have an ex County player on the committee who disagrees with you. He believes records are being broken because of he size of the bats. And we believe him.”
My partner is also an ex County player, a female and a master batmaker with 25 years making cricket bats for some of the best players in the world.
No word yet from the MCC on a review..... of the review. Makes me wonder what they will choose to review next.
What do you guys think ?
-
...
As a sidenote we woud love to make these available to the general public but our experience is that the non professional has an issue wih the maintenance involved with the upkeep of these bats, no matter how good the performance.
...
What do you guys think ?
Can you make couple of those bats available to me? Thanks.
-
Great thread Paul, I know that a number of other batmakers made similar representation to the committee.
Certainly both Dr David Bacon from B3 and Chris King at GN pointed out that F = M x A
But the committee knows better than Einstein...
However once Barry Richards showed his 2lb3 bat in that misleading picture next to Warner's over dried lump of a 2-11 bat minds were made up.
As you can't and wouldn't want to change bat improvements or the time pros spend practicing or in the gym, we should be focusing on having more in the wickets and balls that actually swing to even up the balance between bat and ball.
-
Top man.
-
Agree with @Buzz - One day bowling should be a skill, and if bat techniques are aiding the batter then ball technology and pitch preparation should be allowed to aid the bowler.
I personally don’t get excited about slogfests such as the IPL and Trent Bridge. A game where 280 beats 275 with loads of slower balls. yorkers and audacious hitting against a moving ball, with loads of furiously run singles would work for me.
-
Spot on! F = m x a. We can’t change that! The change in ‘m’ due to heavier bat isn’t that huge i.e. 2lb 7 oz is ~1106 g and 2lb 11 oz is 1219 g (~10% increase) so the new bats can hit the ball only 10% longer when wielded at the same acceleration. The real reason for too many boundaries is they are swinging those bats harder, with higher ‘a’. The bigger biceps and larger core strength of the modern batters is hugely responsible (compare David Boon, Arjuna Ranatunga and co with today’s 6 pack abs brigade). Plus reverse swing has gone out of fashion and the pitches have become flat as well. Two new balls don’t allow spin and reverse swing and on the top of that, each and every single ground in the world has started to shrink for increase in seating capacity! Solution : make pitches competitive! Rather than restricting bat sizes, restrict their weights, stop the two new balls non-sense and make the grounds bigger (add capacity to the outer perineter and remove seats from the front).
So England have just hammered Australia to all parts of the country in recent times. All this with the reduced size of bats that was supposed to have the complete opposite effect.
When the MCC released their study “Balance of The Game” (https://www.lords.org/assets/Uploads/Balance-of-the-Game-Paper-V9.pdf (https://www.lords.org/assets/Uploads/Balance-of-the-Game-Paper-V9.pdf)) in May 2016 a number of seasoned cricket bat manufacturers contacted the committee to express a combination of relief and concern. Relief that we didn’t have to try and make the biggest bats on the planet to satisfy fashion at the expense of performance, and concern that the size of a cricket bat was not the primary reason as the why records were being broken. Fitter players, much smaller boundaries, different preparation and new techniques (Jos Buttler e.g.) were ahead of bat size in our opinion and the opinion of some of the batmaking professionals we consulted.
We ( and the other manufacturers) tried very hard to share this with MCC and they would have none of it. Bats for today’s professional batsmen are made using different techniques (not technology, but technique) that are improving rapidly. As a sidenote we woud love to make these available to the general public but our experience is that the non professional has an issue wih the maintenance involved with the upkeep of these bats, no matter how good the performance.
My business partner submitted a reply to the committee outlining all of our concerns ( shared by at least one of the big 3 Indian manufacturers) including that we supported the new gauge but we don’t believe it will have the desired effect. The answer was “ we have an ex County player on the committee who disagrees with you. He believes records are being broken because of he size of the bats. And we believe him.”
My partner is also an ex County player, a female and a master batmaker with 25 years making cricket bats for some of the best players in the world.
No word yet from the MCC on a review..... of the review. Makes me wonder what they will choose to review next.
What do you guys think ?
-
Disclaimer - prepare for pedantry... While F=ma is a not unhelpful way of thinking about it, the 'M' described in F=ma refers to the mass of the cricket ball, not the bat. Force is applied by the bat, resulting in the mass of the ball accelerating at a.
Balls, change the balls, they're crap. I have a couple of white Kookaburra turf balls and they're rock hard, no seam, quarter seam cracks open after hardly any use at all, (No Swearing Please) if I'd bowl with one. A ball with a seam would make a huge difference.
@Hoover, if you'd be prepared to share the differences in technique and results and why the change between pro and standard bats would.be a very interesting read!
-
Surely the mass is the bat putting force on the ball or a 2lbs bat would hit the same weight ball as far as a 3lbs bat @edge ??
But agree that using rubbish balls is ruining cricket.
-
Yes, the mass. Which is why restricting size is a bit daft. Most players don't use heavy bats.
-
Surely the mass is the bat putting force on the ball or a 2lbs bat would hit the same weight ball as far as a 3lbs bat @edge ??
But agree that using rubbish balls is ruining cricket.
The force applied by the bat varies with both the mass and speed of the bat yes! But the law that lets you work it out out is Newton's first, not second. Conservation of momentum - the total momentum in a system (bat/ball collision) must remain constant. Momentum is mass x velocity (mv), so the total mv of bat and ball is the same before and after ball hits bat. Momentum is transferred from bat to ball, and the bigger the difference before collision the more momentum is transferred. How do you increase the momentum of the bat? More mass or more velocity.
-
@Hoover, if you'd be prepared to share the differences in technique and results and why the change between pro and standard bats would.be a very interesting read!
[/quote]
I don’t know how other makers derive there techniques but we use a lot of trial and error in our making. We actually call our sponsored players “lab rats “ ! Not trying to be clever at all but we won’t share our IP on this.
-
Slight tangent: Hilton Cartwright is the first Bradbury sponsored county cricketer I've noticed for some time?
-
@Hoover, if you'd be prepared to share the differences in technique and results and why the change between pro and standard bats would.be a very interesting read!
I don’t know how other makers derive there techniques but we use a lot of trial and error in our making. We actually call our sponsored players “lab rats “ ! Not trying to be clever at all but we won’t share our IP on this.
I thought you might say that! Fair emough, can't blame you.
-
Slight tangent: Hilton Cartwright is the first Bradbury sponsored county cricketer I noticed for some time.
Fantastic guy. We have had him since he was 19. Seriously talented player who is fighting a bit of a form slump. Would be one of the better fielders in Australia too.
-
I think that as we can't make grounds bigger or players smaller, the game should be evened up by making the stumps taller and wider. There is big benefit to batsmen for every hit, so offer bowlers bigger benefit for every miss.
-
I think that as we can't make grounds bigger or players smaller, the game should be evened up by making the stumps taller and wider. There is big benefit to batsmen for every hit, so offer bowlers bigger benefit for every miss.
This is a terrible idea!! 😂😂😂😂😮😮😮😀
-
This is a terrible idea!! 😂😂😂😂😮😮😮😀
Ha ha that's me told! I thought it was quite an elegant solution! Back t'drawing board...
-
Get a better ball.
Get rid of the “leg side wide rule”. A wide is a wide, but if it just misses the pads it should be fine.
Get rid of the “2 head height” ballls an over thing. Bowler should be able to ball six Legal delivery’s anywhere.
And random one.
Bowlers should only have to say which side of wicket they are bowling, the hand they want to use is up to them, therefore if a bowler can bowl with both hands, it’s his advantage to throw in a left armer every now and again......
-
I don’t know how other makers derive there techniques but we use a lot of trial and error in our making. We actually call our sponsored players “lab rats “ ! Not trying to be clever at all but we won’t share our IP on this.
Might be the same answer, but would you be prepared to share some of the stuff you have tried that hasn't worked?
-
I think F=m.a applies for both bat and ball (Newton's third law of motion - bat exerts force on the ball and opposite is also true). The resulting forces are equal and opposite in nature. Since we are assuming that the ball is delivered at same acceleration and the weight of the ball doesn't change much against a heavy bat vs light bat, the heavier bat is going to hit it at max 5 to 10% longer at the same acceleration (same bat speed and same ball speed). For practical purposes, assume someone batting against a balling machine set at a particular speed, a heavier bat will only hit the ball 5 to 10% longer than a lighter bat in this scenario.
Disclaimer - prepare for pedantry... While F=ma is a not unhelpful way of thinking about it, the 'M' described in F=ma refers to the mass of the cricket ball, not the bat. Force is applied by the bat, resulting in the mass of the ball accelerating at a.
Balls, change the balls, they're crap. I have a couple of white Kookaburra turf balls and they're rock hard, no seam, quarter seam cracks open after hardly any use at all, (No Swearing Please) if I'd bowl with one. A ball with a seam would make a huge difference.
@Hoover, if you'd be prepared to share the differences in technique and results and why the change between pro and standard bats would.be a very interesting read!
-
But a simple equation such as F=ma ignores any collision efficiency that different shapes/materials/pressing of cricket bats can give.
I generally agree with Hoover, so whilst I believe the improvement in manufacturing has improved bat performance, I reckon that most of the improvement comes from more athletic cricketers who try to hit sixes more often.
-
But a simple equation such as F=ma ignores any collision efficiency that different shapes/materials/pressing of cricket bats can give.
Yes this is an extremely important and mostly ignored part of it! Also as mentioned before, f=ma is misunderstood/misused a lot in this context.
-
I think the spirit of the original comment on this thread was: that the VOLUME of a bat does NOT determine how many runs are smashed. that statement is backed by science, but the ICC stupidly decided to ignore basic physics
-
I think the spirit of the original comment on this thread was: that the VOLUME of a bat does NOT determine how many runs are smashed. that statement is backed by science, but the ICC stupidly decided to ignore basic physics
More pedantry - it does, but only by a tiny amount.
-
I think the spirit of the original comment on this thread was: that the VOLUME of a bat does NOT determine how many runs are smashed. that statement is backed by science, but the ICC stupidly decided to ignore basic physics
What science supports that volume of the bat (which is determined by manufacturing techniques, wood density, willow moisture content, pressing methods) have zero impact on bat performance? If it has even the smallest impact on performance, then it is impacting the game and that may be for better or for worse.
We sit here all day arguing over which bat is better - we can't just say "bats have zero difference" when this whole forum has thousands of posts to us nitpicking over which bat should be bought next.
-
If you want to even up the balance to help the bowlers, use uncovered wickets.
-
Bat volume increases rigidity of the bat, for same weight one with more volume will hit ball further. Likely why laminate bats perform well, also possibly why stright grains through the toe perform well. Carbon backed bats and aluminum bats could be similar in this regard
-
This rigidity argument is interesting.
Could you explain a bit more how this works.
If a bat is denser the fibres are closer together, would that not make the bat more rigid?
-
This rigidity argument is interesting.
Could you explain a bit more how this works.
If a bat is denser the fibres are closer together, would that not make the bat more rigid?
A shape with a thicker cross-sectional area in the axis of bending is stiffer. Imagine bending a ruler - if you put it flat and bend it up it bends very easily, if you try and bend it edgeways it's very difficult. Similarly, a deeper or thicker cricket bat (all else being equal) will be stiffer on impact with a cricket ball, which effectively means more energy going into the ball. One of many factors, but it is a factor.
Re. denser/fibres, I'm no expert on willow structure, will have a read! Highly doubt that would be the case though.
-
I might be wrong but I can’t imagine that this would have an effect. Surely the handle would have a far greater degree of flex than the blade. Even if you have a thick oval handle.
Saw in the science lab an equation about kinetic energy, something like KE= mass x 2 + speed squared. Meaning that the swing speed has a far larger effect than the mass of the bat. I only scraped though there physics GCSE so may Not have any relevance.
-
I might be wrong but I can’t imagine that this would have an effect. Surely the handle would have a far greater degree of flex than the blade. Even if you have a thick oval handle.
Saw in the science lab an equation about kinetic energy, something like KE= mass x 2 + speed squared. Meaning that the swing speed has a far larger effect than the mass of the bat. I only scraped though there physics GCSE so may Not have any relevance.
It absolutely has an effect, but not a large one, hence players still belting it everywhere post bat size restrictions.
Separate issue really but in the very specific case of a human hitting a cricket ball with a bat then mass effectively wins - the increase in power you get from using a heavier bat is more than the amount of power you'll lose from the corresponding drop in bat speed. Assuming your timing remains the same of course.
-
To me the high scorers are just the evolution of the game, it is suppose to happen with better pitches( -unlike to that of 80's and 90's where ball can deviate 180 degrees after pitching.) fast and smoother out fields, the batting technique and batsmen having more confidence on their hitting ability owing to the specialized nets/practices and training, same thing can be said about the fielding standards which have evolved a long way from the early days.
The batsmen ability and confidence can be easily seen these days when teams really bank on casing anything under 330
Even in 90's batsmen with confidence and hitting ability (Like Sanath, Afridi, Gilchrist) were having strike rate of 90+ and during those times there were no big bats. It’s just that there have been increase in such kind of a batsmen now. And there are proper batsmen down the order as well which has caused the hike in the scores.
Bowling has not evolved ever since or even worse the standards have dipped massively, when I last checked there was only one fast bowler in top 10 in T20I bowler's ranking. This is more even in ODIs but if you go down the ranking you will find more and more spinners, which is kind of odd as many teams do not go with more than one spinner in their lineup.
If we see there are no 150 kmph+ bowlers around baring Stack, I was watching an England match where commentators described Mark Wood as a really fast bowler and he never crosses 150 Kmph mark.
Adding to this there are no quality seam bowlers. I can understand why commentators will never address the issue of depleting bowling ability around the world.
Yes big bats added to that, but actually there were not many players using 45 mm+ edge’s bats . Its more down to the bowlers who are happily giving away 8 or 9 runs per over, earlier that could have caused a bowler his career, but it is Okay now.
Good bowlers are still getting wickets and keeping the run rate down, even on seaming/swinging conditions we have seen batsmen struggling, which clearly describe if the bowler has the ability to move the ball he can get the wickets and restrict huge scores.
I believe the huge scores are due to lack of good bowlers around the world.
The playing conditions will always improve from bats, balls, wickets, protection, grounds. It is the player who needs to improve along, seems like fielders and batsmen are way ahead of the bowlers now.
-
To me the high scorers are just the evolution of the game, it is suppose to happen with better pitches( -unlike to that of 80's and 90's where ball can deviate 180 degrees after pitching.) fast and smoother out fields, the batting technique and batsmen having more confidence on their hitting ability owing to the specialized nets/practices and training, same thing can be said about the fielding standards which have evolved a long way from the early days.
The batsmen ability and confidence can be easily seen these days when teams really bank on casing anything under 330
Even in 90's batsmen with confidence and hitting ability (Like Sanath, Afridi, Gilchrist) were having strike rate of 90+ and during those times there were no big bats. It’s just that there have been increase in such kind of a batsmen now. And there are proper batsmen down the order as well which has caused the hike in the scores.
Bowling has not evolved ever since or even worse the standards have dipped massively, when I last checked there was only one fast bowler in top 10 in T20I bowler's ranking. This is more even in ODIs but if you go down the ranking you will find more and more spinners, which is kind of odd as many teams do not go with more than one spinner in their lineup.
If we see there are no 150 kmph+ bowlers around baring Stack, I was watching an England match where commentators described Mark Wood as a really fast bowler and he never crosses 150 Kmph mark.
Adding to this there are no quality seam bowlers. I can understand why commentators will never address the issue of depleting bowling ability around the world.
Yes big bats added to that, but actually there were not many players using 45 mm+ edge’s bats . Its more down to the bowlers who are happily giving away 8 or 9 runs per over, earlier that could have caused a bowler his career, but it is Okay now.
Good bowlers are still getting wickets and keeping the run rate down, even on seaming/swinging conditions we have seen batsmen struggling, which clearly describe if the bowler has the ability to move the ball he can get the wickets and restrict huge scores.
I believe the huge scores are due to lack of good bowlers around the world.
The playing conditions will always improve from bats, balls, wickets, protection, grounds. It is the player who needs to improve along, seems like fielders and batsmen are way ahead of the bowlers now.
Its just a matter of focus. No-one can focus on every skill at once, you have to pick. If young players focus on developing white ball skills, then red ball skills will be eroded. Bowlers focus on practicing nailing 1-over spells with 6 different deliveries, not how to work over a batsmen over the course of a 10 over spell of supreme pace (or flight) and accuracy before eventually dismissing them.
Batsmen work on their power hitting and 360 shot options, but how many test batsmen are there that can do all three or even 2 out of 3 out of a) play spin well, b) survive for a session on a green-top and c) deal with short fast and nasty stuff. Hardly any - maybe 4 or 5 in world cricket? Back in the 90s you would have a list as long as your arm.
-
A couple of years ago before the bat restrictions came in I as speaking to a guy from Gray Nicolls who told me that their research suggested that the timing and bat speed generated by the batsman had a far greater impact on the distance a ball travelled than the amount of wood in the bat. So far the bat restrictions seem to have had little impact
-
@SLA :
You correctly mentioned about kind of specializations players are after for. But the bowlers are evolving as quickly as the fielders or batsmen.
In recent past we have seen and praised the batsmen struggling, taking body blows but gutting out in the middle on a tough wicket, but I do not remember any bowler gutting out in the middle apart from two instances both involving the greats of these days - Styne and Malinga both in Sub continent bowling like masters of the game.
IN T20I I can only remember only Malinga having such an impact for so long. Fast bowlers are trading off speed and accuracy for variations.
Variations are really necessary, but most of the variations are bowling slow balls, which can be easily dealt with. No bowlers seems to add variations in terms of developing a fast ball, Inswinger/outswinger, yorkers, seamers.