Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: Sitonit on December 17, 2020, 06:06:23 PM
-
There are quite a few bats marketed under the tag of "Kohli's profile", sending the buyer into a fantasy as if playing with a "Kohli's profile" bat will make you play like Kohli.
But the funny thing is, I haven't actually seen a "Kohli's profile" bat in the market that looks like his bat profile.
It looks as if there is at least 5 inches from bottom up, before the sweet spot even begins. Or may be he is playing with a high middle since it's Australia?
(https://i.postimg.cc/MHXMwMHX/Kohli.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
there are variations of the profile and true that he would go for slight higher middle and lighter bat for Australia.
This particular one in picture is good for kohli but will not work for majority of customer base who wants lower middle and needs longer sweet spot, after all they are not kohli :)
-
Best of luck to any club player in Northern England who uses that shape in April!
-
Shape of bat has a totally negligible effect on bat performance. Your playing area will remain the same on any bat as long as it’s pressed well.
That shape looks lovely and will no doubt pick up fantastically
-
Shape of bat has a totally negligible effect on bat performance. Your playing area will remain the same on any bat as long as it’s pressed well.
That shape looks lovely and will no doubt pick up fantastically
Exactly- shape only affects pickup and feel. Aldred has a video on this topic too.
-
Exactly- shape only affects pickup and feel. Aldred has a video on this topic too.
I have seen that video, but one must remember that he is a business trying to sell bats with a reputation for delivering a bat that is heavier than the customer asks for.
He is right insofar as the higher the distribution of the wood in the bat, the lighter it will pick up for its weight. He omits to mention though that you lose force by doing this.
Thing of it like a sledge hammer. If you hold it by the handle, it picks up fairly heavy. Turn it around and pick it up by the head and it will feel a lot lighter even though the deadweight remains the same. You will be there a long time though trying to knock a wall down with it holding it that way. The job of a sledgehammer isn't to pick up light for its weight
-
Kohli's profile changes from time to time - I think in a video he said he likes to make little tweaks to the bats? (Could have been his way of sweeping the fact that he had a massive envelope of stickers in his bag under the carpet)
(https://i.postimg.cc/43CLM54H/Kohli-RCBjpg.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZRHwWz86/23spoprac-195355.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/9R4dkSNf)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfnt1g3t/Virat-Kohli-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Exactly- shape only affects pickup and feel. Aldred has a video on this topic too.
Case in point, one of the best bats I’ve ever owned was an M&H original high, that pinged from just above the toe all the way up to the stickers, huge coverage with minimal wood in comparison to today’s profiles and all of it up high on the bat
-
Hanif has a video of a BDM in the Kohli shape from when he is in AUS, it has the same higher middle - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp8Pv5Za4Ls (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp8Pv5Za4Ls)
-
I have seen that video, but one must remember that he is a business trying to sell bats with a reputation for delivering a bat that is heavier than the customer asks for.
He is right insofar as the higher the distribution of the wood in the bat, the lighter it will pick up for its weight. He omits to mention though that you lose force by doing this.
Thing of it like a sledge hammer. If you hold it by the handle, it picks up fairly heavy. Turn it around and pick it up by the head and it will feel a lot lighter even though the deadweight remains the same. You will be there a long time though trying to knock a wall down with it holding it that way. The job of a sledgehammer isn't to pick up light for its weight
A cricket bat has different metrics to a sledge hammer though. Otherwise, everyone would go out to bat with a bat shaped like the nemesis or the mongoose. Neither of which caught on. Also, pretty much every pro player that I’ve seen uses a bat with the majority of the wood in the mid, or mid-high area of the hitting zone. The “loss of force” you mention won’t have an impact on a bats ability to perform well and hit the ball to the boundary.
-
A cricket bat has different metrics to a sledge hammer though. Otherwise, everyone would go out to bat with a bat shaped like the nemesis or the mongoose. Neither of which caught on. Also, pretty much every pro player that I’ve seen uses a bat with the majority of the wood in the mid, or mid-high area of the hitting zone. The “loss of force” you mention won’t have an impact on a bats ability to perform well and hit the ball to the boundary.
Does that not have a lot to do with pro players playing mainly on good quality wickets with comparatively good pace and carry, and against bowlers who bowl mainly over 80mph?
-
Shape of bat has a totally negligible effect on bat performance. Your playing area will remain the same on any bat as long as it’s pressed well.
That shape looks lovely and will no doubt pick up fantastically
If that’s the case why aren’t bats a uniform size all the way down the blade like a paddle, or the profile reversed with all the weight at the top to make them pickup lighter?
I agree that pressing has a big part to play but certainly not sure the shape has a totally negligible effect on performance at all.
-
A cricket bat has different metrics to a sledge hammer though. Otherwise, everyone would go out to bat with a bat shaped like the nemesis or the mongoose. Neither of which caught on. Also, pretty much every pro player that I’ve seen uses a bat with the majority of the wood in the mid, or mid-high area of the hitting zone. The “loss of force” you mention won’t have an impact on a bats ability to perform well and hit the ball to the boundary.
I can fully understand why Kholi playing on the hard bouncy pitches in Australia against 90mph bowling will elect for a bat with a high middle (and one that seems higher than his normal bats). My point was that this is not the optimum shape for a club player on soft low pitches against league bowlers. No doubt you will still generate significant force with a high middle bat but not as much as you could with a lower middle.
-
I can fully understand why Kholi playing on the hard bouncy pitches in Australia against 90mph bowling will elect for a bat with a high middle (and one that seems higher than his normal bats). My point was that this is not the optimum shape for a club player on soft low pitches against league bowlers. No doubt you will still generate significant force with a high middle bat but not as much as you could with a lower middle.
Interestingly enough, Crictec (a brand some of you may or may not remember) sent out testing sheets to loads of people, and in the testing it was found that playing surfaces are largely irrelevant, and players hit the ball generally in the same spots on their bats irrespective of “soft pitches” or “hard pitches”.
-
If that’s the case why aren’t bats a uniform size all the way down the blade like a paddle, or the profile reversed with all the weight at the top to make them pickup lighter?
I agree that pressing has a big part to play but certainly not sure the shape has a totally negligible effect on performance at all.
Because at some stage you need to weigh up longevity, along with the diminishing returns on pick up.
Bats used to be a fairly uniform shape, and now are actually trending back towards that, think “pro” shapes or the Newbery tour.
Why did sachin use super low “middled” bats when playing in Australia?
Because the bats still performed from 2 inches above the toe, to an inch below the stickers, and he liked the feel of the bat with the weight down low.
Why did Adam Gilchrist use a very low middled bat despite playing the majority of his cricket (excluding internationals) in Australia against arguably some of the best and quickest seam bowlers in the world in Lee, McGrath, Tait etc.
Because the shape of the bat isn’t really relevant to performance.
It’s the same reason the GN scoop performs nicely - otherwise every scoop would be pony, which just isn’t the case.
-
Does that not have a lot to do with pro players playing mainly on good quality wickets with comparatively good pace and carry, and against bowlers who bowl mainly over 80mph?
I’ll see if I can find a link to the topic Crictec did on here.
-
Shape of bat has a totally negligible effect on bat performance. Your playing area will remain the same on any bat as long as it’s pressed well.
That shape looks lovely and will no doubt pick up fantastically
If all you do is tap up your bat with a mallet then sure, the playing area remains roughly the same. That isn't the same as how far a ball goes when you hit it, 'ping' is only one variable in that equation. Toe one a bit with that Kohli bat it's going nowhere, a bat with plenty of weight low saves you there. Not an issue for pros with superior technique and temperament, but very important for clubbies on the slog.
-
If all you do is tap up your bat with a mallet then sure, the playing area remains roughly the same. That isn't the same as how far a ball goes when you hit it, 'ping' is only one variable in that equation. Toe one a bit with that Kohli bat it's going nowhere, a bat with plenty of weight low saves you there. Not an issue for pros with superior technique and temperament, but very important for clubbies on the slog.
I have never had an issue with not being able to clear the ropes and I use a higher middled bat. In fact, almost everyone I play with uses a bat with a duckbill shape. I think there’s far too many people reading into cricket bats ultimately. Pick something you like the feel of, and go out and bat with it. If you like feeling the weight of the bat at the toe, crack on. If you like having a higher swell crack on. Ultimately I’d argue it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to how far the ball travels.
Also, no bat ever made goes off the toe - you’re not going to clear the ropes if you use the toe even if your bat is the same shape as the laver and wood legacy or that stupid baseball bat thing that JP Gavan made.
You’re not supposed to score runs off the toe, and I’ll use the example of the M&H original High, that had a fantastic mid/low driving area, with plenty of coverage up high, and yet, the bat had a “high” swell.
It’s also like you ignored the scoop/Gilchrist/tendulkar argument. The two latter examples didn’t toe the ball at all hardly, yet had a “Clubby Slog” profile 😂
-
Just as an aside to this, any good bat maker should be able to make you something to spec, so if you feel comfortable using a low swell bat, then more power to you, I’m not advocating for the Aldred “I know best because I’m making it approach”, I’m just saying that I would happily go out to bat with anything I liked the feel of irrespective of shape.
I’m not massively fussy on that front, but if you as a consumer wants a specific shape then by all means get a bat maker to make it.
After all, cricket is 90% mental, and if you don’t feel comfortable with your kit then you’ve lost half the battle before the ball is bowled.
-
Also, no bat ever made goes off the toe - you’re not going to clear the ropes if you use the toe even if your bat is the same shape as the laver and wood legacy or that stupid baseball bat thing that JP Gavan made.
You’re not supposed to score runs off the toe, and I’ll use the example of the M&H original High, that had a fantastic mid/low driving area, with plenty of coverage up high, and yet, the bat had a “high” swell.
It’s also like you ignored the scoop/Gilchrist/tendulkar argument. The two latter examples didn’t toe the ball at all hardly, yet had a “Clubby Slog” profile 😂
I toe them for six all the time mate! 😂 Not talking right off the cue end, but with a duckbill if you're a couple of inches low then you do lose distance.
M&H harlequin profile was lovely to be fair.
I think you've misunderstood the whole point behind a Scoop if you think it's relevant here.
Gilchrist and Sehwag were club sloggers!? 😧 I genuinely don't see what relevancy they have, but let's check...
Here's a shot I found from probably Gilchrist's most famous innings - WC final vs SL. What low middle?
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0093/1663/0585/products/adam-gilchrist-2007-cricket-world-cup-poster-totalposter_955.jpg?v=1539883648)
and here's Viru, looks a bloody lovely shape this:
(https://st3.cricketcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/cricket/35b219849178c272ac13cf8a11d3bd61.jpeg)
-
I toe them for six all the time mate! 😂 Not talking right off the cue end, but with a duckbill if you're a couple of inches low then you do lose distance.
M&H harlequin profile was lovely to be fair.
I think you've misunderstood the whole point behind a Scoop if you think it's relevant here.
Gilchrist and Sehwag were club sloggers!? 😧 I genuinely don't see what relevancy they have, but let's check...
Here's a shot I found from probably Gilchrist's most famous innings - WC final vs SL. What low middle?
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0093/1663/0585/products/adam-gilchrist-2007-cricket-world-cup-poster-totalposter_955.jpg?v=1539883648)
and here's Viru, looks a bloody lovely shape this:
(https://st3.cricketcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/cricket/35b219849178c272ac13cf8a11d3bd61.jpeg)
I mentioned Tendulkar and Gilchrist because they both used low middled bats - see here:
(https://i.postimg.cc/hjYxR7w7/35-F26467-F049-40-DC-918-B-80-BA8-D7-E0393.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/prnjWLbc/886-A35-D6-2864-49-A9-88-C5-39947-ABD0-E45.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FKD3G6Vp/B85-F7-E17-A52-D-424-C-A0-B1-0-BAF8205321-C.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
All of those images are a low middle - mid to low at best. Yet they played on the “bouncy fast pro decks” my question was, why would they do this if shape made a huge difference? Why would they not all use an amplus shaped bat for Australia? And a tendulkar shaped bat for England? Why wouldn’t every pro do this? Why would they limit themselves by not using the optimal shape for the conditions if it made a huge difference?
The scoop was thrown in there because it has no spine, and is essentially designed to all be “middle” . This shape wouldn’t work, if the entire reasons bats performed was due to the spine profile, regardless of what “perimiterweighting” marketing they want to attach to it.
-
Is there not an argument that with the quality of willow available to these elite players that shape becomes irrelevant? If you've got a bat that has a good amount of wood through it, is excellently pressed and you can reject anything that doesn't meet your standards then shape probably doesn't matter much. If you're not using a top quality, low density bat that has been filtered for you by experts and then you've filtered yourself, maybe an argument to say shape does have more bearing on performance. Just a thought.
-
Is there not an argument that with the quality of willow available to these elite players that shape becomes irrelevant? If you've got a bat that has a good amount of wood through it, is excellently pressed and you can reject anything that doesn't meet your standards then shape probably doesn't matter much. If you're not using a top quality, low density bat that has been filtered for you by experts and then you've filtered yourself, maybe an argument to say shape does have more bearing on performance. Just a thought.
Is that not what we do every day when we pick out our bats though? You pick out the one that is best pressed, and picks up the best, and is in a shape you think looks good and offers the most coverage? ?
I’m not saying we get the same stuff the pros do all the time, because obviously that isn’t true, but I’d argue that you can get a bat with all of the above that you’ve mentioned from many suppliers. I’d also argue that the majority on this forum wouldn’t buy a bat unless they were sure it was excellently pressed, with good coverage up and down the blade.
Also, many on here would argue that pro bats are no different to a top end bat. Does that not nullify the argument you’ve presented if that’s the case?
-
I mentioned Tendulkar and Gilchrist because they both used low middled bats - see here:
All of those images are a low middle - mid to low at best. Yet they played on the “bouncy fast pro decks” my question was, why would they do this if shape made a huge difference? Why would they not all use an amplus shaped bat for Australia? And a tendulkar shaped bat for England? Why wouldn’t every pro do this? Why would they limit themselves by not using the optimal shape for the conditions if it made a huge difference?
The scoop was thrown in there because it has no spine, and is essentially designed to all be “middle” . This shape wouldn’t work, if the entire reasons bats performed was due to the spine profile, regardless of what “perimiterweighting” marketing they want to attach to it.
I don't think I'd call any of the Gilchrist ones low middle, peak of the spine is very high up. Tendulkar obviously, but then he made very weird bat choices all round. Sehwag you brought up and was a much higher middle than I expected to be honest.
What I don't understand is where you're going with this - as you brought up, it's the player not the conditions that determines where on the bat you hit it. You and me would actually be a good contrast - noone would be surprised to see that we end up with our bats marked in pretty different places! (for those who haven't seen us both bat, Leachy is quite short in stature and bats properly, I am rather lankier and do not). A high middle bat is pretty useless to me and a low middle bat would be all wrong for you.
The scoop was intended to perform better for off centre hits, which it is well documented as doing very well at - the weight being distributed round the edges means it twists less under impact than a comparable bat with more weight in the spine and smaller edges. It's actually a great example of how changing the shape of a bat changes how it performs!
-
I don't think I'd call any of the Gilchrist ones low middle, peak of the spine is very high up. Tendulkar obviously, but then he made very weird bat choices all round. Sehwag you brought up and was a much higher middle than I expected to be honest.
What I don't understand is where you're going with this - as you brought up, it's the player not the conditions that determines where on the bat you hit it. You and me would actually be a good contrast - noone would be surprised to see that we end up with our bats marked in pretty different places! (for those who haven't seen us both bat, Leachy is quite short in stature and bats properly, I am rather lankier and do not). A high middle bat is pretty useless to me and a low middle bat would be all wrong for you.
The scoop was intended to perform better for off centre hits, which it is well documented as doing very well at - the weight being distributed round the edges means it twists less under impact than a comparable bat with more weight in the spine and smaller edges. It's actually a great example of how changing the shape of a bat changes how it performs!
I didn’t bring up Sehwag, but regardless, the point I’m making is the shape of the bat doesn’t actually impact how much of a hitting zone you get on a bat.
My point about the scoop was that the total lack of spine does not diminish the playing area. Which you’ve confirmed it doesn’t - this is case in point that spine peaks don’t really mean much in terms of performance.
But...
It’s clear we aren’t ever going to agree on this. So as I said earlier, to each their own. I will continue using bats that I like the feel of irrespective of the shape 🤷♂️
-
If you hit the ball further away from the centre of percussion, energy is dissipated as vibrations rather than being transferred into the ball. hence the reason toeing or splicing the ball hurts your hands and the ball lobs to an infielder rather than clearing the ropes.
When we say bats have lower middles we literally mean the centre of percussion is closer to the toe - probably about 2 inches lower than a high middle bat, so not a huge amount.
But this does mean that there is a valid scientific reason why high and low middle bats will perform slightly differently depending on how high up the bat you hit the ball.
The other shaping choices regarding high spines, thick edges, concaving and scooping is about balancing another payoff - the higher the spine, the greater the overall rigidity (hence less vibrations and better transfer of energy), whereas a more laterally distributed profile like a scoop creates better rotational stability, meaning the bat loses less energy through twisting on an off-centre shot.
-
Is that not what we do every day when we pick out our bats though? You pick out the one that is best pressed, and picks up the best, and is in a shape you think looks good and offers the most coverage? ?
I’m not saying we get the same stuff the pros do all the time, because obviously that isn’t true, but I’d argue that you can get a bat with all of the above that you’ve mentioned from many suppliers. I’d also argue that the majority on this forum wouldn’t buy a bat unless they were sure it was excellently pressed, with good coverage up and down the blade.
Also, many on here would argue that pro bats are no different to a top end bat. Does that not nullify the argument you’ve presented if that’s the case?
First point, yes. But do the bats I select from get personally filtered for me by the elite bat makers at my personal sponsor? Can I then decide to try out 8 of the same bat in order to select my match bat? Could I ask for 10 replacements till I get on I like?
Yes, but there's a limit to how much we can check or confirm that, and obviously for the majority budget is a limiting factor.
Again, budget would be my big limiting factor. How many of us could afford to get say 6 top end bats at once to decide which we thought performed best in our hands? I'd imagine comparatively few. Every elite pro is able to do this.
-
The other shaping choices regarding high spines, thick edges, concaving and scooping is about balancing another payoff - the higher the spine, the greater the overall rigidity (hence less vibrations and better transfer of energy), whereas a more laterally distributed profile like a scoop creates better rotational stability, meaning the bat loses less energy through twisting on an off-centre shot.
That's interesting. So, if the bounce is unpredictable, you are better off with a bat with high spine but a on a turning pitch, scoop (or Trott profile) will do well. Is that correct?
-
Interestingly enough, Crictec (a brand some of you may or may not remember) sent out testing sheets to loads of people, and in the testing it was found that playing surfaces are largely irrelevant, and players hit the ball generally in the same spots on their bats irrespective of “soft pitches” or “hard pitches”.
Right. That was Crictec's finding after analyzing those impact sheets and , also, that players hit the ball higher on the bat than the think they do.
He had very interesting ideas about bats including measurement of the swing weight.
-
I didn’t bring up Sehwag, but regardless, the point I’m making is the shape of the bat doesn’t actually impact how much of a hitting zone you get on a bat..
I see you've edited the Sehwag out, very good. Yes that's where we started - it does!
I will continue using bats that I like the feel of irrespective of the shape 🤷♂️
Everyone likes bats they do well with, can't go too far wrong 👍
-
That's interesting. So, if the bounce is unpredictable, you are better off with a bat with high spine but a on a turning pitch, scoop (or Trott profile) will do well. Is that correct?
TBH I think you're better off getting used to a specific shape and weight of bat and sticking with it. The marginal gains from switching are offset by the marginal losses from unfamiliarity.
-
I see you've edited the Sehwag out, very good. Yes that's where we started - it does!
Everyone likes bats they do well with, can't go too far wrong 👍
What are you on about - I never mentioned sehwag as I know nothing about his bats - definitely not that you misread or anything lol 😂
@edge
-
I had a lovely KG made Kohli profile from @SOULMAN1012 that to my eye actually looked very similar to the shape that he was using at the IPL.
The bat has gone to play in South Africa now if it’s still going next summer might be in the Hampshire academy
That shape really does pick up well and I think KG make some of the bats for MRF so it’s not a big stretch to think they might have a template.
Thin shoulders is my only moan about this shape
This is what it looked like before it left these shores
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4QPpsxC/A0-AF7-E2-A-25-A1-4-C51-917-F-16602-F40-A187.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/D8wCs3b3)
(https://i.postimg.cc/255JLh4L/F703782-E-B0-F1-47-D9-BDFB-51-C9-FDCE299-F.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/YvJ8J4Dt)
-
I do enjoy it when I've missed a day's thread and catch up 😂
In my opinion I think people overthink things way too much. If you like the pick up and feel, go with it. Just about every bat I've seen in the last few years from reputable sources perform well, it's just what suits you're eye and feel. You generally get out, don't clear the ropes etc because of lack of ability, not because the bat has a 'middle' that's an inch too high!
I also don't think the Pro's all have low density, perfect willow that's pressed any different. I've seen a few and they're simply not any different. They hit bigger because they're better, train harder and are stronger. Not because they have better bats.
Gilchrist was apparently not bothered about his bats and I think Langer once said he'd happily break some of the boundary fence off and use that! He didn't do too bad either.
-
As is typical we are overthinking this. @LEACHY48 is 100 percent correct (though I agree to disagree on the bat narrowing debate :) ). The actual shape only affects balance and feel. Pros pick their shapes based on what they are used to - this is why Sachin picked super heavy ultra low middle bats (he learnt to play using his elder brothers bat and was comfortable with that heavy feel), and why Smith prefers his shape (it “looks” big when he taps the bat and this helps him mentally). Stokes prefers a domed profile, whereas QDK and RT like some concaving. None of this variation would exist if the shape / middle position really mattered that much.
If middle position was so important, every pro would use sachin shape in India and a high middle shape in AUS.
-
Couldn’t have put it any better myself @jonny77 @brokenbat
-
TBH I think you're better off getting used to a specific shape and weight of bat and sticking with it. The marginal gains from switching are offset by the marginal losses from unfamiliarity.
I won't be changing what I use but am trying to correlate this with what I normally use or have used in the past.