Print

[art]

Noting the recent changes in the Law regarding bats, I wonder what 'technology' has really done. I ordered a new hand made bat recently and watched it made from the bare wood. I told the batmaker, a very good one, that I wanted it 2lb 6 or 7 and really cared about nothing else as I trusted him with the balance. When I tend to hit big it is straight and generally the boundaries are longest there.

The use of very dry wood produces a big looking bat with a limited life span. If you can afford it then they are fine. Really you still have to be able to time the ball with your ability rather than rely on the bat to do everything.

I recently used a bat made in 1963 and it was as sweet as anything made today although it looked completely different.

[SillyShilly]

This is what norb has been adressing through the use of relevant pressing and technology - the lighter drier celfts may be suitably treated to last longer in this new technique. However, I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying - i could have Sachin's bat but this doesnt mean i can bat aswell as him just because the bat is the best of the best - ultimately it is the way in which we use the equipment that will define how good it can and will be. Though having that extra ounce or two in the middle through correct pressing, shaping, handles etc can often mean the difference between and 4 and 6 or even a 6 or out.
I would be extremely interested to see how long that old bat would last - i am rather skeptical of your statement purely because i myslef have used some very old bats and they have been horrendous and very planky - though this could be a bad carpenter blaming his tools.....

[scuudz]

This is a very interesting topic.

I believe there is no correct or wrong answer to the question raised in the initial post.  There are, as you can imagine, several points for and against either argument.  For example, it is obvious that technology can help improve quality control, measurement and control aspects of cricket bat making.  However, it is universally agreed that the best bats are hand-made.  Then, why is there room for machines and new technology in the world of bat making?  Probably because most people try to find a balance between cost and the podshaver's skill.

Theoretically, a machine is more precise than a human (mostly) and new technology will probably make the bat-making process more efficient, cheaper and quicker.  However, machines arent and never will be as intuitive as the best pod-shavers.  This is key in my opinion.  Like my fellow poster said, having Tendulkar's bat in one's hands will not make them as good as Tendulkar at the crease.  That's not to say that Tendulkar uses the best bats.  After all, his bat might not be good for  say...a Matthew Hayden or a Luke Wright.

The best bats I believe are made by pod-shavers that can match bats to individual players perfectly.  Technology will never be able to help that step of the process.

The bottom line, imo, is that technology can definitely help in the manufacturing side of things for mass-produced bats....maybe even hand-made bats (by providing better tools etc), but will these 'improvements' help produce more perfectly matched bats for people like you and me and the pros, or improve the playability of the bats?  I dont think so.  However, there would definitely be people who think otherwise and I'd love to hear their views!

The best part about the world of cricket bats is that, after a certain point, its all very subjective in nature.

[SAF Bats]

Interesting post....#

You said the following, why?

"but will these 'improvements' help produce more perfectly matched bats for people like you and me and the pros, or improve the playability of the bats?  I dont think so. "

[scuudz]

Due to the subjective nature that I was referring to at the end of my post.

Beyond a certain point, it would impossible for humans to discern which is the better bat.  For example, say my ideal characteristics for a bat are:

2lbs 10oz, SH, traditional profile etc.

If two bats were made (one the old-fashioned way and one implementing new technology) with the characteristics I listed, un-stickered, similar grip, I would be shocked if I could consistently tell which one was which with more than 30-40% accuracy.

It basically means that on paper, perhaps, you could prove that using technology produces a better bat.  However, proving it out in the middle is a whole different story.

[SAF Bats]

When you say implementing new techonology you are not talking about CNC a-la GM's machine but more about what I said, is that right?

[scuudz]

Yes, thats right.

However, please understand that Im not saying bats produced using CNC machines are better bats overall.  Mass production just has certain inherent advantages such as lower costs and making the product available to more people quicker.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual.  Would I pay more, or insist, on a bat that has gone through the tests you speak of?  Not really.  I've never tried one of your bats but if your bat-making skills are anywhere close to some of the podshavers on here, then I'd be more than happy with your bats with or without the tests and/or other new implementations of technology.

That being said, when I bought my first walkman, I never thought Id need another portable music player.  Now I have a better, smaller music player with more capacity and it also acts as my phone, camera, address book and GPS.

But as you know, cricket has always been and will always be (I hope) a bit more charming and conservative than the world of mobile communications. :-)