Print

[jonpinson]

I've been thinking for a while now about how there has been a general trend in the last...say 50 years or so to use heavier bats. Recently Boycott mentioned that he used a 2'4 and I know that before that bats around 2 pounds were the norm.

So why is it now that 2'8 seems to be the standard, 2'6 is used but not as much, and alot of folks seem to favour 2'10 plus?

There is an indeniable fashion for big bats. Whether that be through over drying, or concaving to give a bat with misleadingly sized edges, but go back only a decade and concaving wasn't a word used in this business. Sure we had funky shapes, scoops, ridgebacks etc but if you wanted a big bat, you'd buy a heavy one.

I wonder if in this search for big (or more properly, visually big) bats is leading us in general to maybe go for 2'10 when our optimum is 2'8? Ok I realise there are those of us who use very light bats by todays standards so I don't really need to hear from those people, I am aware of it and I don't need to hear that because you use 2'6, this idea is wrong.

Likewise we have always had those who are exceptionally strong and can get away with using a big bat. Simmy falls into that catagory. Again though, they are the exception rather than the norm.

It was interesting to hear what PW said about borrowing a lighter bat and finding himself favouring it over his heavier examples. Could this be true for more of us if we gave ourselves the chance to find out? I remember in school when I got my first SH bat, the master of cricket telling me it would be too heavy for me to make full use of it against fast wide bowling. The bat only weights 2'8 but it was a step up from my previous Harrow offerings. He was right of course, now I think about it. But being a kid, I wasn't going to let things like practicality reduce my enjoyment of my first proper bat. We've all been there, I'd bet.

So why is it that we consider a bat of 2'8 light yet 30 years ago it was actually quite heavy? Have we as batsmen suddenly become stronger? Are our reactions quicker? Are pitches slower? Or are bowlers not what they once were? Is the fear that once existed about getting cracked on the head by a quick somewhat reduced with the advent of helmets and therefore the bat is no longer seen so much as a line of physical defense?

Or are we just all caught up in it a bit? Is it not manly to use an ultra light bat? A bat that perhaps can't hit a ball 40 metres beyone the boundary rope?

I'm honestly thinking about having a bat made which fulfills these criteria. It won't be big, it won't have 'gun ping', but if it gives me that fraction longer to adjust, maybe it is worth a try?

[roco]

Interesting as our opener has gone down from 2lb12 to 2lb10 this season as he said it feels much better but he wanted a bigger bat personally 2lb11/12 is the lightest I go as any lighter no matter how big feels too light

[jonpinson]

Oh my god Jon. Indeniable? What the hell am I on?

[roco]

Oh my god Jon. Indeniable? What the hell am I on?

What?

[Canners]

I think this is a good idea as I've always gone back to lighter bats although 2.4 I can see as being a bit too light and won't generate much power although it's a very interesting concept and wouldn't mind trying it

[jonpinson]

What?

Check my initial post. I said 'indeniable' when clearly I should have said 'undeniable'.

Failing at what I hate most.

Anyway.

[100 not out]

With covered wickets the batsman doesnt need to adjust as they wouldve had to on uncovered wickets. so to me this partly explains the trade off between heavy and light weight bats. there is no doubt that cricketers are fitter and stronger than ever. they spend all winter in the gym.

[Number4]

I used to use 2lb 9oz in my younger days. 3 years ago changed to a 3lb bat just for a laugh and found it quite comfortable. I then tried the other end of the spectrum and went for a 2lb6oz bat and found my timing was all over the place so I went back to my 3lb bat and what do you know my timing came back.

It might be all in the head but I will stay with the 3pm bat thanks

[Number4]

3lb* bat

[100 not out]

i bet the 3 pounder picks up lighter than that, i actually make my bats heavier to pick up better. two grips

[jonpinson]

With covered wickets the batsman doesnt need to adjust as they wouldve had to on uncovered wickets. so to me this partly explains the trade off between heavy and light weight bats. there is no doubt that cricketers are fitter and stronger than ever. they spend all winter in the gym.

Although perfectly true when speaking about the professional game, it isn't really the case for alot of us, which is more what I'm aiming at here.

The pro game is interesting in that despite as you say, cricketers are fitter and stronger now with the onset of professional physical training, many pros use bat which we would consider light. Indeed those pros who we regard as being exceptionally strong, the bigger hitters as a rule uses surprisingly light bats. Symonds for example, I believe one of his was weighed at around 2'6. Yes of course it can be argued that in the pro game, faster bowlers exist than you or I will ever face. But pros will be used to that, as we are used to those who we come up against.

[jonpinson]

I used to use 2lb 9oz in my younger days. 3 years ago changed to a 3lb bat just for a laugh and found it quite comfortable. I then tried the other end of the spectrum and went for a 2lb6oz bat and found my timing was all over the place so I went back to my 3lb bat and what do you know my timing came back.

It might be all in the head but I will stay with the 3pm bat thanks

Thats fair enough and as I said in the first post, if a heavy bat works best for you, so be it. I'm thinking more about those of us who might benefit from loosing a couple of ounces to see the results.

[100 not out]

with 20/20 bats are going to get bigger and bigger imo. there are far more sixes hit nowadays than in boycotts days, the bigger bats have quickened up the game. in tests the average score would be 250 runs in a day, its more like 350 now. amateurs want to be like pro's.

[uknsaunders]

With covered wickets the batsman doesnt need to adjust as they wouldve had to on uncovered wickets. so to me this partly explains the trade off between heavy and light weight bats. there is no doubt that cricketers are fitter and stronger than ever. they spend all winter in the gym.

I think uncovered wickets at club level are far less common than 30 years ago. I actually started a thread on the subject of wickets getting flatter today.

http://custombats.co.uk/cbforum/index.php?topic=11166.0

Less movement means less need to adjust, ditto variable bounce. I personally think it's unhealthy as alot of batting skill is replaced with bowling machined honed flat track bullys.

[Number4]

I'd benefit from losing a few ounces though not from my bat