Print

[Colesy]

This is my collection

Taken a while ago, now have another full cabinet and other stuff waiting to go in another!

Haha this is totes amazeballs

[Ciaran]

misses the point. The cricket bat is an aid to the ability and strength of the cricketer. Using a bat 40 years ago would give a totally different experience to a 2013 bat, in terms of power and off centre hitting. In that respect batting technology has surpassed bowling/fielding gains made over the same period. That's before we talk about helmets making batsman less concerned about being hit or boundaries coming in. It's happening in club cricket as well, how many sixes does your club hit a season compared to 40 years ago?

Well last season my side managed a new record of 1! Thats right 1 six.

[Manormanic]

The one thing the MCC must not do is limit the weight of the bat - that penalises people who used bigger bats way before the performance advantages came into being!

[ProCricketer1982]

not sure why they would want to limit edge sizes, it's not like the batting really has any huge advantage over bowling. the game is more interesting now than it has ever been, all formats included, IMO.

Batting has a huge advantage at the top of the game. Lower levels not so much but at the top it's all about small boundaries (which should be huge, it should be only v v well hit or timed shots go to the boundary and immense shots go for 6) and that's why top edges etc go for 6's more now. It's probably always gone for 4's etc but now with the boundaries it's just so much easier for them to hit boundaries and 6's. NOt saying bats don't help of course but i think they need to look at other things before messing with bats.

I still question the bowling talent pool of current international cricket though, I'd suggest it's more to do with the 'average' international batsmen is better than ever before yet your 'average' international bowler is poorer. This means more runs when coupled with smaller boundaries and better roads.. sorry pitches. As someone just said, when you add in helmets and the increase in chest, arm, thigh, inner thigh protection meaning batsmen at all levels are more inclined to hit more. I'd suggest it's just an accumulation of things aiding the batsmen that have led to more runs etc than the 'ping' of the bat.

Not sure I'd say it's more interesting now though. It's more televised certainly but is it more interesting?? Would you not have preferred watching Sir Viv? Lara? Holding? Warne? McGrath? Botham? Flintoff? than watching Dhoni, Sharma, Lyons etc

[Manormanic]

Batting has a huge advantage at the top of the game. Lower levels not so much but at the top it's all about small boundaries (which should be huge, it should be only v v well hit or timed shots go to the boundary and immense shots go for 6) and that's why top edges etc go for 6's more now. It's probably always gone for 4's etc but now with the boundaries it's just so much easier for them to hit boundaries and 6's. NOt saying bats don't help of course but i think they need to look at other things before messing with bats.

to be fair, I think top edges went for six plenty in the past - its just that they occur that much more often now that players are conditioned by helmets and a surfeit of one day and T20 cricket to swing at every short pitched fast ball!

[Vic Nicholas]

misses the point. The cricket bat is an aid to the ability and strength of the cricketer. Using a bat 40 years ago would give a totally different experience to a 2013 bat, in terms of power and off centre hitting. In that respect batting technology has surpassed bowling/fielding gains made over the same period. That's before we talk about helmets making batsman less concerned about being hit or boundaries coming in. It's happening in club cricket as well, how many sixes does your club hit a season compared to 40 years ago?

There was a special presentation at my cricket club on Saturday night to an old guy who back in 1972 blasted a century off 34 balls!

Now, our home ground is massive, the bats those days were tiny (2.4 ounces about average) and this guy was no taller than 5 ft 5.

Guys like Keith Miller, Sam Loxton, Gary Sobers, Graeme Pollock etc had no problems smashing sixes on bigger grounds with tooth pick bats. "The Croucher" Gilbert Jessop smashed a century in no time with those old bats, as did Jack Gregory who hit a test century against SA in 71 minutes (just over half a session) one fine day in the early 1920's with a tiny bat.

This enquiry is a total waste of time.

[Vic Nicholas]

With all the bat technology etc, nobody has yet matched this effort in the 114 years since:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/463786.html

[crictech]

Batting has a huge advantage at the top of the game.

I don't see that to be honest. There are less shocking tracks at international level these days which gives the batters a fairer chance but the bowling and especially the fielding has improved so much over the past 20-30 years it's harder to score runs. I think the MCC and/or ICC do a fair job keeping the balance right across the formats. I just don't think they need to worry about edge size, it's really not that big a deal whatever level you play at and it's probably not so great an advantage. You may get the odd one that goes for 6 instead of 4 but you also get more catches at 3rd man. Six and two 3's.

[trypewriter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/21616932

[kouservice]

I aprreciate the effort MCC is taking although late. I dont really understand the debate which I feel is biased towards batting, although I am a batsman.
The argument is if the batsman is strong enough to use a 3 pounder he can as he is strong enough to use it and he likes the feel, pick-up and so on. Than why cant a bowler who is strong use a ball whic is 6 oz, custom shaped for more swing ( off center hits for batsman ). Come on there should be some balance

[ajmw89]

Rather than investigating edge size, shouldn't the MCC think about pushing the boundary rope back to the edge of the field?

[uknsaunders]

love it, let's ask several batsman about the change. No bias there! Ask a bowler whose been smashed all over the shop and you'll get a different reaction.

The problem is it's becoming the norm, not the exception, for fast scoring to occur. Players are stronger, boundaries shorter yes but bat sizes enable modest players to achieve what we once considered exceptional performances. I can see the benefit of getting less value for off-centre shots by reducing the edge size. However, I still think the weight needs to be looked at, to avoid just using no concaved massive spine bats. Maybe even adding weight into the handle as a penalty for using heavier weights? Whether they can simply revise the law with any changes is a different matter.

[MD2812]

Than why cant a bowler who is strong use a ball whic is 6 oz, custom shaped for more swing ( off center hits for batsman ). Come on there should be some balance

If the BCCI see this, as a batsman, we're doomed.

[trypewriter]

Of course, this could reverse the current mega-size cleft trend, with the pros opting for (currently) maybe perceived lower standard, heavier for their size clefts, to get their optimum weight without big edges...
But will we scufflers in the deep follow the trend?

[tim2000s]

Rather than investigating edge size, shouldn't the MCC think about pushing the boundary rope back to the edge of the field?

This.

The guy on the committee even says "With the rise of Twenty20, and boundaries getting shorter, there are more sixes being hit."

Push the boundaries back, more chance of being caught on the boundary. Simples.

As a second point, shirtfront wickets with near enough guaranteed bounce for five days in a test match also disadvantages the bowler, but there are no rules about creating a "competitive wicket".

Finally, as we well know on here, just because a bat is larger, it doesn't mean it weighs more, and most of us aren't supremely capable of timing the ball such that we hit sixes. Limiting the depth of the bat really is the most insane approach.

It's all about conservation of momentum, and batmakers can press a piece of wood weighing 2lb 10oz a number of ways, depending on what they want to achieve. limiting the size doesn't change this.