Topic: Blind Bat/stick testing... (Read 4107 times)

Buzz · « **on:** November 18, 2013, 04:14:18 PM »

Hi - I thought it was interesting that the Push hockey magazine has done a blind hockey stick test, in a similar way to the AOC blind bat test.

you can see the results here http://blog.monarchhockey.com/push-magazine-blind-hockey-test/ or by buying issue 44 of push hockey.

Why is this interesting? well in third place was a �40 hockey stick and, to me, this suggests that the price inflation of sticks (similar to cricket bats and sticks have a similar lifespan) is, potentially, all a bit of marketing BS. Now I accept that blind testing, like testing a bat with a bowling machine, is artificial and really just a bit of fun for the testers, but there is an underlying question of what is sustainable value.

Is this the same with bats? Pressing has improved and bats are dried more now - but we keep hearing mixed messages from suppliers - on the one hand there is this new G1 super plus pro edition extra huge cricket bat a bargain at �X,000 and then on the other a G4 bat can perform as well as anything, buy your firewood here

are we getting value?
If I was still playing hockey, the probability of me saying for �40 - hell yes I will give it a go is guaranteed and I would give it a go for a while (until I decided that it had a shortage of carbon content and the pick up was all wrong but it still hits the ball like a tracer bullet, anyone fancy buying it for �25 posted?!...)

Do we think the same with some of the really cheap bats we see - in some cases on here, yes (witness some of the mega cheap MSR bats or sale bats)

I really don't know where I am going with all this waffle. probably in a few directions

1. can a �50 cricket bat ever be as good as a �250 bat? (which is what Push is saying for a hockey stick)
2. At what stage will people say �450 for a bat - it is only wood that I will throw around the changing room when I am triggered, I will get something cheaper
3. Where does ego fit into bat buying... I have bought the top of the range bat so it must be good and make me a better player (you still get triggered though)
4. Am I really missing testing bats this much? (the barn is out of action until the new year - plus the Stig hasn't furnished me with new kit yet

!!)

uknsaunders · « **Reply #1 on:** November 18, 2013, 04:28:14 PM »

Since most bats are graded on looks than performance I think you could get a G3/4 bat that performs as well as G1. A well crafted bat well pressed could well perform better than a mass produced bat of a higher grade. Price inflation and the BS that goes with it is very much to blame. I'm not certain of the price difference between a grade 3 and a grade 1 cleft but I bet it isn't �200-300 and I doubt the performance would be that different. I don't think it would make any difference to me to use a �500 bat as opposed to a �150 bat, I'm better off getting some coaching sessions instead.

MD2812 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2013, 04:38:49 PM »

Do batmakers take more care on their G1 clefts than their G3 clefts?

I know they will not do a half job on a G3 cleft but I imagine more time is taken over a G1 cleft to make sure it's perfect.

I may be wrong on this, input from a sponsor will be interesting.

I also wonder if the problem with the blind cricket tests is that when a sponsor gets a call along the lines of "this is Dave from AOC, can you send an unstickered bat please"
Do they then go along and pick up each bat, give it a whack with a mallet and then send their best one?

uknsaunders · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2013, 04:56:42 PM »

Quote from: MD2812 on November 18, 2013, 04:38:49 PM

I also wonder if the problem with the blind cricket tests is that when a sponsor gets a call along the lines of "this is Dave from AOC, can you send an unstickered bat please"
Do they then go along and pick up each bat, give it a whack with a mallet and then send their best one?

I think it varies. Some sponsors send off the first bat they lay their hands on and others just stick in a G3 in case they never see it again. One or two I'm sure do put a top piece of willow in for testing but I doubt it's universal.

smilley792 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2013, 04:57:55 PM »

I think it's all pot luck.

Willow is a natural product. And can have different properties no matter what it looks like.

A g1 cleft may end up having a awfull defunct bit of wood just under the surface at the middle that can't be seen that'll make it a duff bat.

A g3 may well look a tad wrong, but the fibres are all right to ensure it goes like a gun.

It could also go wrong in production,

A cleft may end up a dud if the handle is put in one end, but a beast if the handle put in the other?

A cleft may make a great bat if made into a mid to high middle bat, but when made into a low middle bat, it may end up being average?
Etc etc

I've bought a few custom hand crafted bats since joining this forum, and unfortunately more have been duds than guns.

I've had plenty upon plenty of mass produced bats, and the higher grade bats have always been better than the low grade ones.

I've also gone the newer route of custom made cad bats, and not had a bad one yet, even the g3 one has an awesome middle.

Krs · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2013, 04:58:36 PM »

I have a G3/G4 bat from Pakistan, I got someone who plays for Nestle to pick the bat out for me. It cost him �20 and in all honesty it is a brilliant bat. The toe is a but naff, but the rest of the bat is just mental. I am not saying that this can compete with my Aldred but definitely compete against any �150-�200 bat. The only think with it is that she ain't the prettiest. She has 6 grains and a few knots, but I love her and thats all that counts.

GarrettJ · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2013, 06:06:01 PM »

I always got the impression that bat companies felt that if someone is buying a g3 or 4 bat they want it to last so they are pressed like a piece of concrete.

tim2000s · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2013, 06:09:34 PM »

Hmmm. Now there's one for the open up a can of worms book...

I would imagine that willow, like most natural substances, is distributed over a bell curve, which it may be possible to skew based on batmaker. As a natural material, it's likely that ~70% of willow has the potential to be generally okay, while potentially 15% may have the potential to be excellent and 15% the potential to be absolute rubbish.

If we assume that these rubbish ones are easily determined by a skilled batmaker early, and likewise the excellent ones, and that these are either hidden for players or given to apprentices to train on, then 70% of the willow remaining is likely to produce an okay bat. And this is where the skill of the batmaker comes in to play.

The questions then become, "What skills does the batmaker possess to make an excellent bat from a 'normal' cleft?" and "How does that bat get distinguished from another?". I'm sure plenty of people have answers to these two questions, but I think that this drives the price that someone is willing to pay, whether or not it is actually a valid measure.

Buzz · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2013, 06:21:26 PM »

interesting this is where batmaking is different from a hockey stick where the materials are poured into a cast and it is pot luck how the distribution is.

RossViper · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2013, 06:47:17 PM »

I would have thought that hockey sticks would show a much more straight line performance curve. Now if that is what player really wants is a different thing, but its a much more repeatable process, get some tubes, get some fiber glass, carbon, etc etc. **

Bats are much much harder to judge. Wood, drying, shaping etc, even the handle. All adds up. So I think its fair to say, you can get a good G4, and a poor G1. Practically you would hope a bat maker would be able to pick the better bats and know the poor one - but its not 100%, its not repeatable with certainty, so you can get a good G4, even if it looks like a dog, and a bad G1 even it if looks great, just that in each case it should be the exception not he rule. Remember that we like the look of G1's because; at least in part, we think they will play well as well.

** But even with materials that can be manufactured there can be variances across production runs, and locations - just look up Pete Sampras Saint Vincent pro staff.

joeljonno · « **Reply #10 on:** November 18, 2013, 07:16:23 PM »

It goes even as far as the tester.

With hockey, ball is on floor and hitting with same part of each stick.

With cricket, middle position and personal preference will play a part in the test.

Sykesy51 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 18, 2013, 07:33:45 PM »

From my experience, MD2812 is incredibly close to the mark here:

1) Custom bat-making, whilst being a manufacturing process is essentially a service industry. Therefore, as much as you are paying for the product, you are also paying for being involved in the process and everything that goes along with that (cleft selection, expert opinion on specifications, photos of the process, etc.).

2) Any service industry organisation will provide you with a better service if you are paying them more money......

Therefore it is not just the better grade of wood (straighter/more even grains, potentially a lighter cleft etc.) that you are paying for (although this will improve the likelihood of you getting a top performing, longer lasting bat), but more so the bat-makers time. A top level custom bat-maker will not do a half-arsed job on a grade 2 or 3 bat but will spend an inordinate amount of time on one of his flagship bats..... Due to this fact i would never consider a GBP400 mass-produced bat even close to being worth the same as a GBP400 custom-made bat from a top bat-maker.

(This doesn't even begin to touch on the after sales service side of things)

GarrettJ · « **Reply #12 on:** November 18, 2013, 08:00:44 PM »

I can tell you that from knocking in a few bats recently on average the better looking bats knock up better although some strange looking bats play equally well. Small sample though and is it fair to judge a bat during such a short time like the knocking in process?? In my opinion you get a fair idea if it's going to be good or not.

Where smaller brands and specialist cricket shops come into their own is that they are prepared to test a bat before selling it so you aren't just buying a mass produced bat from sports direct/pro direct and hoping.

It's an interesting subject, just like men think better looking women will make better wifes ..... They think a better looking bat will perform better.

I'm beginning to think grade 2 bats are better value for your normal club cricketer, performance is perfectly fine and worth paying �200 for over a more expensive bat which will probably last the same amount of time.

LDifa · « **Reply #13 on:** November 18, 2013, 08:51:49 PM »

Really interesting, I was looking at the GM Apex Original and a knowledgeable chap in the shop said you should get the 808 and save a fortune, anything higher would just look better, but not really play better.

thecord · « **Reply #14 on:** November 18, 2013, 08:53:59 PM »

Can I for one just congratulate Buzz on a great thread title, wasn't sure what to expect when I clicked on it!

Author Topic: Blind Bat/stick testing... (Read 4107 times)

Buzz

Blind Bat/stick testing...

uknsaunders

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

MD2812

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

uknsaunders

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

smilley792

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

Krs

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

GarrettJ

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

tim2000s

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

Buzz

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

RossViper

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

joeljonno

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

Sykesy51

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

GarrettJ

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

LDifa

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...

thecord

Re: Blind Bat/stick testing...