Print

[Seniorplayer]

With regard to college courses being run by people who cannot do the job speaking  as someone who has taught for many years in colleges I spent 20 years after  first completing a 5 year apprenticeship in Engineering both working and teaching  before i became a course tutor  I also worked with and know many craftsman teaching  trade skills in F.E.
I do agree though students have to successfully complete courses to get funding.

[Aldred Cricket Bats]

With regard to college courses being run by people who cannot do the job speaking  as someone who has taught for many years in colleges I spent 20 years after  first completing a 5 year apprenticeship in Engineering both working and teaching  before i became a course tutor  I also worked with and know many craftsman teaching  trade skills in F.E.
I do agree though students have to successfully complete courses to get funding.

 Yes I agree that that quote does draw a lot of seasoned craftsmen and tutors into it but over the last 10 years or so those apprenticeships have gone as a general rule. 5 year apprenticeships have been condensed into a far shorter period and this is truly an insult to people of your experience and skill in the trade. I spent a lifetime playing and coaching cricket but that stands for nothing now when box ticking to get funds is the ultimate goal. I apologise to all like yourself that that quote hits you as it shouldn't and I was aware it would but in all trades now the quality of new education is diminished by the process of shortcut ting everything.

[Seniorplayer]

Yes I agree that that quote does draw a lot of seasoned craftsmen and tutors into it but over the last 10 years or so those apprenticeships have gone as a general rule. 5 year apprenticeships have been condensed into a far shorter period and this is truly an insult to people of your experience and skill in the trade. I spent a lifetime playing and coaching cricket but that stands for nothing now when box ticking to get funds is the ultimate goal. I apologise to all like yourself that that quote hits you as it shouldn't and I was aware it would but in all trades now the quality of new education is diminished by the process of shortcut ting everything.

No need to  apologise Paul as what you have stated with  regard to box ticking and some apprenticeships  is in my experience correct.

[trypewriter]

Going back to the original point I think a lot of grading has to be a combination of cosmetic, weight and scarcity, with cosmetic being most noticeable initially.

[Aldred Cricket Bats]

True trypewriter like I say there has to be a grading system for the wide variety of willow that trees produce.

[Bats_Entertainment]

Really bats? What's that telling us then

Like you, Paul, Owen Jones identifies greed as an evil thing. And the reason for the decline in proper apprenticeships etc.

Like many sports folk, I guess you would tell me that you're not really into politics? But, from your posts, you clearly are!

[Beachcricket]

JS Wrights and large retail manufacturers dictate the perception of grades but they have no meaning, not in terms of guaranteed performance. Grading on grains and blemishes has been prominent for so long because the other ways of grading have even less meaning or supporting evidence. Edge size? That was another way we tried to grade our bats that failed to really convey performance efficiently.

The fact is that the best way to get performance is to trust a skilful, talented craftsman. Just like we do with other trades and professions. Grading on performance is a way to challenge the perception that only the pretty perform and showcases that a good bat maker has knowledge and expertise built up over years. This is part of my gripe with the industry, brands and bat makers pop up and think they know what they're doing. I've been making bats for 15 years and it's a craft that takes decades to master. They just dilute and undermine the skills real craftsman have earnt.

There's not such thing as soft or light pressing, just GOOD and BAD pressing. A soft pressed would take ages to perform (I had an UNpressed cricket bat, it was like hitting wet ground) and so would a hard pressed bat. Pressing creates a hard surface on a soft material, the natural properties of willow does not include stiffness. If anything it's flexibility and spring that have allowed it to be used in many other crafts and so perfectly adapted to cricket bats. The apparent stiffness in a cleft is in part due to drying but that's true of any timber when moisture is removed (to a certain degree) and Willow doesn't compare favourably to other timbers when it comes to stiffness. So if that was the main factor that created performance, we would have stopped using Willow years ago and started using other species.

Procricket - You mentioned that "tight grains are better initially is more grains in a bat produce a stiffer blade" yet state "stiffness is what people want for performance and it is not gradeable by any looks" Surely the grains would indicate stiffness and therefore be a way of identifying this quality via looks?

"The trampoline theory is rubbish" Please can you explain this a bit more?

Sound and feel and intertwined and are in no way separate, as we perceive feel through our senses. The most significant way in which we do this is through our ears, eyes and hands. Since we can't look at the bat face when we hit the ball, the two we rely on when using a cricket bat are the sound and touch we experience. Sadly when we choose a bat, our eyes can deceive our brain. Optical Illusions?

I'm not going to moan about longevity of bats, performance and size expectations, the drying of Willow, impatience and apprenticeships. I'm sure you'll all appreciate that.

The bottom line I'm trying to convey here is that grading is subjective and can mislead you. Trust a real bat maker, support the craft of bat making and build a relationship with a craftsman. If you do, they're far more likely to give you that "pro performance cleft"

[abdulwq]

Totally agree and very well written:)

JS Wrights and large retail manufacturers dictate the perception of grades but they have no meaning, not in terms of guaranteed performance. Grading on grains and blemishes has been prominent for so long because the other ways of grading have even less meaning or supporting evidence. Edge size? That was another way we tried to grade our bats that failed to really convey performance efficiently.

The fact is that the best way to get performance is to trust a skilful, talented craftsman. Just like we do with other trades and professions. Grading on performance is a way to challenge the perception that only the pretty perform and showcases that a good bat maker has knowledge and expertise built up over years. This is part of my gripe with the industry, brands and bat makers pop up and think they know what they're doing. I've been making bats for 15 years and it's a craft that takes decades to master. They just dilute and undermine the skills real craftsman have earnt.

There's not such thing as soft or light pressing, just GOOD and BAD pressing. A soft pressed would take ages to perform (I had an UNpressed cricket bat, it was like hitting wet ground) and so would a hard pressed bat. Pressing creates a hard surface on a soft material, the natural properties of willow does not include stiffness. If anything it's flexibility and spring that have allowed it to be used in many other crafts and so perfectly adapted to cricket bats. The apparent stiffness in a cleft is in part due to drying but that's true of any timber when moisture is removed (to a certain degree) and Willow doesn't compare favourably to other timbers when it comes to stiffness. So if that was the main factor that created performance, we would have stopped using Willow years ago and started using other species.

Procricket - You mentioned that "tight grains are better initially is more grains in a bat produce a stiffer blade" yet state "stiffness is what people want for performance and it is not gradeable by any looks" Surely the grains would indicate stiffness and therefore be a way of identifying this quality via looks?

"The trampoline theory is rubbish" Please can you explain this a bit more?

Sound and feel and intertwined and are in no way separate, as we perceive feel through our senses. The most significant way in which we do this is through our ears, eyes and hands. Since we can't look at the bat face when we hit the ball, the two we rely on when using a cricket bat are the sound and touch we experience. Sadly when we choose a bat, our eyes can deceive our brain. Optical Illusions?

I'm not going to moan about longevity of bats, performance and size expectations, the drying of Willow, impatience and apprenticeships. I'm sure you'll all appreciate that.

The bottom line I'm trying to convey here is that grading is subjective and can mislead you. Trust a real bat maker, support the craft of bat making and build a relationship with a craftsman. If you do, they're far more likely to give you that "pro performance cleft"

[procricket]

JS Wrights and large retail manufacturers dictate the perception of grades but they have no meaning, not in terms of guaranteed performance. Grading on grains and blemishes has been prominent for so long because the other ways of grading have even less meaning or supporting evidence. Edge size? That was another way we tried to grade our bats that failed to really convey performance efficiently.

The fact is that the best way to get performance is to trust a skilful, talented craftsman. Just like we do with other trades and professions. Grading on performance is a way to challenge the perception that only the pretty perform and showcases that a good bat maker has knowledge and expertise built up over years. This is part of my gripe with the industry, brands and bat makers pop up and think they know what they're doing. I've been making bats for 15 years and it's a craft that takes decades to master. They just dilute and undermine the skills real craftsman have earnt.

There's not such thing as soft or light pressing, just GOOD and BAD pressing. A soft pressed would take ages to perform (I had an UNpressed cricket bat, it was like hitting wet ground) and so would a hard pressed bat. Pressing creates a hard surface on a soft material, the natural properties of willow does not include stiffness. If anything it's flexibility and spring that have allowed it to be used in many other crafts and so perfectly adapted to cricket bats. The apparent stiffness in a cleft is in part due to drying but that's true of any timber when moisture is removed (to a certain degree) and Willow doesn't compare favourably to other timbers when it comes to stiffness. So if that was the main factor that created performance, we would have stopped using Willow years ago and started using other species.

Procricket - You mentioned that "tight grains are better initially is more grains in a bat produce a stiffer blade" yet state "stiffness is what people want for performance and it is not gradeable by any looks" Surely the grains would indicate stiffness and therefore be a way of identifying this quality via looks?

"The trampoline theory is rubbish" Please can you explain this a bit more?

Sound and feel and intertwined and are in no way separate, as we perceive feel through our senses. The most significant way in which we do this is through our ears, eyes and hands. Since we can't look at the bat face when we hit the ball, the two we rely on when using a cricket bat are the sound and touch we experience. Sadly when we choose a bat, our eyes can deceive our brain. Optical Illusions?

I'm not going to moan about longevity of bats, performance and size expectations, the drying of Willow, impatience and apprenticeships. I'm sure you'll all appreciate that.

The bottom line I'm trying to convey here is that grading is subjective and can mislead you. Trust a real bat maker, support the craft of bat making and build a relationship with a craftsman. If you do, they're far more likely to give you that "pro performance cleft"

I sure can mate as Streaky has always told me even grains allow for more consistence stiffness who said loads of grains looks nice i never did. and as for trampoline well for a trampoline to work i want engergy going out of the bat not into then out. It is my crust theory mate.hard but not too deep. I could be wrong but i still seem to score runs with the bats i use which i guess is half the battle

You see unlike many on this forum i have used bats for long periods i buy or should i say used to buy so many but i only ever really use one because i feel if it is PROPERLY pressed not soft not hard but allows for the maximum stiffness it gives you the best chance of getting the bat performing earlier.

As for trampoline rubbish and all that stuff if you use a bat for me for long periods you realise 90 per cent of all bats no matter what they look like if pressed PROPERLY have the same performance roughly after a period of time.

Now market will dictate you that certain things are better they all will i do not or have ever believed one bat is better than the other by looks or grains there niceties not nessecesaties.


It like all this nonsense about hand picking always has been and will be just a selling tool yet i have behind closed door been called names because i know its another marketing tool.

Bats take time to play in simple as that they still do and many get rid of bats before they are ripe. I knock mine in for ages with mallets and then old balls then new balls it what i do because i find if you give bats a chance 9 times out of 10 there decent.

But i'm no maker I'm no craftsman i just use the bats i'm given mate and that is my opinion and perception.

BATS ARE SIMPLE PEOPLE MAKE THEM COMPLICATED.

a bit like the game of cricket it is simple people complicate it.




 

[GarrettJ]

I have to agree with Procricket in that if you use a bat for a long period most turn out to be of similar performance. You will get one or two that stand out and one or two that are not so good. Also handpicking for performance is rubbish, doing it for looks is fine but performance I don't see how it can be done unless the batmakers let you have a net with it. Doubt they will even let you bash it 10 times with mallet.

The reason people buy grade 1 is that it is believed that you have a higher percentage of getting decent per forming bat than lesser grades.

I know nothing about willow or grains but I would go with the theory that grade 1 do on average play better than other grades once fully knocked in and used.

Would I pay full price .... NEVER .... Buy in the end of season sale, who cares if the stickers change the next season! There is less temptation to use it in the wet end of season and you can take time to knock it in properly over the end of the season/off season then bring it out in the winter nets in the new year.

And I don't care if my bat is shaped by some bloke in his garage or some indian bloke using his feet

[Bats_Entertainment]

a bit like the game of cricket it is simple people complicate it.

I wish I found it simple, Dave.  Nice post otherwise.

[trypewriter]

I think anyone trying to grade bats on performance, rather than looks, would be nuts. Who would want to but a 'plank grade' bat? You'd never sell them. Obviously 20 tight grain clefts are rare, light in weight clefts are rare, super clean blemish free clefts are rare, and when anything is a scarce commodity it attracts a premium price. My take on it is that clefts are pre-graded before they get to the maker, so in some respects the maker's hands are tied on what grade a finished bat might be if they are working to a profit level. However, pre-grading at cleft level isn't an exact science. As we all know L&W bats appear to put on weight once they reach the UK, so there is no reason that raw clefts, even expertly dried, can't do the same thing.
As regards tapping up a cleft, then a finished bat, I'm obviously no expert but to me it's still in the lap of the gods if it will perform on the pitch. As Paul Aldred said, he had a DF that just wouldn't go. If you look back on this forum, these bats are a lot scarcer than bats that even perform adequately (which if you take a non-cynical view are themselves hugely outnumbered by the 'absolute guns' that forum members own).
And then there's the factor of the guy holding the bat - as Garrett wisely says.
I'll fess up, I've got a lovely Salix Pod that I just can't get on with. Yes it's light at 2-7 but I can't get the ball off the square with it. But I've loaned it to guys who usually use bats in the 2-12 range and they've hammered the ball to all parts with it. There's nothing wrong with the bat, it's me. These are younger, fitter, more talented guys, and it shows.
On the plus side I've used slightly heavier bats (2-9/2-10) and can score a few runs, proving, really, that a heavier bat will hit a ball further and to an extent timing and bat speed has b/a to do with it.
I'm as guilty as anyone on here for having an eye for a well shaped piece of willow, and buying more than I need. But, you see, I'm old, I'm raging against the dying of the light, I'm searching for a bat that will allow me to hit the ball as far and as hard as I did 25 years ago. I'm obviously deluded, but perhaps no more so than someone who thinks that a professional grade bat will make them play like a professional.
And just because test player A has a preference for x number of grains with a strip of heartwood on the outside edge, it doesn't mean that these are the ideals for any bat. In most professional sports there is a huge amount of superstition - if you factor that into the equation you might be getting towards a more realistic view on why some players prefer the bats that they do.

[Beachcricket]

Also handpicking for performance is rubbish, doing it for looks is fine but performance I don't see how it can be done unless the batmakers let you have a net with it. Doubt they will even let you bash it 10 times with mallet.

Are you talking about the consumer or a bat maker?

[Northern monkey]

We care so much because that's where we have been led to

Years ago, we didn't care what grade bat it was

[tim2000s]

Years ago we didn't care so much.  We bought Super,  Ultimate and other funny names from Slazenger or 4* and 5* bats from Gray Nics. We didn't see players,  LE, etc.  The top of the line was simply 5*.