Print

[tim2000s]

With significant changes since 2009. So says imperial college...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/mcc/content/story/760927.html

Regardless of shape,  apparently bats now have bigger sweetspots.  Have you found this?

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

[jwebber86]

i just read this article and was about to share the story.

im sure modern bats have a bigger sweetspot but it doesn't guarantee that they will hit the ball in the first place

[WalkingWicket37]

My old shape purist and my traditional shape Chase both had lovely sweet spots, if modern bats are better I'm yet to see the evidence (and I own a few!)

Maybe a bat off is required, pre 2010 bats vs post 2009 bats, which is truly better! 

[Buzz]

this appears to be a load of ill researched waffle.

there is no menton of concaving vs conves shapes.

no mention of moisture content

the Asian, particularly the Pakistani bat makers were making overdried concaved lumps well before 2009.

some geek on here will know when the first Malik sher was released, the mid 90's or something

and that is before we start taking about changing techniques, range hitting, different weight training, flat dead pitches to induce hitting.

useless.

carry on!

[tejasapatel]

This mean you can't really compare batsman across Eras simply based on the strike rate and runs.

Also the records being broken in terms of fastest 100s or 50s are not due to superior skills but due to better bats.

[dilscoop]

This mean you can't really compare batsman across Eras simply based on the strike rate and runs.

Also the records being broken in terms of fastest 100s or 50s are not due to superior skills but due to better bats.

Afridi hit a 37 ball hundred in a test match before the modern bat era.

[WalkingWicket37]

Afridi hit a 37 ball hundred in a test match before the modern bat era.

I think it was an ODI mate, but a valid point, if he played the same innings with a modern bat would he get there quicker? I doubt it!

[Manormanic]

whilst there are all sorts of "buts" in there, the fact is that any advances are pretty minor save the psychological ones.

[Blank Bats]

Boundary sizes need to be considered too.

Ihsan had a very concaved bat in the late 80, can't recall the name with certainty but possibly the Hilux. A proper W shaped concave it was too.

[Tom]

I have the full disclosure, and unless I get any complaints is available here:

https://drive.google.com/a/masevans.co.uk/file/d/0B1saMLnJZq0fVHBWRF8xQU5qSmc/edit?usp=sharing

[sarg]

Thanks Tom. Interesting choice of 2003 bats. Not sure the Nemesis should have been there considering half the spine is missing, thus shortening the length of the sweetspot. That bat is certainly at the top of my 'avoid at all costs' list. GN100 lovers will be feeling warm. E41 or Legend or 4x2 would have outperformed the Nemesis.

[sarg]

One other point of interest is that thick edges increase the rotational resistance. I have heard others say the opposite.

[tim2000s]

One other point of interest is that thick edges increase the rotational resistance. I have heard others say the opposite.

This is one of those statements that is endlessly repeated as "fact" as though it makes a difference.

With two bats of the same weight, the additional mass that is moved to the edges by making them thicker is actually very small and is offset against the amount lost due to concaving near the spine. Both of these components of the mass have an effect on the torque "generated" by the mass of the bat.

When you consider that the key aspect of the force implied by  a cricket ball on the edge area of a bat is the rate of change of velocity of that cricket ball, of which velocity is the key part, and that the change in the inertia generated by increasing the edge size is something in the region of 0.05 times, you start to see that the reality is very different.

Yes it does "increase the resistance to twisting", but it does so by such a small margin that it makes no difference. It is purely marketing hearsay bs.

Better ways to stop the bat twisting are to use an oval handle and hit the ball out of the middle of the bat.

[tim2000s]

On a slightly different note, the biggest flaw in the whole study is the use of bats of different weights and less so, middle positions. Forget what batsmen do differently, the simple fact that there is more mass in the bat skews any results.

Is it really any surprise that a bat weighing around 2lb 11oz can hit the ball further than a 2lb 5oz bat for the same bat speed, or that the size of the sweetspot is somewhat bigger....?

Secondly, that they use bats with different profiles is also a rather disturbing error. Yes, some modern bats do have lower middles, but plenty have high middles. Comparing a 1978 Scoop with the 2013 version would have been a much more realistic and sensible comparison, and I'd be tempted to do the same with a 1998 Dynadrive versus a 2014 version.

I suspect the whole discussion about pick-up and MoI would be signficantly changed if they did this properly.

[trypewriter]

They aren't really comparing like with like. Probably the biggest factor is weight. The 'popular' weight nowadays is 2-9 which is some 5-6oz heavier than the norm in the Bradman/Compton/Sobers eras. If you can use it effectively a heavier bat will hit the ball further IMO. I think that modern understanding of pressing techniques has also had an effect. Bats used to be pressed for durability, now they are pressed for immediate performance.