Print

[procricket]

By the "Bigger" the bat, I assume you mean "the more mass the bat has", i.e. how many kg of mass does it contain?

All comes down to bat speed or big heavy bat .

At the end of the day if you press a 2-7 ounce average shaped bat with the middle roughly 14 inches from the handle the have the same bat twice the size with the middle in the same area with a normal 400 dencity cleft and use the same swing speed for both the heavier bat will hit the ball further all things being equal.

After knocking in around and tapping up around 1000 bats all new of course I have found that bats are simple things to understand it is us badgers who complicate things.

We could start talking about pressing I have heard so much rubbish talked about it soft pressed this and that I mean come on think about it.

People talk of trampolines I talk of metallic stiffness

I like talking bats I have a great teacher

[sarg]

I think I talked some soft press rubbish early on too. I think the shape of the bat is important for    the positioning the meat of the bat to the batsman's hitting areas. It also changes the pickup which may help bat speed later in a innings when the arms are getting tired. So I think it is important.

Now if a bat was attached to a machine swinging at the same speed every time, then weight is the only consideration.

[crictech]

Ah good, it's been a long time since we got on to this. I've been doing a bit of testing over this side of the pond, taking a lot of direction from the guys who do the baseball bat studies and testing.

So the statement is incorrect. The shape of the bat is not irrelevant to its performance assuming the guy holding it can actually hit the ball. Imagine a bat that weighs 2lb 10oz but is basically just a long stick with a big wooden block on the end. The performance would be based on the ball impacting with the wooden block rather than hitting the stick. In the same way having the thickest part of wood behind the ball when it hits the bat is going to be better than having a thinner part. Which means having a bat that is shaped with the thickest part where you are more likely to impact with the ball, all other things being equal, would give you better performance.

[crictech]

Now if a bat was attached to a machine swinging at the same speed every time, then weight is the only consideration.

Weight wouldn't really matter, only swing weight.

[@187no]

Indeed some of the best in the business have tried to ask and reply to both sides of the question.

Only question that needs to be asked is , where is the middle of a cricket blade.

[tim2000s]

Ah good, it's been a long time since we got on to this. I've been doing a bit of testing over this side of the pond, taking a lot of direction from the guys who do the baseball bat studies and testing.

So the statement is incorrect. The shape of the bat is not irrelevant to its performance assuming the guy holding it can actually hit the ball. Imagine a bat that weighs 2lb 10oz but is basically just a long stick with a big wooden block on the end. The performance would be based on the ball impacting with the wooden block rather than hitting the stick. In the same way having the thickest part of wood behind the ball when it hits the bat is going to be better than having a thinner part. Which means having a bat that is shaped with the thickest part where you are more likely to impact with the ball, all other things being equal, would give you better performance.

However, if we were to model a bat as a uniform depth plank all the way through, such as the GN dual sided model, or the Scoop, by this argument, these bats would have inferior performance. However 375 from Brian Lara would suggest otherwise?

[crictech]

However, if we were to model a bat as a uniform depth plank all the way through, such as the GN dual sided model, or the Scoop, by this argument, these bats would have inferior performance. However 375 from Brian Lara would suggest otherwise?

The key part is "all other things being equal". In reality one the bat is shaped so that it has the thickest part of the willow behind the ball on impact. In reality two it doesn't. The first performs better than the second so shape effects performance.

You could have given Brian Lara a stump and he would have taken most bowling attacks to pieces. A great batsman with a bad bat will score more than a bad batsman with a great bat but, again, all other things being equal, if the bat is shaped to match the batsmans technique he will score more runs with it than one that isn't. It won't turn someone who averages 10 into a 40 average but it will make a difference.

[tim2000s]

The key part is "all other things being equal". In reality one the bat is shaped so that it has the thickest part of the willow behind the ball on impact. In reality two it doesn't. The first performs better than the second so shape effects performance.

You could have given Brian Lara a stump and he would have taken most bowling attacks to pieces. A great batsman with a bad bat will score more than a bad batsman with a great bat but, again, all other things being equal, if the bat is shaped to match the batsmans technique he will score more runs with it than one that isn't. It won't turn someone who averages 10 into a 40 average but it will make a difference.

Agree on the last point more than anything. (Sponsors close your ears) Money spent on coaching will generate more runs than an expensive bat.

The other example I bring to the table is the Laver and Wood Legacy, which I'd describe as the "Baseball bat" approach to cricket bats. It is the same depth from just below shoulder to the toe, so in theory the same amount of wood is behind wherever you hit the ball. And yet those who have used them don't agree that the performance is the same across the length of the bat?

[JB]

I played against someone who used a L&W Legacy a few weeks ago, it was a ridiculously big bat!! I can't remember the ball flying off it much though.

[crictech]

The other example I bring to the table is the Laver and Wood Legacy, which I'd describe as the "Baseball bat" approach to cricket bats. It is the same depth from just below shoulder to the toe, so in theory the same amount of wood is behind wherever you hit the ball. And yet those who have used them don't agree that the performance is the same across the length of the bat?

Designing a bat shape is really more about where you hit your aggressive shots from. The shape doesn't matter for a nudge or a glance. If you hit 50% of your drives at say 7" from the toe and 30% one inch either side all the weight in the shoulders and toe wouldn't benefit you. I'm not saying there aren't other reasons to add weight to the shoulders or toe; looks, balance etc.

A uniform bat like you described won't give a uniform performance across the whole blade. As with any bat, anything hit off center towards the edges will cause a twisting force so a ball that hits on the outside 25mm or so zaps the power of the shot. When the ball hits the upper part of the bat it pushes the hands back. When it hit the toe it pushes the hands forwards. Both taking power away from the rebound. You can sometimes overcome this on the toe by swinging very hard but the top of the bat doesn't move as fast.

The bigger the change in direction of the ball the more noticeable and bigger the effect so hitting in the V has a bigger effect than hitting behind square.

[tim2000s]

Designing a bat shape is really more about where you hit your aggressive shots from. The shape doesn't matter for a nudge or a glance. If you hit 50% of your drives at say 7" from the toe and 30% one inch either side all the weight in the shoulders and toe wouldn't benefit you. I'm not saying there aren't other reasons to add weight to the shoulders or toe; looks, balance etc.

A uniform bat like you described won't give a uniform performance across the whole blade. As with any bat, anything hit off center towards the edges will cause a twisting force so a ball that hits on the outside 25mm or so zaps the power of the shot. When the ball hits the upper part of the bat it pushes the hands back. When it hit the toe it pushes the hands forwards. Both taking power away from the rebound. You can sometimes overcome this on the toe by swinging very hard but the top of the bat doesn't move as fast.

The bigger the change in direction of the ball the more noticeable and bigger the effect so hitting in the V has a bigger effect than hitting behind square.

This then begs the question as to why you'd bother with the MMi, as that is a block on a stick, but by virtue of the position of the weight, would (nearly always) result in the hands being pushed forward and not performing as well...

[crictech]

This then begs the question as to why you'd bother with the MMi, as that is a block on a stick, but by virtue of the position of the weight, would (nearly always) result in the hands being pushed forward and not performing as well...

I haven't used an MMi but the blade is about 14" from toe to the shoulders which would cover all the attacking shots. It should be very similar to a regular bat re pushing hands forwards or back. That said if anyone came out with one you'd just get your quicks to bowl short. The pull shot is the hardest to get out of the middle and often hits high on the bat which in this case would be the handle. I doubt anyone could see off an over of short stuff with one of these.

[crictech]

If you are interested in finding the right profile for your technique there is an analysis form on the crictech.com site which asks a few questions about your preferences and where on the bat you tend to hit the ball for your drive and cut shots. It will then show you an animated model of what would be your optimum profile based on the info you put in.

http://www.crictech.com/pages/bat-design