Print

[gerhard303]

A mate told me that there was an interesting segment on the Cricket Show during the Aus v Ind Sydney test on modern and traditional bats. Apparently it featured Michael Slater trying to belt a series of underarm balls from Mark Taylor using a traditional and a 2015 season bat (I was told it was a gn Kaboom).

Did anyone watch the segment? Unfortunately I was at work and missed it. My mate only caught a glimpse so he isn't able to provide any more detail than what I've stated  above. I presume Slater and Taylor were attempting to gauge the differences between modern and traditional types of bats, but considering they often advertise new gear on the show, I am skeptical of what results their test produced. Any thoughts?

[sarg]

Slater spent the first 2 shots with Mark's old Milli miss hitting due to dodgy throws from Mark. hit last one 50 m, then hit with warners bat the next 3 balls up to 70 m. Only showed Slater hasn't picked up a bat in ages and Taylor is a clown. They had a good laugh about it later. In reality he didn't middle one ball with the old bat.

[alee]

I saw a little bit, basically both were saying that the modern bat, (it was an actual Warner GN Kaboom) was more forgiving if you mis-hit a shot.
They were showing Slater trying to whack the ball as far as he could. One of the measurements was that he hit a ball 65 meters with the traditional bat and 81 meters with the modern bat.

Also they were saying that the middle position was the same, but with the modern bat, the middle position was bigger, something along that lines.

The Warner bat was huge and the jest of what i got was that mis-hits were more forgiving due to the bigger edges.

Another thing that they were surprised at was the weight of the bat, both bats had the same weight which they found quite fascinating.

Personally that might be true, but the willow that Warner had was all taped up, and is basically for performance rather than durability i presume. in the GN video of the Omega range of an interview of Cook, he mentioned that the new bats would break easily )more dried willow, to get bigger size) and that older traditional bats would last more. (they compared both bats in the Video, that i had posted a link leading to the Youtube GN Channell UK).

[ProCricketer1982]

edge size doesn't really make it go further.

[smilley792]

edge size doesn't really make it go further.

Nobody said it did. Not in this thread atleast.

[ProCricketer1982]

Nobody said it did. Not in this thread atleast.

"he Warner bat was huge and the jest of what i got was that mis-hits were more forgiving due to the bigger edges"

[smilley792]

"he Warner bat was huge and the jest of what i got was that mis-hits were more forgiving due to the bigger edges"

Thanks for proving my point. Lol

[ProCricketer1982]

Thanks for proving my point. Lol

sure, nps

[alee]

Healy, Slater, Taylor, said mis-timed shots went further with the Kaboom and they concluded that the reason could be the edge size. Like Sarg said Slater couldn't middle with the traditional bat but did manage to somewhat middle the Warner bat. Perhaps that is where they came to that conclusion and it is there opinion they could be right/wrong. Slater was the guinea pig of the test, a different result is possible if it was another player for instance.

[InternalTraining]

Ryan Harris batted with the same Dave Warner bat. He was able to hit a lot of boundaries but nothing that cleared the boundary for a mile long six. I think he got a lot of value for his shots. I have batted with these big, low density cleft bats and the feel of the ball pinging off is very different. I wouldn't say that the ball was being hit farther. Just felt different, more easy I guess.

I question if these bats actually hit the ball farther then a normal density cleft bat. It could be a psychological advantage/benefit. Ryan Harris' mis-timed shots didn't go any where and the ones that went to the ropes were timed impeccably.

Theory is that bigger-volume bat of same weight will hit the ball farther: Momentum = mass * velocity . But what about the power needed to swing a volumnous bat thru air? No air drag? No friction?

Has any one calculated how much bat speed is needed to hit a ball for a six?

I guess science is very vague on all this and what we hear is conjecture at best. Cricket world is full of conjecture which is what keeps the prices high and goods/bats moving off the  shelves.

[alee]

Not to mention closer boundaries nowadays. Much smaller in the modern era.

[Cover_Drive]

I saw it, one thing that bemused me was that David Warner's Gray Nicolls Kaboom was a bat which is fully knocked in and at its peak while on other hand you have Puma Millichamp which was 15 or so years old, so over time not only it dried but possibly could be past its life and it is often said that due to hiatus bat pings deteriorates due to its resilience, which is revived after knocking.