Print

[Bats_Entertainment]

They should get rid of field restrictions.

[ProCricketer1982]

So many factors in play and it's not just the bats fault (although, they are now huge for the size)

1) silly field restrictions make it too easy to hit runs
2) stupid boundary size make it too easy to score runs ( miss hit 6 just shouldn't happen)
3) wickets are just roads so players are able to just hit through the line.. Spice them up a bit, make them bounce, be faster, seam etc.
4) players are fitter and stronger than before but I suspect there were still those around in the less pro era who could hit it as hard. Little billy root isn't some super strong man afte all. Accept it, but just make he outfield bigger to make that fitness.. Make them run more!
5) give bowlers a chance, give them a decent ball that keeps its shape and seams/swings for longer

Do that and the balance would be more equal without changing the bats.

[KIPPERS]

Pro cricketers spot on. Its a cumulative effect. Whats the point giving bowlers a new hard ball if the thing doesn't swing it just goes to the boundary quicker. Edges carry further with a modern bat, so with 60 yard boundaries its a six not a catch in the deep. You cant stop manufacturers making new developments. An example even in our cricket is the balls we use. They last forever without deteriorating. 10 years ago I used to come on after 20 overs when the ball had got rough on one side and swing it round corners with contrast swing. Now after 20 overs you cant even tell which side we are working on. Bad sloggers in the leagues can just walk down the wicket and swing thru the line of the ball with no fear of missing it. At least it means spinners are more valuable then ever before if they can survive the start of there career when they will just get launched.

[procricket]

What does that mean?

Alright, some high school physics...

Density = mass/volume; or mass = density * volume;

Weight = mass * gravity.

How can two bats of the same weight "not be equal"? Is gravity different? Or more importantly, weight of the handles, stickers and toe guard will make one bat (or rather blade) have less mass? Basically, are you implying one bat has more wood than the other?

"2 bats the same volume in the same area will" only be equal is the bats had the same mass  - same amount of wood. What am I missing here?

You mean heavier bats when you say "bigger"?

What does bigger mean? More volume (bigger edges and spine) but weighing 2-7? Or more weight? Would a 2-7 bat with 38 mm + edges and 68mm+ spine hit a ball further than a 2-7 tooth pick used by Gary Sobers?

Yes think I got myslef middled up here what I'm trying to say is with low density I can get more "mass" in my bats for the same weight. So the volume of wood is bigger for the same weight.

It means I can either have a 2-100z trott profile or a 2-15 same people same volume.

Or as bat nerd I can supersize the trott by 5mm all over with the 2-10 oz bat and make it 2-15 and have much more
Volume

So in theory I would have 2 bats same weight but one would be much bigger so different volume of wood yet same weight


Ask batmakers it not hard to make a big decent bat because they genrally play better because of the volume plain and simple

All I will say is get a cleft pressed and handle it tap it up then it will be stiff as hell and go like a rocket

[edge]

To be clear here, volume = 'size' or dimensions of a bat. Mass/weight = how much it, er, weighs.

Pro cricketers spot on. Its a cumulative effect. Whats the point giving bowlers a new hard ball if the thing doesn't swing it just goes to the boundary quicker. Edges carry further with a modern bat, so with 60 yard boundaries its a six not a catch in the deep. You cant stop manufacturers making new developments. An example even in our cricket is the balls we use. They last forever without deteriorating. 10 years ago I used to come on after 20 overs when the ball had got rough on one side and swing it round corners with contrast swing. Now after 20 overs you cant even tell which side we are working on. Bad sloggers in the leagues can just walk down the wicket and swing thru the line of the ball with no fear of missing it. At least it means spinners are more valuable then ever before if they can survive the start of there career when they will just get launched.

The longer a ball stays shiny the better! Decent bowler should definitely be able to make a brand new ball swing, if it stays that way then great. Problem comes when it stays hard but the shine dulls quickly, which does seem to be on the increase.

[KIPPERS]

That's sort of what I meant. The high gloss goes and you end up with a dull red thing (but still very much intact) unless the pitch is like concrete you cant get the roughness on one side you used to get.

[KIPPERS]

Old ball contrast swing is quite different to new ball swing. You had to get the seam bolt upright straight down the pitch (not canted) and the ball will swing either way depending on the rough side. Reverse swing wont happen under 80mph+ so doesn't really happen much in club cricket.

[uknsaunders]

Wouldn't bat manufacturers be happy if bat sizes were reduced, I assume they might be able to reduce the size of a cleft and make more bats from the same tree?

[Rob580]

Why don't the ICC just cap the volume of the bats used in International / first class cricket? thats all that has changed since 'the good old days'

That way if you use a 3lb bat, you use a denser cleft and if you use a 2.7 bat then you use a less dense cleft to give you, either way, a bat of similar volume to those which would have been used say 10 years ago, which seems to be what they're angling for, as it's the additional volume which makes the 'modern' bat more forgiving to the mishit.

I expect my ICC royalties to be in the form of a comedy cheque, for my services to saving cricket.

[edge]

That's sort of what I meant. The high gloss goes and you end up with a dull red thing (but still very much intact) unless the pitch is like concrete you cant get the roughness on one side you used to get.

That does hack me off to be fair, played a few games for my uni in the past with balls that stayed rock hard but didn't swing after the first few overs. Given that I bowled first or second change, just felt like cannon fodder on a good deck.

[Kez]

That's sort of what I meant. The high gloss goes and you end up with a dull red thing (but still very much intact) unless the pitch is like concrete you cant get the roughness on one side you used to get.

You haven't tried hard enough 

[jamielsn15]

I'm not sure I know enough about bat making to form an opinion, but these are two interesting articles I read recently...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/feb/05/cricket-bat-size-debate-russell-jackson

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/826821.html

[KIPPERS]

You haven't tried hard enough 

I have No idea what you mean