Advertise on CBF
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Then vs. Now  (Read 3073 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

langer17

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
  • Trade Count: (0)
Then vs. Now
« on: November 27, 2015, 09:25:50 AM »
Saw this and thought it was ridiculous and funny
Logged

roco

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6991
  • Trade Count: (+16)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2015, 09:29:55 AM »
imagine Clive Llyod Viv or Barry Richards with one of them
Logged
The first cricket box was used in 1874.  The first cricket helmet was introduced in 1974. So, it took 100 years for men to twig that their brains were also worth protecting.

edge

  • Moderator
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4876
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2015, 09:34:59 AM »
Clever photography works wonders doesn't it. Spot the problem with this photo.
Logged
HS: 156, BB: 7-20

roco

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6991
  • Trade Count: (+16)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2015, 09:37:48 AM »
warners bat is much closer to the camera?
Logged
The first cricket box was used in 1874.  The first cricket helmet was introduced in 1974. So, it took 100 years for men to twig that their brains were also worth protecting.

Thesmiff

Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2015, 09:40:55 AM »
It's Lou Carpenter from Neighbours!
Logged

tim2000s

  • Administrator
  • International Superstar
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10678
  • Trade Count: (+21)
  • If I only could bat....
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2015, 09:43:17 AM »
Quote from: edge on November 27, 2015, 09:34:59 AM
Clever photography works wonders doesn't it. Spot the problem with this photo.
Yup, spotted the couple of tricks in there too. Slightly annoying!
Logged

ppccopener

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7790
  • Trade Count: (+6)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2015, 09:44:02 AM »
funny thing is the presumption is the massive bat-I cant believe it is actually that big thou- would be better to score runs with

But it wouldn't of mattered to Barry Richards. He was that good.
And Viv of course

 :)
Logged

edge

  • Moderator
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4876
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2015, 09:45:22 AM »
Quote from: roco on November 27, 2015, 09:37:48 AM
warners bat is much closer to the camera?
Yep, as I'm guessing Barry Richards didn't use a size 5! There seems a concerted campaign from former players against modern bats lately, strange given that zero current cricketers see any problems with them.
Logged
HS: 156, BB: 7-20

northernboy1987

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2350
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2015, 09:47:19 AM »
Although it is clever photography there's still no doubting the massive difference between the two!
Logged
"The hallmark of a great captain is the ability to win the toss at the right time" - Richie Benaud

https://twitter.com/matteden87

Buzz

  • Administrator
  • International Superstar
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12679
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Clear your mind, stay still and watch the ball
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2015, 10:07:44 AM »
well Barry Richards used a 2lbs 5-6 bat and Warners is 2lbs12-13.

6-7oz of willow is a massive amount of timber.
Logged
"Bradman didn't used to have any trigger movements or anything like that. He turned batting into a subconscious act" Tony Shillinglaw.

langer17

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2015, 10:33:09 AM »
Even with the bigger bat being in the foreground, it does not make that much of a difference in the edge and spine size, more so with the length, it looks longer is all
Logged

edge

  • Moderator
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4876
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2015, 10:38:29 AM »
Quote from: langer17 on November 27, 2015, 10:33:09 AM
Even with the bigger bat being in the foreground, it does not make that much of a difference in the edge and spine size, more so with the length, it looks longer is all
You're right, dimensions only work in one direction... d'oh.
Logged
HS: 156, BB: 7-20

ppccopener

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7790
  • Trade Count: (+6)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2015, 10:45:08 AM »
this is a bit anal but aren't the powers that be about the bring out a regulation on 'depth' ?
or did I mis read that......
Logged

langer17

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2015, 10:50:44 AM »
Also, the distance that the arms can hold are small, so makes no difference in my eyes
Logged

Beachcricket

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: Then vs. Now
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2015, 10:55:32 AM »
Quote from: ppccopener on November 27, 2015, 10:45:08 AM
this is a bit anal but aren't the powers that be about the bring out a regulation on 'depth' ?
or did I mis read that......

They were discussing it but then decided against it based on a study conducted for the MCC by ICL. They made the right decision but it was based on poor evidence and a lack of understanding of what makes a cricket bat perform.

They're painting themselves into a corner slowly but surely.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 08:53:32 PM by Beachcricket »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
 

Advertise on CBF