Laver Monster
Advertise on CBF

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Laver Monster  (Read 5605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ayrtek Cricket

  • Forum Sponsor
  • International Superstar
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14750
  • Trade Count: (+53)
  • www.AyrtekCricket.com
    • Ayrtek Cricket
Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2016, 11:22:38 PM »

Copy of the article below if anyone is interested in reading it...

James Laver and The Monster bat

He calls it The Monster, this 3 pound, 15 ounce club.

And you don’t need extraordinary strength to wield this slab of willow.

Simply position it in front of the ball and the bat does the rest (although presumably hooks, pulls and cuts are out of the question).

But it’s not for sale: Master New Zealand bat-maker James Laver has made it as a statement about the growing arms race of bigger and heavier bats.

MORE: Stumps: Australia lead by 280
The Monster, he says, is allowable under the laws as they stand. And Laver says it shouldn’t be.

As the ICC considers imposing restrictions on ever-burgeoning bat sizes, Laver has entered the debate wielding his super bat.

“We made it to provoke conversation to see what people actually thought,” Laver told The Weekend Australian this week.

“If you make a massive bat you’ll always sell loads.

“(But) I’m not going to sell bats like that. I’m not going to make it.

“This is the sort of thing that I don’t think should be sold.”

You might think making and selling big bats would make good business sense for a bat-maker.

But the founder and managing director of Waipawa bat-making firm Laver & Wood is of the same mind as so many others: big bats have swung the balance too far in the batsmen’s favour.

The Monster is all about fuelling the discussion about regulating bat sizes.

And Laver’s gone further than that.

He has suggested any size restriction is enforced using a sizing device similar to the ones used to test the ball’s shape.

He has produced a frame with a bat shaped hole in the middle. A bit like a giant cookie cutter.

If the bat can fit in the hole it is legal. Simple.

“I really believe that the basics of the bat need to be regulated,” Laver said.

“And it’s got to be simple. It’s got to be straightforward.

“Everyone seems to be on the same page. Everyone’s talking about how something needs to be done.”

So they are. The ICC announced this week it was considering amending rules that stipulate the face of a bat is no wider than 4.25 inches (10.8cm) and the length is no longer than 38 inches (97cm).

The rules are silent about the width — or depth — from the face to the back of the bat.

“The balance may have shifted a little bit too much because sometimes poor shots or mis-hits are going for six,” ICC chief executive David Richardson told ESPN Cricinfo this week.

“Some batsmen are mis-hitting balls and it is just carrying over the rope and going for a six instead of being caught at the boundary, that is what some cricket people believe has become unfair.”


“Let us try and rectify that. The bats are so good these days that the sweet spot is much larger than it would have been 10-15 years ago.

“The MCC, as lawmakers, and the ICC will be looking at giving perhaps some consideration to placing limitations on the depth of a bat in particular,” Richardson said.

That is welcome news to the mums, dads and junior coaches bemoaning how big bats are straining young wrists and elbows and ingraining bad batting habits from a young age.

Laver has welcomed the news and says there’s nothing revolutionary about his proposal to test bat sizes.

A sizing device is a much simpler way of regulating bats than testing by weight or by volume.

He suggests limiting bats to a thickness of about 60mm and their edges to about 35mm, with some small leeway for the curve of the blade and one or two layers of tape.

That would outlaw Dave Warner’s Kaboom bat, which is 85mm thick at its widest part.

Presumably Chris Gayle’s 3 pound club would be rendered ­obsolete as well.
Logged

Woodyspin

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2232
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • www.twitter.com/thewoodyspin
Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2016, 11:30:27 PM »

And every bat being made currently as most have 40mm edges

WalkingWicket37

  • International Superstar
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12983
  • Trade Count: (+26)
Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2016, 11:32:18 PM »

If they restrict the bat size to the proposed 35mm edges and 60mm spine there will be a rush for high density clefts to make heavy bats.
It would also saturate places like eBay with even more "pro" bats.
Every other listing would be something like "35mm edges, 60mm spine blank bat, this size due to new restrictions. Made for (insert player name here)"
Logged

edge

  • Moderator
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4876
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2016, 12:06:19 AM »

The thing about 'mis-hit' sixes is one, how often do you actually see someone toe one into the crowd? Much more common to see a hotspot after a four and its off the toe and the commentators going 'ohhhhh he's timed that so perfectly'

Also, if a batsman can smash a 120m six out of the ground, it makes perfect sense that you could mishit one 65m for a six. Smoking it out of the ground isn't new or a consequence of modern bats either. See: Albert Trott.

In short, oddly shortsighted interview with a batmaker. Maybe he just wanted to show off that Kranzenbuhler isn't the only one who can make big bats.

Seems like all the noise about big bats is coming out of Australia... Maybe they should consider not playing all internationals on roads?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 12:08:41 AM by edge »
Logged
HS: 156, BB: 7-20

brokenbat

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2320
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2016, 12:22:00 AM »

The thing about 'mis-hit' sixes is one, how often do you actually see someone toe one into the crowd? Much more common to see a hotspot after a four and its off the toe and the commentators going 'ohhhhh he's timed that so perfectly'

Also, if a batsman can smash a 120m six out of the ground, it makes perfect sense that you could mishit one 65m for a six. Smoking it out of the ground isn't new or a consequence of modern bats either. See: Albert Trott.

In short, oddly shortsighted interview with a batmaker. Maybe he just wanted to show off that Kranzenbuhler isn't the only one who can make big bats.

Seems like all the noise about big bats is coming out of Australia... Maybe they should consider not playing all internationals on roads?

exactly. not all big hitters are using bats that would be above the limit - look at umar akmal...he still seems to be using old Flare shape! Kohli has no problems smoking them using his "normal" bat.
Logged

InternalTraining

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4792
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2016, 02:32:13 AM »

The article is just silly. I am not sure what is James' point. It seems like it expresses the point-of-view of someone who doesn't play cricket!

1. Not every one can swing that big bat and achieve critical velocity needed to hit a six. When it comes to heavy bats, there is a point of diminishing return. I love my heavy bats but anything approaching 2-14 doesn't work for me unless I am wicked fast on my feet.

2. Put that "monster" in front a good spinner and he'd have the batter's fore arm aching in no time. It may not take a lot of strength to wield that 3-15 monster but after 20 overs, your arms would really wish that it weighed 2-12 or lighter. :D

3. There is a price paid for every physical activity and human body break down. Over time, body's time-to-recovery diminishes and god know what damage that big bat would do to a batter's back, forearms, and elbows. Sachin developed tennis elbow because of his heavy bats and switched to lighter bats later in his career.

4. Guys like Warner, Gayle, and KP are exceptions, not the rule. Sachin used a heavy bat but he was very smart about it: he choked the handle which made the top of the handle a counter weight. His swing arc was short and bat weight resulted in a quick snap-like action of the bat to the ball. Power and speed, you name it.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Big bats are not for everyone. As much as I am a fan of big bats, I would not touch that bat even if James Laver gave it to me for free. It is a useless bat!
Logged

Six Sixes Cricket

  • Forum Sponsor
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4339
  • Trade Count: (+20)
    • Six Sixes Cricket Ltd
Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2016, 06:31:09 AM »

@hell4leather cricket made one years ago

roco

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6991
  • Trade Count: (+16)
Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2016, 09:19:41 AM »

why limit the length of the bat?

surely tall people should have whatever length they like?
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.

ppccopener

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7790
  • Trade Count: (+6)
Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2016, 09:26:11 AM »

I find it very amusing reading these massive bat threads, don't limit the size of the depth/length/etc, stick two clefts together and say it's half legal,stick a graphite strip thru it.....

and as soon as anyone puts a fingernail thru the ball everyone is up in arms about illegal advantages for the bowler......

just seems ironic to me, and i'm a batsman(well I try)

 :)
Logged

sanredrose

Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2016, 06:17:52 PM »

The article and its arguments reminds me of Formula 1 rule making. Schumacher won 5 consecutive titles, lets change the rules and take away Ferrari's advantage. Mercedes is too tough to beat, lets take away the engine tokens and allow others to catch up. Either way someone will get creative and establish a performance advantage over other teams. Same would happen with cricket as well ...

Limiting bat dimensions is not going to help the cause. Six hitting has become second nature to some of the players with the advent on T20 and its here to stay. Players have worked very hard on improving their fitness, so many tools are available now to help improve hand eye co-ordination, bat swing, transfer body weight etc - the article seems to have discounted the fact that the players, coaches, trainers etc have been constantly improving immaterial of the bat dimension changes. 

I don't agree with the argument edges have become sixes. Top edges have always been sixes even with smaller bats. 1999 World Cup - Adam Gilchrist ran amok with his upper cut. Not always his upper cut worked, sometimes it would be a simple top edge sailing over third man or long stop. Same happens with hook and pull too. I have never seen a edge from cover drive going to six instead of landing in the slips. Edges going to sixes happens only on computer games with cheat code enabled ....

If a real parity between bat and ball is desired then its going to come from the pitch. Stop making pitches which offer no assistance to bowlers. I am not saying every country should make pitches tailored to some standard, but they should make pitches which make batsman earn their runs. Sub-continent can favor spin friendly pitches, Aussie for the bouncier ones, NZ & England for swing etc but make sure the pitch lasts the entire game.
Logged

kenbriooo

Re: Laver Monster
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2016, 06:40:31 PM »

Think the vast majority of people who pay to watch cricket would rather see runs over wickets. The focus must surely be on wickets that allow for an even contest.
Logged
"We’ll get them in singles" - George Hirst
Pages: 1 [2]
 

Advertise on CBF