Print

[dcullen8]

although not sure what grounds that currently host international cricket who suddenly cannot host as they aren't big enough would say

Lords isnt that big straight, certainly not 85m?

[trypewriter]

Back in the day (1980s) we used to play 20 over mid week league cricket - evening games. The boundaries were the same as for weekend games, the only variance being where on the square the strip was cut.
It was a different mindset back then. If you scored 120, a run a ball, you expected to be able to defend it! 150 and you were on easy street. Obviously we weren't pro standard, but we tended to be much of a muchness on ability so games were usually quite close.
As an example I recall one game where the strip was cut on the edge of the square so there was a shorter boundary, but it still took a very good hit to clear it. We scored 170-odd with one of our openers getting a ton. The opposition knocked them off, one of their opener's replying with a ton of his own. The relatively shorter boundary obviously playing a part. This was on a first class grade pitch/ground which hosted county and A list matches.
There were no restrictions on bouncers or fielding, or on bat size.
Heavier bats were coming into vogue, this was the era of the Magnum and Jumbo and the Symonds Super Tusker, all of which were in common use on the club scene with bats in the 2-12 to 3lb range very much in favour. Using them effectively was a different matter - today's first class players are obviously fitter and stronger on average than the first class players back then - I wouldn't like to hazard a guess on the club player comparisons.
I think restrictions on bats would be a bad move. I'd be in favour of bigger boundaries and less draconian no ball rules.

[Jlscarroll17]

I don't agree with the restricting of bats, yes the massive bats help but it also depends on the skill of the batsman as well, who cares it a thick edge goes for 4 or 6 it brings more excitement to the game. why would you set a standard size for boundaries both teams have the opportunity to bat it so it's not as though it's a disadvantage to one team, don't you want exciting high scoring games on small grounds!? on smaller grounds the skill of the bowling is tested and on bugger grounds it's the skill of the batsman

[Sitonit]

I dont agree with the restricting of bat sizes. For me processes and technology has moved on enabling the production of these bats. Why isn't there the outcry over technology advances in lighter pads, gloves and shoes?

I would leave the bats alone and look at other ways of evening things up, boundary sizes at some grounds have got really small and think as suggested above a minimum size or something like that would be a start (although not sure what grounds that currently host international cricket who suddenly cannot host as they aren't big enough would say)

Riiiiiiiight.
So, if the argument is that, "it's the technology that has influenced the bats and lighter softs so we should be OK with it", THEN, how about we instill some technology in cricket ball, and produce a final product that will help the bowler swing and/or turn it heavily in any playing condition?
After all, it will be "technology", so we should be OK with such cricket balls.

[ProCricketer1982]

I don't agree with the restricting of bats, yes the massive bats help but it also depends on the skill of the batsman as well, who cares it a thick edge goes for 4 or 6 it brings more excitement to the game. why would you set a standard size for boundaries both teams have the opportunity to bat it so it's not as though it's a disadvantage to one team, don't you want exciting high scoring games on small grounds!? on smaller grounds the skill of the bowling is tested and on bugger grounds it's the skill of the batsman

High scoring doesn't mean it's more exciting though, in fact as we have seen, low scoring affairs are more enjoyable because it's not slog after slog after slog

[Sitonit]

High scoring doesn't mean it's more exciting though, in fact as we have seen, low scoring affairs are more enjoyable because it's not slog after slog after slog

That's what I am saying.

There are two aspects to it.

If it's a high scoring game then so be it; however, display your skills to score high in a good size ground.

Watching ugly slogs for six, miscued hits for six, top edges landing for six, compromising for a "high scoring team innings" is not really a whole lot of fun.

The second aspect is, watching too many of these sixes is now getting boring. There is hardly anymore thril left. There is no reaction - you just watch the ball land over the boundary with a stone cold face.

[adb club cricketer]

I think they should make more sporting wickets. Bat ball balance restored! There is no need to regulate bat sizes. At most the max weight can be set at 2-11 or so other than that having size restrictions will make it difficult to implement. Also bat ping is not related to sizes directly, so what is the point?

[ScottParko]

Bat edges to be reduced to 35mm and bat depth 60mm by Oct 2017.

[justnotcricket86]

https://twitter.com/theanalyst/status/752870660146335744

Amazing what the media can do

[OllieWalker39]

Seems a good idea to an extent depending on what you turn up to see! Do you turn up to see 200 runs in 20 overs on an evening, or prefer to see more of an even contest?!

[edge]

Stock up on your big bats now then! That is pretty small. Will be pretty embarrassing when it makes little difference.

[northernboy1987]

I'm firmly in the "make more sporting wickets" camp.

How does restricting bat size/weight "put the skills of the batsman to the test"? If at the moment I use a 3lb bat with 50mm edges and a 70mm spine there is nothing to stop my opposite number using the exact same bat. Like @skip1973 alluded to, if everyone has the choice of the same range of equipment and plays on the same pitch, surely it's a fair contest?

Just to play devil's advocate (I don't actually 100% agree with this haha), there's always the opposite argument too, if people think that modern "roads" are too batsman friendly you could always argue that perhaps uncovered wickets back in the day were too bowler friendly. Or perhaps modern bowlers just simply aren't good enough to prevent the big hits, perhaps new batting techniques have developed much quicker than bowling ones?

Also just so people don't think I'm biased I'm a bowling all rounder (barely good enough at either discipline to be honest ) so not just sticking up for the batsman

[smilley792]

I'm waiting for the moment the amateur league umpires get there bat gauges/weighing scales. And test everyone's bat as they come out to bat.

We've got plenty of umpires out there yeah?? They'll be more than happy to be doing this(as its declared one of the reasons I s due to balls flying out of grounds effecting the existence of smaller clubs).


I'm also waiting for the 5th xi game when apposing team say to the batting a sides own player who's umpiring. "That bats to big tell him to change it". "Okay, jim you'll have to use your sons bat today."
No worries Pete, I'll is it rush off and get it now"


Fun time ahead. It won't lead to any issues. At all..........

[petehosk]

I don't see a problem at First Class or International level.
But trying to implement these changes at village level? Most of us would have absolutely no real advantage by using a huge bat......in fact it is generally more of a disadvantage as they are generally heavier than our usual bat. So is it really worth implementing all the way down? 

[smilley792]

I don't see a problem at First Class or International level.
But trying to implement these changes at village level? Most of us would have absolutely no real advantage by using a huge bat......in fact it is generally more of a disadvantage as they are generally heavier than our usual bat. So is it really worth implementing all the way down? 

But Pete they mention the recreational game and plight of smaller clubs.




So they must want to implement it all the way through the game