Print

[Northern monkey]

Non official forum net at eversley on the 27th if you want us to put one through its paces?

[Chad]

I actually quite like that shape, wasn't so sure of it to start with, but looks to have a HUGE playing area. Is the spine around 65mm throughout? Any prototype/trial ones available for sale?

[procricket]

I'm lead to believe they have 5 made up???

[petehosk]

As has been said - not the nicest looking profile!
But if the rules do come in, then it is a reasonable idea to look at the best performing bat under he new legislation.

From a logic point of view this bat should have a very long middle! And should perform really well as well!
But also from a logic point of view the pick-up should be heavy!
Saying that, 95% of us can look past an ugly profile if the performance makes us go "CORRRR BLIMEY! Sorry bowler, do you need an ice pack for that lump?"

Would be interesting to try one of these babies!

[FattusCattus]

I LOVE IT!!!!!  It's a beautiful shape, very exciting, and bound to make me a better batsman!

They start at 2.10 you say.......................

[procricket]

As has been said - not the nicest looking profile!
But if the rules do come in, then it is a reasonable idea to look at the best performing bat under he new legislation.

From a logic point of view this bat should have a very long middle! And should perform really well as well!
But also from a logic point of view the pick-up should be heavy!
Saying that, 95% of us can look past an ugly profile if the performance makes us go "CORRRR BLIMEY! Sorry bowler, do you need an ice pack for that lump?"

Would be interesting to try one of these babies!

Not logic really yes the cut outs at the top but because of the bill lower down and the fact the bat has moe wood than most higher up through the spine equal it out nicely but agree will be nice to try out will see what I can do for you southern guys....

[WSB]

They'd be pretty easy to manufacture - a couple of tapered ends and one long consistent profile. Certainly a lot easier than concaving and custom profiling bats with variable pick ups and consideration into where to put the mass of the weight and spine. If thats the future of bat design then there will be a lot of bat makers able to churn those out with absolute minimum effort. If the MCC change the law then it'll just be a question of where the tapers go depending upon weight preferences. As it stands the bat may well essentially become one long profiled cleft with a huge middle. It hopefully means controlling bat size may need to be given a little more consideration before they stipulate a set parameter otherwise the MCC are just creating a new issue - batsmen that can smash miss hit sixes off the splice. Batsmen who like a huge bigger bat like Chris Gayle may opt for a new design of a super mini short handle and a lot of wood in a longer shoulder - a full profile cleft with a toe. What if a batsman likes a 3lb plus bat - will there be room for just the one toe taper on a bat!?

Kiln drying changed the cricket bat size (and longevity) but is there a way of turning back in regards to that ? The alternative would be to control drying methods and moisture content as thats where the real secret to a big bats is. Control the cleft not the bat. If the MCC did restrict kiln drying technology in some way then maybe that would be a better answer than just regulating measurements - but far more difficult to oversee (unless umpires carried moisture meters and batsmen allowed them to stick metal prongs in their bats instead of carrying a plastic size template). You can air dry clefts using natural (and innovative) methods to a reasonable weight content without a kiln - it just takes a lot longer (4 or 5 years instead of 4 months) and the moisture levels aren't quite as dramatically reduced to 10% and below. They'd balance out at about 14% in the UK - and thats with serious effort. Id get the MCC to start looking there rather than them being misled into thinking that simply reducing bat measurements are the key to reducing bat sizes.

Well done B3 for highlighting what might happen should bat sizes become restricting - the MCC would just create a brand new way of batsmen having an advantage. No longer big fat edges just huge long spines. Cleft technology is what needs looking into before the bat maker gets knobbled and the market gets completely flooded by Beluga shaped cleft-esque bats. There has been a huge rise in bat innovation in the last 15 years and introducing size restrictions will backfire I think - for both the game and the bat maker. As the saying goes a tonne of feathers weighs the same as a tonne of lead - regardless of the container shape. 

[Woodyspin]

This will destroy cricket, showing that having a fixed size to conform to, you can spread the rest of the weight that you're over by to the rest of the bat without a swell... and as it was said in the video... its basically a railway sleeper with a handle! Where's the variety? where's the difference between bat and ball? You not just have fairly decent sized but as a decent wait with a promising middle that offers no help to the bowlers. This is a bit like when they created A1 where all the cars were the same and the drivers were different, which was apparently supposed to be bigger than F1... whats happened to that again? oh yeah...

[procricket]

This will destroy cricket, showing that having a fixed size to conform to, you can spread the rest of the weight that you're over by to the rest of the bat without a swell... and as it was said in the video... its basically a railway sleeper with a handle! Where's the variety? where's the difference between bat and ball? You not just have fairly decent sized but as a decent wait with a promising middle that offers no help to the bowlers. This is a bit like when they created A1 where all the cars were the same and the drivers were different, which was apparently supposed to be bigger than F1... whats happened to that again? oh yeah...

or it will mean the bats your currently use will be the same just a lot smaller.

Coverage on bats has been immense for a long period I think it restrictive the size but hey that's my theory size means nothing compared to weight.

As for a railway sleeper with a handle it been happening for years Tendulker shape was basically that and used more weight from a JS Wright standard cleft as almost possible...

Not agreeing with the potential rule but all it means is bats will be smaller..

If you will,  what happening now is basically taking the extra swell and edges that only oversized clefts can bring...

[smilley792]

It'll be interesting to see what happens at our level. In the amateur m game.


So you've saved and scrimped and bought a bat you want for around 400 quid. It's got to last you ten years.

Yet every time you trott out to use it an ump says "not today bats to big, get another one"

How pissed off at the game are you gonna be?

What if no team mates are interested in lending you one?

What if they do and you break it? Who's gonna lend you another?



5 games in to a season you think, sod this. And you stop playing.





Have the Mcc thought about the casual cricketers that will just see it as another hindrance to play if there current willow doesn't conform???

It's meant to be all about playing numbers this days, yet non off the ideas that get implemented seem to help.

[Centurion]

If this "rule" actually starts being enforced, it would be the most stupid thing the mcc has done. Balls will still fly over the ropes but it will just piss off people that want a game of cricket at the weekend because they are being told to use a different bat. The size won't make a difference according to Newton's law f =ma

[The Doctor]

They'd be pretty easy to manufacture - a couple of tapered ends and one long consistent profile. Certainly a lot easier than concaving and custom profiling bats with variable pick ups and consideration into where to put the mass of the weight and spine. If thats the future of bat design then there will be a lot of bat makers able to churn those out with absolute minimum effort. If the MCC change the law then it'll just be a question of where the tapers go depending upon weight preferences. As it stands the bat may well essentially become one long profiled cleft with a huge middle. It hopefully means controlling bat size may need to be given a little more consideration before they stipulate a set parameter otherwise the MCC are just creating a new issue - batsmen that can smash miss hit sixes off the splice. Batsmen who like a huge bigger bat like Chris Gayle may opt for a new design of a super mini short handle and a lot of wood in a longer shoulder - a full profile cleft with a toe. What if a batsman likes a 3lb plus bat - will there be room for just the one toe taper on a bat!?

Kiln drying changed the cricket bat size (and longevity) but is there a way of turning back in regards to that ? The alternative would be to control drying methods and moisture content as thats where the real secret to a big bats is. Control the cleft not the bat. If the MCC did restrict kiln drying technology in some way then maybe that would be a better answer than just regulating measurements - but far more difficult to oversee (unless umpires carried moisture meters and batsmen allowed them to stick metal prongs in their bats instead of carrying a plastic size template). You can air dry clefts using natural (and innovative) methods to a reasonable weight content without a kiln - it just takes a lot longer (4 or 5 years instead of 4 months) and the moisture levels aren't quite as dramatically reduced to 10% and below. They'd balance out at about 14% in the UK - and thats with serious effort. Id get the MCC to start looking there rather than them being misled into thinking that simply reducing bat measurements are the key to reducing bat sizes.

Well done B3 for highlighting what might happen should bat sizes become restricting - the MCC would just create a brand new way of batsmen having an advantage. No longer big fat edges just huge long spines. Cleft technology is what needs looking into before the bat maker gets knobbled and the market gets completely flooded by Beluga shaped cleft-esque bats. There has been a huge rise in bat innovation in the last 15 years and introducing size restrictions will backfire I think - for both the game and the bat maker. As the saying goes a tonne of feathers weighs the same as a tonne of lead - regardless of the container shape.

Cleft technology nor bat moisture content will have no effect either - the bat will still be 2lb 12oz, and being swung at the same swing speed .... and how would you monitor it???

What NEEDS to happen is the MCC need look at alternate ways, and when I say alternate ways, I mean methods that will actually work - been highlighted on a previous thread.

[edge]

Come on guys, it's a daft rule but it won't destroy cricket, and it won't affect the amateur game in the slightest. Previous rule changes (carbon handles/backs etc banned) have been banned from manufacture but not use in the amateur game, I'm sure there's still a few Ricky Pointing graphite Kahunas out there in club cricket for example. MCC have I think even already said that the same would apply in this case should the change go through. Plus let's be honest, lams are banned and it's not like you can't buy or use them.

Worst case scenario, all batmakers stop making big bats and we have to make do with 35mm edges. Last time I looked batting was about the batsman rather than the bat anyway (sacrilege!), and it's not like you couldn't still pick a bat you like. Most of my bats probably wouldn't quite make it through the new rules, but the one I own that definitely would is the best bat I've ever owned anyway! Life, and cricket bat marketing, will move on.

[WSB]

Cleft technology nor bat moisture content will have no effect either - the bat will still be 2lb 12oz, and being swung at the same swing speed .... and how would you monitor it???

What NEEDS to happen is the MCC need look at alternate ways, and when I say alternate ways, I mean methods that will actually work - been highlighted on a previous thread.

Im not so sure - a modern light 2lb 12oz cleft allows a long parallel profile. A heavy old fashioned 2lb 12oz cleft would restrict the possible length of the parallel edge and the spine so innovation would be necessary again. Its the moisture and kiln drying that allowed the large modern bats to evolve. The concaving allowed the big edges to become bigger. As innovative as the bat makers are I don't think the modern shapes would have been anywhere near possible without the modern form of the raw material in the trade. 6% for some pro's bats like Warners Im led to believe with all sorts of additional drying. I have it in mind that Wrights - who staunchly refuse to manufacture clefts above 45mm in edge thickness - are part involved in the desire for bat restrictions for their own end gain. They're MCC old boys after all and run the willow trade - hand in glove. All that aside, if the MCC want to reduce bat size they need to do more than just look at bat measurements. Thats a pretty numb approach to it. That'll just squeeze the same amount of wood into new areas. Its like a balloon - it'll have the same amount of air inside so just change shape when you squeeze it. Unless you take some of the air out. Monitoring moisture would be pretty difficult I agree - maybe impossible. Maybe not. Its when it leaves the merchants where it could be assessed - they're the root cause of it all despite them trying to pass the buck onto the bat maker. The bat maker only took advantage of the raw materials that they were given during the last 15 years and utilised it to their full potential - and why wouldn't they ? Unless they restrict bat size AND weight then they're just morphing one problem into another (if it is in fact a problem). But you can't restrict bat weight - that'd be unfair on the big lads who actually need to use heavy bats - its a relative thing. Maybe they need a sliding scale for profile sizes available for different weights - so if a bat weighs 3lb then they would have the option of increased spine and edge size. The umpire could still have a template to check profiles against but maybe a series of them that differ according to the bat weight. Thats just an off the cuff thought written as I type though !

You'd also churn out more Baluga bats a day on a saw than on a CNC machine - theyre like posh clefts basically ! Not great for bat making or bat makers.

[The Doctor]

Monitoring moisture would be pretty difficult I agree - maybe impossible. Maybe not. Its when it leaves the merchants where it could be assessed

Then bat makers will buy kilns (the ones that have n't got them already).

This argument is as equally as bad as the MCC's.

The best way to readdress the balance is to look elsewhere;

1. Ball - longer periods of use/ more pronounced seem / engineered irregularities
2. Fielding restrictions
3. Uncovered wickets