Evening all! OK, about time for an update on this, now 2 months into the season. I've had 3 further knocks since last time I wrote - the football, the family and the slightly eccentric fixture list have got in the way of things. But, I've been in decent form, adding 32, 63* and 21 to my previous efforts.
I'm happy to report that the bat remains in one piece, and has now seen me through around 128 overs. The fast outfields have flattered my shot value which is great, I guess I've faced about 400 deliveries and have hit about 40 4s. Still facing the new ball, still facing the freshest bowlers. So, all good, and the bat itself has really started to open up. I would recommend it, but it's one-of-a-kind as you know.
However, as you can see in the photos below, there is indeed a clear correlation between the lines of cracks across the face, and the lines of storm damage that show across the back. This is interesting, and I am prepared to concede that 'damage-caused-by-wind' is after all, a thing. It seems to me that willow follows Hookes Law, which we all remember from O Level Physics. Storm damage appears when the tree slightly exceeds its elasticity limit, enough to mark the wood, but not so much that the tree snaps or falls over.
But! I also strongly believe that this concession does to some extent start to prove my point. In my opinion, storm damage is a symptom of catastrophic bat failure, but is not the cause. My feeling is that my bat will crack, but not break, because the higher moisture content at cellular level will continue to bind the fibres of the wood together. In cases like the Carberry incident, the timber fractured along the storm damaged line because it was dried too far, not because of the winds the tree was subjected to as it grew.
So, feel free to continue the debate. I'll keep playing, and reporting on progress.
Author
Topic: The Storm Damage myth (Read 12938 times)