Topic: Kohli's profile (Read 5068 times)

LEACHY48 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 18, 2020, 01:00:06 AM »

Quote from: Jimbo on December 17, 2020, 09:35:13 PM

Does that not have a lot to do with pro players playing mainly on good quality wickets with comparatively good pace and carry, and against bowlers who bowl mainly over 80mph?

I�ll see if I can find a link to the topic Crictec did on here.

edge · « **Reply #16 on:** December 18, 2020, 11:24:18 AM »

Quote from: LEACHY48 on December 17, 2020, 07:00:35 PM

Shape of bat has a totally negligible effect on bat performance. Your playing area will remain the same on any bat as long as it�s pressed well.

That shape looks lovely and will no doubt pick up fantastically

If all you do is tap up your bat with a mallet then sure, the playing area remains roughly the same. That isn't the same as how far a ball goes when you hit it, 'ping' is only one variable in that equation. Toe one a bit with that Kohli bat it's going nowhere, a bat with plenty of weight low saves you there. Not an issue for pros with superior technique and temperament, but very important for clubbies on the slog.

LEACHY48 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 18, 2020, 11:37:31 AM »

Quote from: edge on December 18, 2020, 11:24:18 AM

If all you do is tap up your bat with a mallet then sure, the playing area remains roughly the same. That isn't the same as how far a ball goes when you hit it, 'ping' is only one variable in that equation. Toe one a bit with that Kohli bat it's going nowhere, a bat with plenty of weight low saves you there. Not an issue for pros with superior technique and temperament, but very important for clubbies on the slog.

I have never had an issue with not being able to clear the ropes and I use a higher middled bat. In fact, almost everyone I play with uses a bat with a duckbill shape. I think there�s far too many people reading into cricket bats ultimately. Pick something you like the feel of, and go out and bat with it. If you like feeling the weight of the bat at the toe, crack on. If you like having a higher swell crack on. Ultimately I�d argue it won�t make the slightest bit of difference to how far the ball travels.

Also, no bat ever made goes off the toe - you�re not going to clear the ropes if you use the toe even if your bat is the same shape as the laver and wood legacy or that stupid baseball bat thing that JP Gavan made.

You�re not supposed to score runs off the toe, and I�ll use the example of the M&H original High, that had a fantastic mid/low driving area, with plenty of coverage up high, and yet, the bat had a �high� swell.

It�s also like you ignored the scoop/Gilchrist/tendulkar argument. The two latter examples didn�t toe the ball at all hardly, yet had a �Clubby Slog� profile 😂

LEACHY48 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 18, 2020, 01:49:01 PM »

Just as an aside to this, any good bat maker should be able to make you something to spec, so if you feel comfortable using a low swell bat, then more power to you, I�m not advocating for the Aldred �I know best because I�m making it approach�, I�m just saying that I would happily go out to bat with anything I liked the feel of irrespective of shape.

I�m not massively fussy on that front, but if you as a consumer wants a specific shape then by all means get a bat maker to make it.

After all, cricket is 90% mental, and if you don�t feel comfortable with your kit then you�ve lost half the battle before the ball is bowled.

edge · « **Reply #19 on:** December 18, 2020, 02:50:23 PM »

Quote from: LEACHY48 on December 18, 2020, 11:37:31 AM

Also, no bat ever made goes off the toe - you�re not going to clear the ropes if you use the toe even if your bat is the same shape as the laver and wood legacy or that stupid baseball bat thing that JP Gavan made.

You�re not supposed to score runs off the toe, and I�ll use the example of the M&H original High, that had a fantastic mid/low driving area, with plenty of coverage up high, and yet, the bat had a �high� swell.

It�s also like you ignored the scoop/Gilchrist/tendulkar argument. The two latter examples didn�t toe the ball at all hardly, yet had a �Clubby Slog� profile 😂

I toe them for six all the time mate! 😂 Not talking right off the cue end, but with a duckbill if you're a couple of inches low then you do lose distance.

M&H harlequin profile was lovely to be fair.

I think you've misunderstood the whole point behind a Scoop if you think it's relevant here.
Gilchrist and Sehwag were club sloggers!? 😧 I genuinely don't see what relevancy they have, but let's check...
Here's a shot I found from probably Gilchrist's most famous innings - WC final vs SL. What low middle?

and here's Viru, looks a bloody lovely shape this:

LEACHY48 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 18, 2020, 04:23:10 PM »

Quote from: edge on December 18, 2020, 02:50:23 PM

I toe them for six all the time mate! 😂 Not talking right off the cue end, but with a duckbill if you're a couple of inches low then you do lose distance.

M&H harlequin profile was lovely to be fair.

I think you've misunderstood the whole point behind a Scoop if you think it's relevant here.
Gilchrist and Sehwag were club sloggers!? 😧 I genuinely don't see what relevancy they have, but let's check...
Here's a shot I found from probably Gilchrist's most famous innings - WC final vs SL. What low middle?

and here's Viru, looks a bloody lovely shape this:

I mentioned Tendulkar and Gilchrist because they both used low middled bats - see here:

All of those images are a low middle - mid to low at best. Yet they played on the �bouncy fast pro decks� my question was, why would they do this if shape made a huge difference? Why would they not all use an amplus shaped bat for Australia? And a tendulkar shaped bat for England? Why wouldn�t every pro do this? Why would they limit themselves by not using the optimal shape for the conditions if it made a huge difference?

The scoop was thrown in there because it has no spine, and is essentially designed to all be �middle� . This shape wouldn�t work, if the entire reasons bats performed was due to the spine profile, regardless of what �perimiterweighting� marketing they want to attach to it.

Jimbo · « **Reply #21 on:** December 18, 2020, 04:29:16 PM »

Is there not an argument that with the quality of willow available to these elite players that shape becomes irrelevant? If you've got a bat that has a good amount of wood through it, is excellently pressed and you can reject anything that doesn't meet your standards then shape probably doesn't matter much. If you're not using a top quality, low density bat that has been filtered for you by experts and then you've filtered yourself, maybe an argument to say shape does have more bearing on performance. Just a thought.

LEACHY48 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 18, 2020, 04:35:52 PM »

Quote from: Jimbo on December 18, 2020, 04:29:16 PM

Is there not an argument that with the quality of willow available to these elite players that shape becomes irrelevant? If you've got a bat that has a good amount of wood through it, is excellently pressed and you can reject anything that doesn't meet your standards then shape probably doesn't matter much. If you're not using a top quality, low density bat that has been filtered for you by experts and then you've filtered yourself, maybe an argument to say shape does have more bearing on performance. Just a thought.

Is that not what we do every day when we pick out our bats though? You pick out the one that is best pressed, and picks up the best, and is in a shape you think looks good and offers the most coverage? ?

I�m not saying we get the same stuff the pros do all the time, because obviously that isn�t true, but I�d argue that you can get a bat with all of the above that you�ve mentioned from many suppliers. I�d also argue that the majority on this forum wouldn�t buy a bat unless they were sure it was excellently pressed, with good coverage up and down the blade.

Also, many on here would argue that pro bats are no different to a top end bat. Does that not nullify the argument you�ve presented if that�s the case?

edge · « **Reply #23 on:** December 18, 2020, 04:56:23 PM »

Quote from: LEACHY48 on December 18, 2020, 04:23:10 PM

I mentioned Tendulkar and Gilchrist because they both used low middled bats - see here:

All of those images are a low middle - mid to low at best. Yet they played on the �bouncy fast pro decks� my question was, why would they do this if shape made a huge difference? Why would they not all use an amplus shaped bat for Australia? And a tendulkar shaped bat for England? Why wouldn�t every pro do this? Why would they limit themselves by not using the optimal shape for the conditions if it made a huge difference?

The scoop was thrown in there because it has no spine, and is essentially designed to all be �middle� . This shape wouldn�t work, if the entire reasons bats performed was due to the spine profile, regardless of what �perimiterweighting� marketing they want to attach to it.

I don't think I'd call any of the Gilchrist ones low middle, peak of the spine is very high up. Tendulkar obviously, but then he made very weird bat choices all round. Sehwag you brought up and was a much higher middle than I expected to be honest.
What I don't understand is where you're going with this - as you brought up, it's the player not the conditions that determines where on the bat you hit it. You and me would actually be a good contrast - noone would be surprised to see that we end up with our bats marked in pretty different places! (for those who haven't seen us both bat, Leachy is quite short in stature and bats properly, I am rather lankier and do not). A high middle bat is pretty useless to me and a low middle bat would be all wrong for you.

The scoop was intended to perform better for off centre hits, which it is well documented as doing very well at - the weight being distributed round the edges means it twists less under impact than a comparable bat with more weight in the spine and smaller edges. It's actually a great example of how changing the shape of a bat changes how it performs!

LEACHY48 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 18, 2020, 05:08:36 PM »

Quote from: edge on December 18, 2020, 04:56:23 PM

I don't think I'd call any of the Gilchrist ones low middle, peak of the spine is very high up. Tendulkar obviously, but then he made very weird bat choices all round. Sehwag you brought up and was a much higher middle than I expected to be honest.
What I don't understand is where you're going with this - as you brought up, it's the player not the conditions that determines where on the bat you hit it. You and me would actually be a good contrast - noone would be surprised to see that we end up with our bats marked in pretty different places! (for those who haven't seen us both bat, Leachy is quite short in stature and bats properly, I am rather lankier and do not). A high middle bat is pretty useless to me and a low middle bat would be all wrong for you.

The scoop was intended to perform better for off centre hits, which it is well documented as doing very well at - the weight being distributed round the edges means it twists less under impact than a comparable bat with more weight in the spine and smaller edges. It's actually a great example of how changing the shape of a bat changes how it performs!

I didn�t bring up Sehwag, but regardless, the point I�m making is the shape of the bat doesn�t actually impact how much of a hitting zone you get on a bat.

My point about the scoop was that the total lack of spine does not diminish the playing area. Which you�ve confirmed it doesn�t - this is case in point that spine peaks don�t really mean much in terms of performance.

But...

It�s clear we aren�t ever going to agree on this. So as I said earlier, to each their own. I will continue using bats that I like the feel of irrespective of the shape 🤷‍♂️

SLA · « **Reply #25 on:** December 18, 2020, 05:29:06 PM »

If you hit the ball further away from the centre of percussion, energy is dissipated as vibrations rather than being transferred into the ball. hence the reason toeing or splicing the ball hurts your hands and the ball lobs to an infielder rather than clearing the ropes.

When we say bats have lower middles we literally mean the centre of percussion is closer to the toe - probably about 2 inches lower than a high middle bat, so not a huge amount.

But this does mean that there is a valid scientific reason why high and low middle bats will perform slightly differently depending on how high up the bat you hit the ball.

The other shaping choices regarding high spines, thick edges, concaving and scooping is about balancing another payoff - the higher the spine, the greater the overall rigidity (hence less vibrations and better transfer of energy), whereas a more laterally distributed profile like a scoop creates better rotational stability, meaning the bat loses less energy through twisting on an off-centre shot.

Jimbo · « **Reply #26 on:** December 18, 2020, 05:30:11 PM »

Quote from: LEACHY48 on December 18, 2020, 04:35:52 PM

Is that not what we do every day when we pick out our bats though? You pick out the one that is best pressed, and picks up the best, and is in a shape you think looks good and offers the most coverage? ?

I�m not saying we get the same stuff the pros do all the time, because obviously that isn�t true, but I�d argue that you can get a bat with all of the above that you�ve mentioned from many suppliers. I�d also argue that the majority on this forum wouldn�t buy a bat unless they were sure it was excellently pressed, with good coverage up and down the blade.

Also, many on here would argue that pro bats are no different to a top end bat. Does that not nullify the argument you�ve presented if that�s the case?

First point, yes. But do the bats I select from get personally filtered for me by the elite bat makers at my personal sponsor? Can I then decide to try out 8 of the same bat in order to select my match bat? Could I ask for 10 replacements till I get on I like?

Yes, but there's a limit to how much we can check or confirm that, and obviously for the majority budget is a limiting factor.

Again, budget would be my big limiting factor. How many of us could afford to get say 6 top end bats at once to decide which we thought performed best in our hands? I'd imagine comparatively few. Every elite pro is able to do this.

InternalTraining · « **Reply #27 on:** December 18, 2020, 05:33:32 PM »

Quote from: SLA on December 18, 2020, 05:29:06 PM

The other shaping choices regarding high spines, thick edges, concaving and scooping is about balancing another payoff - the higher the spine, the greater the overall rigidity (hence less vibrations and better transfer of energy), whereas a more laterally distributed profile like a scoop creates better rotational stability, meaning the bat loses less energy through twisting on an off-centre shot.

That's interesting. So, if the bounce is unpredictable, you are better off with a bat with high spine but a on a turning pitch, scoop (or Trott profile) will do well. Is that correct?

InternalTraining · « **Reply #28 on:** December 18, 2020, 05:36:20 PM »

Quote from: LEACHY48 on December 18, 2020, 12:52:47 AM

Interestingly enough, Crictec (a brand some of you may or may not remember) sent out testing sheets to loads of people, and in the testing it was found that playing surfaces are largely irrelevant, and players hit the ball generally in the same spots on their bats irrespective of �soft pitches� or �hard pitches�.

Right. That was Crictec's finding after analyzing those impact sheets and , also, that players hit the ball higher on the bat than the think they do.

He had very interesting ideas about bats including measurement of the swing weight.

edge · « **Reply #29 on:** December 18, 2020, 05:36:34 PM »

Quote from: LEACHY48 on December 18, 2020, 05:08:36 PM

I didn�t bring up Sehwag, but regardless, the point I�m making is the shape of the bat doesn�t actually impact how much of a hitting zone you get on a bat..

I see you've edited the Sehwag out, very good. Yes that's where we started - it does!

Quote from: LEACHY48 on December 18, 2020, 05:08:36 PM

I will continue using bats that I like the feel of irrespective of the shape 🤷‍♂️

Everyone likes bats they do well with, can't go too far wrong 👍

Author Topic: Kohli's profile (Read 5068 times)

LEACHY48

Re: Kohli's profile

edge

Re: Kohli's profile

LEACHY48

Re: Kohli's profile

LEACHY48

Re: Kohli's profile

edge

Re: Kohli's profile

LEACHY48

Re: Kohli's profile

Jimbo

Re: Kohli's profile

LEACHY48

Re: Kohli's profile

edge

Re: Kohli's profile

LEACHY48

Re: Kohli's profile

SLA

Re: Kohli's profile

Jimbo

Re: Kohli's profile

InternalTraining

Re: Kohli's profile

InternalTraining

Re: Kohli's profile

edge

Re: Kohli's profile