As long as you don't have a ridiculously thin splice, toe or handle - they don't make a huge difference. That being said, if 2 bats come in at the same grade, weight, tapped up around the same - I'd go for the bigger one - purely psychological. (Assuming no storm damage or drying cracks etc)
In the end, a cricket bat is a tool which is made with a bunch of compromises and enhancements:
- Want a thicker handle? Better pick up/feel in stance, and more stiffness, but more dead weight and less feel when playing the ball
- Want a more imposing looking swell? Increased confidence, arguably increased power in the swell zone, but reduced toe and shoulders - meaning reduced durability
- Want a large swell, large shoulder and large toe? Sure, more dead weight, good durabi - oh, you want it 2.8 and busting the gauge? Narrowed, straw-like handle and overdried.
Things that really matter are quality of the materials used, the quality of the craftsmanship in the press, handling, shaping and balancing, and ultimately that you feel great with the bat in your hands at the crease. Size, like looks, is mostly vanity.
Sheesh, I went on a bit of a tangent - don't read below the line if you don't want to bore yourself to death... And yes, I am a little hypocritical in a way as I do have a fair few gauge busters - it's not an expectation of mine, but I am robbing some 2.6 users of their clefts...
==========================================================================================
Just my 2 cents after travelling around a bit and picking the brains of some batmakers:
A cricket bat can be split into the components which make it:
Handle
Binding
Glue
Cleft
For the handle, you'll have various factors like number of pieces, number and type inserts, etc etc. A stiffer handle will give you more power, but less feel, and a whippier handle will do the opposite to an extent. Key is to use a well made one which doesn't flex too much. And as a general rule of thumb, cork inserts = stiffer, rubber inserts = more flex/dampening. A high quality handle for me would be one with a bit of flex, but generally speaking solid, well glued together and well made with no gaps inside. (Appreciate it's near impossible to check for gaps inside a handle, but if the manufacturer is known to make good handles, you're generally in good hands.)
For the binding, something which you can wrap round the handle with a good amount of tension without snapping is pretty much what you need. Handles are glued together, so the binding will hold it together for longer. If you're the type to remove binding from your handles, make sure to at least wrap it tightly with some fibreglass tape or something!
For the glue, people used to use animal glue as it set super fast. From what I've read, it is susceptible to decay over time, but yet to hear someone say much about it with regards to it being an issue in cricket bats. With the number of older bats still around, with handles still intact, I'd say that it isn't an issue for bats. Wood glue is the most commonly used adhesive these days, and does the job.
Then for the cleft, many different batmakers say different things, but in general, what I've heard is:
- Bats with pressing cracks and storm damage tend to go like absolute clappers
- Grains don't really mean much
- Surface level blemishes don't do much - if anything, in the right spot can enhance a bat
- Low density means you can't quite get as much volume out of a cleft - it compresses a bit more, hence you will have a smaller cleft to work with overall. (Will still make a lighter bat for the volume) Low density also tends to break easier. (Less material/moisture in the blade)
- They need to be pressed, no matter what some people say about pros not getting bats pressed and purely prepped by knocking in.
Then you have the craftsmanship/knowledge applied. Here's where things get a bit funny, as every batmaker has a different experience with working with willow. I've had one maker tell me that the softer pressed bats went better after knocking, but didn't last, and hard pressed bats wouldn't get the ball off the square, but lasted a decade, and there was a happy medium in there. Others telling me that they would never press soft. Also had a maker tell me they concaved some bats in order to get a bit more whip/feel out of them, as they would feel too clunky otherwise.
In the end, any batmaker worth their salt should be able to press a bat well and should be using good quality materials. I guess it's up to the consumer to decide which batmaker's philosophy matches up to what they expect from a bat. I'm not gonna tell what people should or shouldn't expect, but don't be unrealistic - not every bat can be a gauge buster unless you want to use a heavier bat - in fact, the gauge has made things worse for some batmakers. If you look at bats pre-gauge, a concaved bat would have thick edges and a decent spine, and a convex would have a smaller edge and spine. Now some just expect the best of both worlds. Why are smaller and more custom batmakers expected to make bats that the bigger brands charge £600 for at half the price? And why do you deserve to get a cleft which would gain me a customer who uses 2.6 who would pay the same? (Again - I realise the hypocrisy)
Author
Topic: A topic to polarise opinion.....'Specs' are they all that? (Read 10119 times)