Print

[InternalTraining]

My initial post was more intended as 'does a 40mm edge matter over a 35mm edge etc'. This is what i think most people would think of when someone asks 'What are the specs', rather than node of percussion or weight.

People have probably learned to associate good performance with those measurements because there is nothing else they can measure. Can you really measure ping of a bat? Objectively?

I was trying to ascertain if people felt it was important in terms of performance, longevity etc and why we'd seemingly become obsessed with edge size, spine height etc. I get it may give confidence or a more aggressive mindset, but benefits in actual performance?

They are something to hang the idea of performance on; there is nothing else they can measure, nothing else to compare against other sticks in the shop/friends' kit bag. If there was better information out there, people would use that to measure performance. I think it is a desperate attempt to make sense of things. Placebo effect is a real thing.

You mentioned a thick toe may help when digging out yorkers, but does it actually? Did Yorkers not exist back in the days before thick toes? Or did we just accept toes blowed out if you hit a Yorker?  Similarly, did batters struggle on hard bouncy pitches before big edges?

Anecdotally, sure. There is no study to prove one way or the other. This is the thing with cricket, it is all about feeling.

[CricketXI]

I think when we say 42-45 mm edge 67-70 mm spine, we are talking about the apex point on the bat not the entire length of the bat,

So if there is a bat with apex 42/68 and nothing at the toe and the shoulder will more likely be a non-durable and less forgiving.

But a bat with 37/61 apex and good amount of everywhere around will be more durable and forgiving.

As for Professionals they get bats per their preferences some like condensed middle-mostly top order batters and some like even spread of wood -Mostly the power hitters/finishers -but they mostly get big bats. I can only remember Quinton de kock who was using concaved bat when he was with GM, after moving to SS he too is using convex/fuller bat

And the trend of big bats came from International players not from clubbies- So I think there should be something with the big bats that professionals were liking them and ICC had to introduce the laws and we hear commentators all the time speaking about big/modern bats all the times, and why would a manufacturer make something that can not be replicated for the market and retail shops.

The big bat trend is similar to what Australian team started with moving middle of the bat up or down depending on the Condition (Higher middles for AUS and SA and lower middle for Sun-continent )and then other teams started following.

Now  players do not carry as many condition specific bats as they used to.

[jonny77]

Again, no real proof that bigger is better.....commentators say a lot of things! 😆 The Pro's I've spoken to about it say it's more a visual/confidence thing, rather than a performance benefit. Surely modern Pro's hit more sixes than us clubbies/players of old as they're better, more skilled, stonger and practice hitting all the time?

In terms of brands not making bats that can't be replicated, don't they do this? 'Players Editions', are very different to the usual ots bats. It's also why we now see narrowing, dryer willow, light handles and grips, thin toes/shoulders etc. So brands can make 'big bats' at light weights.
 

[Yorkershire]

If you ever studied a little bit of physics:

F = m x a

Force = mass x acceleration

So you can either have a heavier bat or bring the bat through faster on the shot. Density isn't an issue, but having some mass in the hitting area is obvious.

I've had a chat with Jonny about this... and agree it's all psychological. Having a bat a particular size gives confidence and reassurance. Best bat I have had was a Charlie French and that wasn't massive.

Ultimately it's all mental and if it helps you then go for it! Do what makes you happy 

[edge]

Quoting f=ma without understanding what it means is a real pet hate of mine - you obviously didn't study a little bit of physics!

F  = the force acting on an object
M = the object's mass
A = the object's acceleration, or change in speed over time.

Not helpful for assessing how hard a bat will hit a ball.

[Yorkershire]

Quoting f=ma without understanding what it means is a real pet hate of mine - you obviously didn't study a little bit of physics!

F  = the force acting on an object
M = the object's mass
A = the object's acceleration, or change in speed over time.

Not helpful for assessing how hard a bat will hit a ball.

Yes but it will give you a guide to the force acting on the ball 
 

[edge]

Yes but it will give you a guide to the force acting on the ball 

It will, but the relevant mass in F=MA is of the ball, not the bat.

[Yorkershire]

It will, but the relevant mass in F=MA is of the ball, not the bat.

Surely its the mass of the bat and the force being exerted on the ball?

[edge]

Surely its the mass of the bat and the force being exerted on the ball?

No, this is entirely my point. The force applied to an object is equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration. F, M and A all belong to the same object - either the bat or the ball, not a mix of the two.

[Yorkershire]

No, this is entirely my point. The force applied to an object is equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration. F, M and A all belong to the same object - either the bat or the ball, not a mix of the two.

Okay we are saying the same thing. I am assuming the ball is bowled the same and all its variables stay constant in each scenario.

I am looking at the bat and its force on the ball with only mass of the bat and or the acceleration of the bat being variants.

[edge]

Okay we are saying the same thing. I am assuming the ball is bowled the same and all its variables stay constant in each scenario.

I am looking at the bat and its force on the ball with only mass of the bat and or the acceleration of the bat being variants.

We definitely aren't saying the same thing lol. How exactly are you using F=MA to calculate how the force applied to the ball varies with the mass or acceleration of the bat?

[Yorkershire]

[edge]

Again, that's not what F=MA means.

[Yorkershire]

Again, that's not what F=MA means.

I give up.. feel free to post an explanation.

[Yorkershire]

I concede 

Hands up been a while but I get ya