Print

[uknsaunders]

surprised not to see a corr3 bat with a TT sloped shoulder - even more wood in the middle?

[tim2000s]

And with a Mongoose if you're playing defensive strokes against chest high bouncers, then it's not the bat to use. But when you're looking to attack, as Gareth Andrew did in the Pro40 against Tremlett and as he did against Finn in their CC Div 2 game (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24793373@N07/4993578440/). Then there are benefits to the shorter blade.

Yup, don't disagree with that. It backs up what I experienced.

[jonpinson]

Surely though Tim if there was no disadvantage to using a narrower blade, or to flip it, no advantage to using a wider one, why is there a rule in place which limits the maximum width to 4.25 inches? As to said if a narrower bat was more effective we would all be using junior width bats with extra meat behind them.

A middling bat is undoubtedly harder to use, hence why they are used to practice so when we come to use a full width bat in a match it feels easier to hit the ball.

I doubt in practice 6mm would actually make much difference, but there would be occasions where a thick edge through point turns into a thin edge to slips. Let's not use that though and look at it plainly, the most basic concept of cricket is to stop the ball hitting the stumps with your bat. It can't be denied that it is easier to do this with a wider blade...

[tim2000s]

Surely though Tim if there was no disadvantage to using a narrower blade, or to flip it, no advantage to using a wider one, why is there a rule in place which limits the maximum width to 4.25 inches? As to said if a narrower bat was more effective we would all be using junior width bats with extra meat behind them.

A middling bat is undoubtedly harder to use, hence why they are used to practice so when we come to use a full width bat in a match it feels easier to hit the ball.

I doubt in practice 6mm would actually make much difference, but there would be occasions where a thick edge through point turns into a thin edge to slips. Let's not use that though and look at it plainly, the most basic concept of cricket is to stop the ball hitting the stumps with your bat. It can't be denied that it is easier to do this with a wider blade...

Jon, I don't disagree with that statement. I wouldn't argue that there is no advantage to using a wider blade though.

I think the argument is a little more complex regarding a narrower blade.

I'd say that the percentage reduction in blade width to provide more middle that the Joker provides does not create a correspondingly equal  increase in liklelihood of getting out.

My use of the Joker with a decrease in width by 5.6% didn't appear to increase my probability of getting out either bowled or edged by an equivalent ratio. On average per net I will edge 1 or 2 balls behind and get bowled once. This ratio was maintained (and actually, when using the Mongoose was bettered, probably because I had to concentrate harder).

Unfortunately, I don't have as effective a mechanism for comparing performance of my shots between bat types. Does the more concentrated willow really improve my runs per scoring shot? I couldn't answer that. It "felt" like I was hitting the ball much more powerfully without using more effort, and the sonics of the situation enouraged me to think so. This led to me feeling more confident in what I was doing. That's a positive I guess as the more confident you are, the more likely you are to get in a good position and hit the ball with the right part of the bat...

Coming back to a point I've made before, I enjoy using bats like these. They leave me with a huge smile on my face. At my level, it's easy enough to get out and I don't think the slight width difference makes enough difference to notice. Other people may have a different opinion, that's my tuppence ha'penny !