Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Rocket Bats

  1. #1
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426

    Rocket Bats

    Having seen Pieterson's reverse sweep for six, you have to ask the question: are the rocket bats of today making a mockery of the game? Barring moving all cricket to much much bigger grounds, or putting lead in the ball rather than cork, has the time come for some more rules governing the construction of bats? Laws of the same spirit are already in place, in terms of trying to ensure an even contest between bat and ball, ie size limits, no metal bats, etc, but the spirit of those laws are surely being contravened by the super bats people use today. Top edges go for six, forward defensive shots go to the fence leaving Back to the Future trails of flame, its silly!

    I'm not very ofae with the construction of bats, what have they started doing to them to make them so much more powerful? They're not full of cork like fixed baseball bats are they?
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  2. #2
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    It's not just the construction of the bats now, it's that the players seldom use a bat more than a couple of times...from Z-Score's Stats Blog :
    Another recent report tells how Hershelle Gibbs used at least 47 different
    bats in a single year. These bats were needed for no more than 47 innings in
    senior cricket in 2004, scoring just 1547 runs. Apparently the bats are not
    rolled or hardened, thus offering more spring and power, but wearing out
    incredibly quickly.

  3. #3
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend andyc's Avatar
    Yeti Sports 1.5 Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    23,856
    Yeah, I agree that it does seem to be getting a bit ridiculous. In terms of when it started happening, I'd say in about the last 10 years or so. I would like to see some tighter restrictions enforced though. I mean, when McGrath can hit a six, you know something's wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

  4. #4
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,472
    Even allowing for the fact that some grounds are ridiculously small (Edgbaston requires little more than a chip to clear the ropes and KP's reverse sweep would only have lobbed well inside the boundary at most Aus grounds), a bat is still only as good as the player wielding it.

    As for Gibbs, there's a school of thought that believes bats are better without being subject to oiling, hitting in, etc. Also oiling is believed to change the weight of the bat.

    Unfortunately, that affords the bat little protection and, as such, they break readily.

    Its OK for Gibbs because the sponsor picks up the tab but it's not something recommended for those paying their own way.


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    I'm not very ofae with the construction of bats, what have they started doing to them to make them so much more powerful? They're not full of cork like fixed baseball bats are they?
    Corking a bat in baseball does not make the bat more powerful.

    It is done to reduce the weight whilst keeping the bat the same dimensions. It is done to increase the bat speed of a batter (he can swing a lighter bat quicker through the air) and the actual benefits are generally considered more psychological than real.
    Last edited by Goughy; 28-05-2006 at 05:56 AM.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  6. #6
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    I like having bats the way they are. I think that bats today can reward better timing by people like Trescothick and Sachin who can just punch the ball back down the pitch.

    I don't think that's it's really lowering the standard of cricket, and i hate this 'top-edges-go-for-six' idea because top edged 6s are only when a batsman misses a hook and i'm pretty sure that they existed 20 years ago.

  7. #7
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by open365
    I like having bats the way they are. I think that bats today can reward better timing by people like Trescothick and Sachin who can just punch the ball back down the pitch.

    I don't think that's it's really lowering the standard of cricket, and i hate this 'top-edges-go-for-six' idea because top edged 6s are only when a batsman misses a hook and i'm pretty sure that they existed 20 years ago.
    The point is that in years gone by, you wouldn't have top edged sweeps and the like going for six so easily because a) the boundaries were further out, and b) the bats weren't so good as to make a mis-hit go for six.

  8. #8
    International Debutant Majin's Avatar
    TIE Fighter Shooter Champion!
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,784
    It can't be helping them that much if Sri Lanka managed 141 and 231 all out. At the end of the day whether it's better bats or not it still takes the players to be able to actually get something on the ball for it to go anywhere, and KP is a fairly big chap.

  9. #9
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,197
    I think that carbon fibre (or something) handles which are lighter are being used in some bats. It makes the pick-up a little weird, but reduces the weight of the bat by a fair bit.

  10. #10
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,159
    Yeah I'd definitely heard that it was the softness of the willow which has resulted in a lot of the power. As Dasa said, the very best willow ends up with the Test players and the softness increases power. The trade-off is durability but when you have endless bats at your disposal, that factor is removed. Not much you can really do about that........
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  11. #11
    U19 12th Man dro87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    291
    Many players use (mainly in ODI's) unpressed bats, which permits u to hit the ball further, but can break anytime... No one would buy these bats because last not more than a game...

  12. #12
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Its not just a question of the bat technology evolving- its more about how batmaking is evolving but 'ball-making' is not. Balls arnt made bouncier/seamier/spinnier/etc etc.
    Infact, the ball aspect of cricket - where rules and technology evolves to assit their artform has remained totally stationary while the same aspect in batting has increased leaps and bounds in the last 7-8 years or so.
    Cricket is growing more and more into an imbalanced sport, where one aspect totally dominates the other, instead of providing a good contest.

    Ideal test cricket contests, IMO are where the standard 'good' score is between the mid-high 300s zone ( 350-380) and 250-300 is still a 'decent' score. Not the 400+ totals we see so often these days.
    In ODI cricket, i prefer contests that are around 250 runs/side affairs ( 230-270 maybe).
    I honestly dont understand why the vast majority of fans appreciate a great batting performance more than a great bowling performance.
    Last edited by C_C; 30-05-2006 at 02:12 PM.

  13. #13
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,197
    The other thing is that as you move through the ranks, from grade cricket to first class, and then again onto international cricket, the balls become "less potent", i.e. a much smaller seam, which would obviously further assist the batsmen.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Can Anyone Get Me Cricket Bats?
    By ma_ac13 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 26-07-2005, 06:34 AM
  2. Bats
    By Monty in forum General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-06-2005, 06:27 AM
  3. Usa Bats
    By rodderss in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-08-2004, 05:02 PM
  4. Cricket2004 bats
    By barmyarmy in forum General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25-01-2004, 10:38 AM
  5. 1999 World Cup Bats Up For Grabs
    By Rich2001 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-07-2003, 09:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •