When people say "tough to bat under lights", they don't actually mean the lights in the ground makes the ball swing more. They mean at night time, the conditions aid swing bowling, and its thus harder to bat in.
Nah, that'll be Asgiriya Stadium in Kandy:
Is it the one with a field hockey pitch next to it?
yeah there is a minimum "size" for boundaries. they just need to make the requirement bit bigger for odi and test
You mean there's no lawful way of limiting the weights of bats? Find that a strange comment when they regulate the dimensions of the bat and whether you can have stickers on the back of the bat.
Length, width, breadth is completely different to density.
I don't believe that. We've had heavier bats for at least the last decade, probably since the mid-1980s - the game's only become more batsman-friendly since 2000, 2001 sort of time. That's to do with ball-manufacturing and pitch-preparation, not the power of bats.
Are you seriously contending that bats haven't become more powerful - which is not only a function of their weight - in the last five years? It's been things like carbon fibre handles so more of the weight can be in the meat of the bat and less compressed wood that has more spring. You see so many BIG sixes these days, as well as chips with no follow through going for six and top-edges going for six.
You can measure 'density', or weight to put it more simply, with a set of scales like you'd see in any fruit and veg shop. How long would that take?
Do they really make those? I thought bats had to be 100% wood...
Where on Earth did I say bats haven't become more powerful? Obviously they have - but it was quite some time ago now, early 1990s at the latest, so hasn't really had much of an effect. Nor should it. A six is worth the same whether it just clears the rope or goes 15 rows back. One area it does make a difference, of course, is that mi****s carry more readily to deep-fielders. Yes, it does mean a few more things go for six that in the 1970s might have been fours, but I don't really think that makes as big a difference as it's often assumed to.
A heavier ball would certainly be something interesting to look at. Obviously, though, that might make it swing less.
It's not that it'd be unenforcable - I don't see how a case could be made for such a thing being a fair ruling. The ability to lift a heavy bat has always been one of the things that's pervaded cricket. Standardisation on width, depth and breadth came centuries ago. You'd be introducing new limits govorning what's been accepted practice for as long as anyone can remember.
Richard, batmaking technology has developed dramatically over the past 5 years. Maybe even less.
) and picks up so easy.
