Define 'technology', really. They are weighted differently these days (with corresponding science behind why they're weighted that way) but there are a few things which haven't changed a bit. The bat is still a chunk of willow with a v-shaped cut for splice and handle. The weighting changes are what's causing a bat to pick up differently. I own two pro-level bats; a GN Powerspot from the 80's (with Greg Ritchie's signature on it! Hawt) and an Impala Redback from last year. The Impala is much chunkier yet is easier on the pick-up. The only difference? Where the weight is distributed.
And players may claim they're getting more power but some of the 'advances' I would hazard make very little difference at all and if you're getting told by the bat manufacturer, who is vying for you to use their gear, that the bat they're handing to you is 20% more powerful, if you're a bloke like Symonds you're probably going to believe it. It defies logic and science that chucking some graphite into the handle, when the stress of ball on bat stop at the glue of the handle, will result in more power. Unless you can find some magic bat glue which transfers all vibration from the impact straight to the graphite handle, it's going to do bugger-all. And then, of course, you'd have to invent some method of dampening the impact wave so you don't feel like you're holding onto the batting equivalent of Rolf Harris' wobble board. Speaking of Symonds specifically, the bloke used to hit more sixes with less powerful bats (apparently) and they were just as big.
If all bat makers are doing (as I suspect) is putting some scientific inquiry into the optimum shape/weight distribution for bat power then I don't find anything wrong with that. It's not changing the tech of the bat at all. Let us also not forget that pro batsmen are provided with bats by sponsors which are of softer (i.e. much more spring) willow these days because they don't need them to last as they did in the past. Softer willow breaks much easier but hits the ball much harder, after all.
Come on. How far are the boundaries roped-in? I once saw that model of athleticism and strength David Boon in 1993 edge (note: not middle) a cut for six to a much longer boundary at the Oval and saw both Mark Waugh and Geoff Marsh play the same shot many times.
A good friend of mine's son is a golf pro.
Recently, he was in town with a representative of his son's club manufacturer.
Whilst I'm pretty much a hack golfer, like many I spend a truckload on clubs in the mistaken belief that the new set will somehow turn me into Tiger Woods and so I got to talking to this chap about club technology.
Bearing in mind that there is far more room to experiment with golf clubs (shafts, head materials, etc), he claimed that it was extremely rare for there to be any improvement at all in club technology and that manufacturers brought out new models simply to satisfy people like me who thought newer must be better and would therefore pay for it.
Given the respective amounts spent by golf and cricket manufacturers on R & D plus the restrictions on bat innovations and degradation of willow stocks, I find it hard to believe that bats have suddenly become quantifiably better than say, 15 years ago.
I stopped playing years ago, and in my time had bats with:
a. scoop(s) out of the back;
b. flat back;
c. holes in them;
d. no shoulders;
e. steel spring;
f. graphite spring;
g. rubber on the outside of spring
Now, after all these years,they've finally settled on a largely conventional design that has vastly improved weight distribution in the average bat
Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, even a low level contract player like myself had bats handmade for me and so they were incredibly well balanced. In other words, if mine were good its logical to assume that test batsmen should always have had unbelievably good bats
However, the main things that have changed are:
a. field dimensions have become smaller; and
b. cricket has generally become more attacking
Combine those 2 factors and you'll have more 4s and 6s
BTW, TC, like me you'll probably remember the days when it was far more common to see an all-run 5 than a 6 hit to the straight boundaries at Adelaide Oval.
Administrators have completely changed the character of that ground and many others such as the Oval and the MCG.
Ropes should be a uniform distance from the fence at all grounds. If that results in a 50 metre boundary at Eden Park and a 150 metre one at the Oval, so be it
As for slowing down the outfield - nonsense. Such a move will stack things too heavily in favour of the bowler as the batsman will not be rewarded for good shots and the shine will stay on the ball all day
