Possible restrictions on bats being looked at

[Immenso]

Already mentioned the 'awesomeness' of watching leading edge 6s ....

But what about the stiff wristed straight block or cover block for four? Euphemistically called "a punch" by commentators.

It's extremely dull.

I want to see Brian Lara style flourish and arm extension not David Warner style "punch" in cover drives.

 

[Riggins]

BTW, are these less compressed bats more likely to break? How about a rule that a batsman can't replace his bat during an innings? Would make them less willing to push that particular boundary.

They are more likely to break but being unable to replace it if it does would be pretty crazy. Even the oldest sturdiest ones break from time to time. It would be a farce and dangerous if you'd get something like Carberry batting with only a handle during the Ashes.

 

[cnerd123]

Also remember McMillan mentioning in commentary once about changing a bat to one with a lower sweet spot if a pitch is lower and slower than first assessed. Or changing to a meatier bat for the slog or power play overs. A bowler can't replace a ball whenever they want ......

Haha I also remember something like this. Play yourself in with a lighter bat and then swap to the heavier one to hit out.

 

[Jono]

The bigger bats get, the harder they are to swing making it more difficult to adjust to moving deliveries late. Just spice up the balls to make using a massive bat have a meaningful trade-off.

Not true though, their balance and pick-up is better despite being thicker.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

But are they harder to swing? I thought part of the bigger bat phenomenon was that they are less compressed making them fatter, springier but not heavier?

Eg back in the day G Turner, C Cairns, L Cairns, Klusener and mid-90s Tendulkar all used a heavy bat. But that's it, they were heavy, and the batsmen has to be strong enough / good enough to make that compromise.

Now every one can use a big but light bat with little to no compromise.

BTW, are these less compressed bats more likely to break? How about a rule that a batsman can't replace his bat during an innings? Would make them less willing to push that particular boundary.

Also remember McMillan mentioning in commentary once about changing a bat to one with a lower sweet spot if a pitch is lower and slower than first assessed. Or changing to a meatier bat for the slog or power play overs. A bowler can't replace a ball whenever they want ......

If a bat is big but light, then all the size is meaningless. Weight of the wood is what transfers momentum through to the ball. You can balance the bat by adding weight to the handle area, but that only makes the bat easier to rotate due to balancing out the torques, it'll still be difficult to properly swing.

Of course, what my argument isn't taking into account is the "springiness" you mention. I'd be very interested to see the results of a proper investigation into the matter to find out how much of it is just about appearance and placebo rather than actual performance. I'm sure both are a factor.

Not true though, their balance and pick-up is better despite being thicker.

Balance and pickup only apply to rotating the bat within a small range of motion like defensive shots and check drives. When you're fully swinging the bat with extended arms (say, in a pull shot) you still have to lift near its full weight.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The bigger bats get, the harder they are to swing making it more difficult to adjust to moving deliveries late. Just spice up the balls to make using a massive bat have a meaningful trade-off.

But they're not harder to swing at all.

The trade off used to exist 10 years ago. I remember Dravid talking about the bats used by the Indian players. Him, Laxman and Azharuddin preferred lighter bats because they used their wrists a lot not only in their on side flicks but also in their drives which had extravagant flourishes and big follow through (especially Dravid and Azhar). Tendulkar preferred his drives to be high elbow punches and so used a heavier bat which made the punches fly off the bat but also felt like it weighed a ton. Now, that tradeoff no longer exists. And it sucks.

 

[vic_orthdox]

If a bat is big but light, then all the size is meaningless. Weight of the wood is what transfers momentum through to the ball. You can balance the bat by adding weight to the handle area, but that only makes the bat easier to rotate due to balancing out the torques, it'll still be difficult to properly swing.

Of course, what my argument isn't taking into account is the "springiness" you mention. I'd be very interested to see the results of a proper investigation into the matter to find out how much of it is just about appearance and placebo rather than actual performance. I'm sure both are a factor.



Balance and pickup only apply to rotating the bat within a small range of motion like defensive shots and check drives. When you're fully swinging the bat with extended arms (say, in a pull shot) you still have to lift near its full weight.

Hogwash.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Hogwash.

Yeah go argue with basic physics.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

This reminds me of the whole "corked bats" debacle in baseball. A lighter bat won't hit the ball farther just because it looks big.

 

[SuperMurali]

Increasing the bending/throwing allowance for the bowlers. It'll be a way to give the bowlers an advantage instead of giving the batsmen everything

 

[andmark]

Increasing the bending/throwing allowance for the bowlers. It'll be a way to give the bowlers an advantage instead of giving the batsmen everything

That's a very slippery slope though

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah go argue with basic physics.

Not arguing with physics, you inferred that the modern/bigger bats are heavier, when they're not, and talking as though all variables remain the same when they haven't.

The bigger bats get, the harder they are to swing making it more difficult to adjust to moving deliveries late. Just spice up the balls to make using a massive bat have a meaningful trade-off.

Debate on bat size needs to move on - just like the game of cricket has | Russell Jackson | Sport | The Guardian

The key take-away was that in modern bat design, we’re talking issues of physics. It’s not about size or thick edges or profiles, it’s about weight distribution, willow density and the way bats are pressed. Modern bats are no heavier than they were in the 1970s and indeed most are now slightly lighter, and it’s physically impossible based purely on the bat you use to hit a ball any harder with a 2015 job than it was with a 1985 one. Far from Clive Lloyd’s 3 ½ lb fence posts, most pros now use bats between weights of 2lb 8 and 2lb 10.

Here's the article from Jon Hotten as well.

Jon Hotten: The psychology and physiology of bat-making | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[SuperMurali]

That's a very slippery slope though

Then again, so is allowing bats to become more effective.

Heard it said that the allowance and the doosra means that essentially that bowler is both an offspinner and a legspinner. This should be really good, yet the fear of "chucking" scares us down the route of promoting it. But its a bowling equivalent of the switch hit. Make it legal and further increase the bendiness of the arm will be giving something back to the bowlers

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Not arguing with physics, you inferred that the modern/bigger bats are heavier, when they're not, and talking as though all variables remain the same when they haven't.

Debate on bat size needs to move on - just like the game of cricket has | Russell Jackson | Sport | The Guardian



Here's the article from Jon Hotten as well.

Jon Hotten: The psychology and physiology of bat-making | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Very interesting reads, especially the second. Cheers.

 

[NasserFan207]

All the articles in the world won't change the image of Zaheer Khan flicking onside, and edging the ball over cover point for six.

 

[andmark]

Then again, so is allowing bats to become more effective.

Heard it said that the allowance and the doosra means that essentially that bowler is both an offspinner and a legspinner. This should be really good, yet the fear of "chucking" scares us down the route of promoting it. But its a bowling equivalent of the switch hit. Make it legal and further increase the bendiness of the arm will be giving something back to the bowlers

Yeah, some extra breathing space for bowlers to do the doosra would be good, but when do you stop? I suppose it would be up to scientists to say what degree of bend is usually needed to bowl a doosra, and then the ICC could decide what too do afterwards.

 

[Furball]

If bowlers want to turn it from leg to off then bowl legspin instead of throwing it.

 

[hendrix]

If bowlers want to turn it from leg to off then bowl legspin instead of throwing it.

or bowl a carom ball.

 

[Migara]

Make the boundaries 70+m mandatory.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

or bowl a carom ball.

The carrom ball is just a legbreak spun with the fingers from the front of the hand