ICC Press release (bat edges)

[cnerd123]

We've had a ton of games recently where the ball has dominated. Infact, I think we've had more collapses and sub-200 scores in Tests in the last decade than any other in Test history. Someone needs to go back and confirm that, but the point I'm making is that the 'bat is dominating the game' narrative is a bit of a myth.

It's true that modern bats and batting technique making boundary scoring easier than it has ever been. But as StephenZA has pointed out - this is often countered by any time the ball spin/swings/seams a decent amount. Bigger bats means you find the edge a lot more often. Modern big-hitting techniques don't translate well to conditions where you need good footwork, soft hands, and have to play the ball as late as possible. Modern quick-scoring mentalities means batsmen are more impatient.

I think the pace of the game has definitely quickened, but I don't think the balance is all that much in the batsman's favour. It's just that in certain conditions, they absolutely dominate like in no way ever before, especially in Limited Overs. But just a quick look at the recent tests in India and Bangladesh, or Stokes and Anderson wrecking West Indies, or some of the games we've seen in England and SA in the past...we still get a lot of collapses and low scorers.

I think capping the size of the bat is a good move primarily for the safety of the cricketers and umpires. I also think it will allow for a phase of cricket now where any innovations will be more to do with skill and the cricket meta-game than it will be to do with the equipment used.

Do think they missed a trick by not capping the weight of the bat. I think we're going to see some really dense bats being used by some of the more powerful batsmen soon.

 

[weldone]

Legalize ball tampering to counter big bats.

Define ball tampering. Will a bowler be allowed to bring a machine to the ground that'll turn the ball into a skewed pyramid that will dig a hole on the pitch and get stuck like a fork, eventually prompting the umpires declaring the match dead because the ball never bounces?

 

[Daemon]

It's too hard to regulate that I feel. Where would you draw the line? Only fingernails? Picking the seam? How bad is the ball allowed to get before it's considered for replacement?

 

[SeamUp]

I'm not sure I agree with your last few sentences. The modern way caters to how the modern audience views the game. If the passion for proper cricket was there them improper cricket wouldn't be so attractive right now.

I don't think anyone's ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of their audience. When it comes to getting new fans into the game sixes are an obvious way because they are immediately spectacular. And to hit more sixes you go to the gym and get a bigger bat. It works, that's why T20 is popular.

It's not good for avid watchers because every match begins to look the same. I can never remember what happened in the previous night's BBL game yet I remember one particular ball from Tim Bresnan at Melbourne nearly seven years ago, when I was thirteen and first getting into cricket. It was wide of off and seamed a long way further from off. Nothing really special, but I'd never noticed that sort of movement before so it stuck in my memory in a way not even the biggest six could. But for people who watch cricket like they watch an action movie, for simple entertainment, they aren't going to pick up on such details. A delightful cover drive along the ground simply isn't as interesting as a hoicked six over midwicket.

I think one thing that would make cricket more interesting is bringing back bowled as a dismissal. Caught at the wicket is the least interesting form of dismissal except if it happened off an exceptional ball, while bowled is the bowling equivalent of a six, if anything even more spectacular because of its immediacy and violence. Trueman bowled 103 batsmen while McGrath, with 250 more wickets, bowled only 76. And that's where I was going with a ball that swings more, because more sideways movement promotes bowled as a dismissal. The alternative is to go back to uncovered damp or worn, inconsistent pitches and let bowlers rediscover the art of the off cutter. Greener pitches would be good too but tend to promote edges over bowleds IMO. When's the last time you saw a pitch with a distinct patch that misbehaved? And the ball perhaps keeps low less than it used to, at least in Australia. Things need to not just more bowler friendly, but in a certain way as well. Go look at Michael Holding's 14 wickets at the Oval in 1976. Nine of them bowled. Would it seem quite so thrilling and impactful if seven of those bowleds were replaced with catches behind? I don't think so.

Since certain things are more attractive to more casual fans than others when it comes to having better balance between bat and ball you've got to think about how it happens, not just that it happens.

Brilliant points mate. Of course the fans are the game in the end. Good players play to be on stage.

But my concerns are decisions made for financial reasons and then over-lapping of T20 cricket into proper cricket.

I just want young people to fall in love for what test cricket is. No other format should influence decisions made by those in power or new fans on 'proper cricket'.

Whether the passion is passed down in the family or new fans see it from friends or tv I genuinely think the passion for the 5-day game can still be driven.

All these other effects like bat sizes (knowing you can half hit a ball for 6), not being able to see out good spells because other formats are influencing young players & changing to 4-day tests should be concerns. In fact it is effecting the game for what I love about it to be honest.

 

[SeamUp]

If we are going to blame anything for the current '6' hitting phenomana and high scores its not really the bats, its the lack of sideways movement of the ball. Particulalry the effect of the LO flat pitches. Your bat can be as big as possible but if you do not have the technique to adjust to late movement off the pitch or the swing/spin of the ball then you are going to fail as a batsmen. Hence why we do get the occasional series of under 300 runs in 50 overs, it is normally when the pitch is not flat and/or there is some swing.
So while I can see this change on the bat having some minor effect, until the pitches are made less flat and more competitive between bat and ball nothing in LO cricket is really gonna change.

I think it is a mix of everything. Whilst bats are in-direct it still gives batsman the knowledge they can take boundaries on and half hit a ball for 6. Bowlers can feel pretty down about that.

I do agree on pitches and balls moving off the straights effecting the game and that is as a result of wanting easy runs in T20 and now 50 over cricket. To me 50-over cricket still allows good players to do well but pitches wanting 350v350 is ruining the game more than singles in the middle overs (which I thought was an important skill in the make up of a team).

 

[honestbharani]

Some of the more excellent cricket discussion we have had in recent years in CW in this thread.


My two cents - The rules are simply defining what the cricket bat sizes should be, just like it does for the cricket ball. There is nothing wrong with that. You can't use a heavier than normal ball, you can't use a heavier than normal bat. They are simply defining what that normal is, even though, as another poster has pointed out, they have not actually defined the maximum weight for a cricket bat. Given that it will have implications on other facets of batting for the batsman, that is kinda understandable too.

All the other points made in this thread are valid too but there is nothing wrong at all with defining what a bat and a ball should be like in a cricket match, given it is basically a game between the bat and the ball.