• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rocket Bats

Matt79

Global Moderator
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?
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
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.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Matt79 said:
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:

open365

International Vice-Captain
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.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
open365 said:
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.
 

Majin

International Debutant
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.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
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.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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........
 

dro87

U19 12th Man
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...
 

C_C

International Captain
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:

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
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.
 

Top