Slow down outfields?

[Debris]

I have to agree that slowing the outfield only punishes the pure batsman. It would cause a proliferation of aerial sloggers.

Larger grounds would help, not sure how you accomplish this in some countries though.

Always thought that Australian cricket grounds are the right size.

 

[Jono]

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.

Think bat makers are above hyperbole to sell bats? How about the Hunts County honeycomb technology?

Wow, what an innovation that was and was promoted as such. So good was it that no other bat manufacturer gave it a go and Hunts stopped after that run of bats were sold. Why? Because it made no bloody difference to the power of the bat whatsoever. Same with the Kooka bats with the graphite back; there's no logical reason why that sort of thing should change the power of the bat positively.

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.

Wouldn't mind seeing those bats side-on. Reckon there will be quite a bit of difference there.

 

[Arjun]

I'd prefer sluggish outfields with enough grass to facilitate aggressive fielding. All the slides, dives and realy throws can happen without an injury scare.

It will also force batsmen to change technique and add more power. Those annoying inside-edges-to-boundaries will then vanish.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wouldn't mind seeing those bats side-on. Reckon there will be quite a bit of difference there.

Basically, the FS bat is a bit thicker at the spine but only because it has a sharper peak. The Hunts bat is more evenly-distributed.

 

[Isolator]

Hunts County

Hah, caused a bit of a double-take there.

 

[Isolator]

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.

Actually this is exactly the thing I feel should be regulated. Somehow.

 

[Top_Cat]

Actually this is exactly the thing I feel should be regulated. Somehow.

Why is that, though? In my opinion, if batsmen are scoring too quick, let the bowlers work harder to stop them from doing so. It's not as if it can't be done; after an initial flurry of runs, we've seen scores come right down in the IPL and the pitches have been fine. Batsmen have had the advantage of ruthlessly roped-in boundaries yet runs have been harder to come by. Why? Bowlers have had to adapt and have been able to do so. Why can the same not be expected of them in Tests? Let the whole 'balance between bat and ball' be redressed by the players and their abilities, not by legislation.

If there's one positive from 20/20 for cricket in general (and there's been many, in my view), it's that bowlers seem to have realised what it means to shelve the ego a bit and do what it takes to bowl when the odds are against you. Bowling is a humbling experience in a 20-over match; if you don't bowl well and/or adapt to changing circumstances quickly, you get smashed so the pressure is on. Bowlers who are skilfull and intelligent, rather than just having one or two tricks which they repeat, are the ones who've done well. Just look at the wicket-takers;

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ipl/engin...t_wickets_career.html?id=3519;type=tournament

I would suggest many of these bowlers will bowl quite differently next time they get the ball in a Test. Why? They now know what it's like to work with a very, very small margin for error. As far as this relates to the original thread topic, if bowlers are annoyed with batsmen hitting the ball to all parts, rather than legislating, take responsibility for the problem, use your head and change the way you bowl. Bowlers in IPL have proven it works and that the situation is not hopeless, even allowing for the fact that batsmen have to go after you a bit more in 20/20.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Actually this is exactly the thing I feel should be regulated. Somehow.

So that the regular consumer can get their hands on bats as good as the players?

 

[Jono]

Basically, the FS bat is a bit thicker at the spine but only because it has a sharper peak. The Hunts bat is more evenly-distributed.

The edges, even though admittedly the Hunts has them rounded through match-play, tells a big enough story for mine. Ask any one which bat they'd rather use providing the weight/pick-up was the same.

On top of that, bowed bats have been a relatively recent phenomenon.

Why is that, though? In my opinion, if batsmen are scoring too quick, let the bowlers work harder to stop them from doing so. It's not as if it can't be done; after an initial flurry of runs, we've seen scores come right down in the IPL and the pitches have been fine. Batsmen have had the advantage of ruthlessly roped-in boundaries yet runs have been harder to come by. Why? Bowlers have had to adapt and have been able to do so. Why can the same not be expected of them in Tests? Let the whole 'balance between bat and ball' be redressed by the players and their abilities, not by legislation.

If there's one positive from 20/20 for cricket in general (and there's been many, in my view), it's that bowlers seem to have realised what it means to shelve the ego a bit and do what it takes to bowl when the odds are against you. Bowling is a humbling experience in a 20-over match; if you don't bowl well and/or adapt to changing circumstances quickly, you get smashed so the pressure is on. Bowlers who are skilfull and intelligent, rather than just having one or two tricks which they repeat, are the ones who've done well. Just look at the wicket-takers;

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ipl/engin...t_wickets_career.html?id=3519;type=tournament

I would suggest many of these bowlers will bowl quite differently next time they get the ball in a Test. Why? They now know what it's like to work with a very, very small margin for error. As far as this relates to the original thread topic, if bowlers are annoyed with batsmen hitting the ball to all parts, rather than legislating, take responsibility for the problem, use your head and change the way you bowl. Bowlers in IPL have proven it works and that the situation is not hopeless, even allowing for the fact that batsmen have to go after you a bit more in 20/20.

Why regulate ball technology but not bat technology though?

 

[Isolator]

Why is that, though? In my opinion, if batsmen are scoring too quick, let the bowlers work harder to stop them from doing so. It's not as if it can't be done; after an initial flurry of runs, we've seen scores come right down in the IPL and the pitches have been fine. Batsmen have had the advantage of ruthlessly roped-in boundaries yet runs have been harder to come by. Why? Bowlers have had to adapt and have been able to do so. Why can the same not be expected of them in Tests? Let the whole 'balance between bat and ball' be redressed by the players and their abilities, not by legislation.

It just irritates me to see total nobodies hitting sixes like it's the easiest thing in the world. It shouldn't be that easy. A six should come from a legitimately clean hit. These days it seems like the sweet spot occupies the whole bat. There's no way these little flicks off the legs and what have you should be carrying all the way for six, it's just ridiculous.

 

[Top_Cat]

The edges, even though admittedly the Hunts has them rounded through match-play, tells a big enough story for mine. Ask any one which bat they'd rather use providing the weight/pick-up was the same.

On top of that, bowed bats have been a relatively recent phenomenon.

So...... aside from the shape of the bat, what's changed about them to turn them into super bats?

Why regulate ball technology but not bat technology though?

Who said anything about regulating ball technology?

 

[Top_Cat]

It just irritates me to see total nobodies hitting sixes like it's the easiest thing in the world. It shouldn't be that easy. A six should come from a legitimately clean hit. These days it seems like the sweet spot occupies the whole bat. There's no way these little flicks off the legs and what have you should be carrying all the way for six, it's just ridiculous.

That's my point. It isn't that easy with good bowling. IPL has shown that good bowling can take wickets and restrict scoring even with so many things encouraging batsmen to hit-out.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It just irritates me to see total nobodies hitting sixes like it's the easiest thing in the world. It shouldn't be that easy. A six should come from a legitimately clean hit. These days it seems like the sweet spot occupies the whole bat. There's no way these little flicks off the legs and what have you should be carrying all the way for six, it's just ridiculous.

I think the size of the grounds might have something to do with it in some cases. SOme of the sixes I've seen in the IPL are over the fence before they even begin their descent.

 

[Jono]

Who said anything about regulating ball technology?

By saying its the bowlers responsibility, you imply this. When you say 'let the bowlers adapt', it comes off as if it is solely the bowler's responsibility to go "oh well, bigger bats, flatter tracks, smaller grounds, more aggressive batsmen, shorter matches giving me less chance to work a batsmen out... I'll just try and get him out anyway"

Yeah maybe McGrath, Warne and Murali can do that, but they're not going to come time after time. And don't go throwing me RP Singh and Tanvir as top of that IPL wicket charts as if that proves something, because those two are hardly brilliant at test or ODI level.

Alternatively, lets increase the seam on the ball so it moves. Let's use balls more adaptive to reverse swing.

 

[Jono]

So...... aside from the shape of the bat, what's changed about them to turn them into super bats?

Yeah, besides the fact that tennis racquet technology has improved the strings, what else has changed?

Silly question, you're removing the crucial fact. Just like string improvements favour baseline play, bat technology has allowed "stand and deliver' batting to be more effective.

The shape of the bat has allowed for greater pick-up with equal strength. Its not rocket science why this helps. I'm not painting it out to be evil, just don't deny the influence its had. Scores have gone up since 2002/3!! Not just since 1995 or something. There has been a huge increase in simply the last few years, and something has obviously had a direct impact. Bat technology has been one contribution.

You honestly think you can give Symonds or Dhoni the twigs someone like Border or Greg Chappell used, and their won't be a noticeable difference in some of their shots? Their mis-hits will still be powerful because of their shoulder and forearm strength, but they won't fly into the stands as often.

 

[social]

Yeah, besides the fact that tennis racquet technology has improved the strings, what else has changed?

Silly question, you're removing the crucial fact. Just like string improvements favour baseline play, bat technology has allowed "stand and deliver' batting to be more effective.

The shape of the bat has allowed for greater pick-up with equal strength. Its not rocket science why this helps. I'm not painting it out to be evil, just don't deny the influence its had. Scores have gone up since 2002/3!! Not just since 1995 or something. There has been a huge increase in simply the last few years, and something has obviously had a direct impact. Bat technology has been one contribution.

You honestly think you can give Symonds or Dhoni the twigs someone like Border or Greg Chappell used, and their won't be a noticeable difference in some of their shots? Their mis-hits will still be powerful because of their shoulder and forearm strength, but they won't fly into the stands as often.

Border and Chappell both used very heavy bats

 

[Jono]

That's my point though. They used heavy bats... i.e. heavy pick-up.

 

[Top_Cat]

By saying its the bowlers responsibility, you imply this. When you say 'let the bowlers adapt', it comes off as if it is solely the bowler's responsibility to go "oh well, bigger bats, flatter tracks, smaller grounds, more aggressive batsmen, shorter matches giving me less chance to work a batsmen out... I'll just try and get him out anyway"

Yeah maybe McGrath, Warne and Murali can do that, but they're not going to come time after time.

You're acting like more aggressive batsmen is a disadvantage. Smart bowlers, such as those on the list, know it can be an advantage if batsmen are coming at your harder, for example. The best, like Warne and McGrath, adapt. The rest, don't and get smashed. It's the way life goes. If some unknown bloke who bowled donkey-drops was at the top of the list then sure, you'd have a point but if quality types are at the top, then obviously the results must be a little meaningful. Last I checked sport was a test of ability and if you don't have the ability, you should get belted. If I turned up to the IPL and Symonds smacked me into the stands every ball I bowled, I'd have little cause to claim it was unfair.

And don't go throwing me RP Singh and Tanvir as top of that IPL wicket charts as if that proves something, because those two are hardly brilliant at test or ODI level.

Harsh. RP was India's best pace bowler on the most recent trip in Aus, the second-best on the English tour and Tanvir is still getting started as a Test bowler but clearly has a ton of ability.

Yeah, besides the fact that tennis racquet technology has improved the strings, what else has changed?

You're joking. Tennis racquets aren't even made of wood any more! ANd the strings aren't made of horsehair any more. Totally different; bats haven't materially changed for many years.

Silly question, you're removing the crucial fact. Just like string improvements favour baseline play, bat technology has allowed "stand and deliver' batting to be more effective.

The shape of the bat has allowed for greater pick-up with equal strength. Its not rocket science why this helps. I'm not painting it out to be evil, just don't deny the influence its had. Scores have gone up since 2002/3!! Not just since 1995 or something. There has been a huge increase in simply the last few years, and something has obviously had a direct impact. Bat technology has been one contribution.

You honestly think you can give Symonds or Dhoni the twigs someone like Border or Greg Chappell used, and their won't be a noticeable difference in some of their shots? Their mis-hits will still be powerful because of their shoulder and forearm strength, but they won't fly into the stands as often.

Okay I see where we're getting mixed-up here. I was under the impression that you were implying the research on bat shape/size is giving batsmen an unfair advantage which is what the ICC are obviously implying by considering changing the rules to offset it. Of course things like using non-rolled bats has had an influence on the ability to hit bigger but my argument is against whether that is unfair. I don't have a problem with changing the weight distribution of a bat. It's if bats materially change that gives an unfair advantage that I take issue and, as I said, a lot of the things which are offered as giving more power don't do squat when just changing the shape or not rolling the bat does a lot more.

I guess, I just don't see anything unfair about doing the above because the material bat composition doesn't change at all. Stuff like corking in baseball bats or using different materials to give an advantage might want to be looked-at but otherwise, no problem here.

 

[social]

That's my point though. They used heavy bats... i.e. heavy pick-up.

Not necessarily so - tin general, top players' bats have always been well balanced, giving the illusion of a lighter pick-up

By coincidence, I had lunch at a club yesterday and in the bar were brand new 2 bats autographed by Sunny and Tendy.

One was a MRF, the other a RBK and I assume that they were both top of the range because the grain in the willow was basically faultless.

The major difference between these bats and ones I used 20 years ago was not in the shape/weight distribution (certain models made by Duncan Fearnley and St Peter had almost uniform blade depth for most of their length with really thick edges) but in the fact that both blades had a really distinct "bow" in them.

I can imagine that both of those bats would be excellent as all of my favourite bats naturally developed a bow in the blade when worn in.

Seemed to me that the manufacturers had simply eliminated the middle man, i.e. me having to work on the bat, and potentially designed a bat that would be sensational from day one

Nothing illegal about that

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not necessarily so - tin general, top players' bats have always been well balanced, giving the illusion of a lighter pick-up

By coincidence, I had lunch at a club yesterday and in the bar were brand new 2 bats autographed by Sunny and Tendy.

One was a MRF, the other a RBK and I assume that they were both top of the range because the grain in the willow was basically faultless.

The major difference between these bats and ones I used 20 years ago was not in the shape/weight distribution (certain models made by Duncan Fearnley and St Peter had almost uniform blade depth for most of their length with really thick edges) but in the fact that both blades had a really distinct "bow" in them.

I can imagine that both of those bats would be excellent as all of my favourite bats naturally developed a bow in the blade when worn in.

Seemed to me that the manufacturers had simply eliminated the middle man, i.e. me having to work on the bat, and potentially designed a bat that would be sensational from day one

Nothing illegal about that

No personal insults thanks