What's wrong in South Africa?

[vic_orthdox]

Agree with everything Goughy had to say. Some bats these days are unbelievable.

Also, something should be done about the carbon fibre handle's. If you're not allowed graphite on the back of bats, you shouldn't be allowed those handles.

 

[shortpitched713]

A heavier ball would certainly be something interesting to look at. Obviously, though, that might make it swing less.

Or more, as in the case of balls used in Pakistan domestic competition.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Heavy balls = bad idea.

 

[Goughy]

I'm no batsman so I don't know of any changes in recent times.

But I assure you - bats in the early 1990s did have more power than those used earlier.

Bats have always developed and improved. The bats in the 90s were certainly better than those in years previous. However bat making technology has improved at a far more rapid rate in the last 5 years than in any recent period. They are massively improved to those from 5-10 yrs ago.

Playing with my old bat from the mid 90's (I dont use it but keep it for sentimental reasons) is almost the equivelant of walking out to bat with green rubber spikes on your gloves.

 

[Smudge]

Playing with my old bat from the mid 90's (I dont use it but keep it for sentimental reasons) is almost the equivelant of walking out to bat with rubber spikes on your gloves.

Although if a batsman wears rubber spikes these days, it's more likely he's sponsored by S & M and not G & M.

 

[LA ICE-E]

but at the end of the day all a bat could to at best is to get you a six instead of a four. so there definetly something else that could be changed. shouldn't the bowlers adopt though? or is it that the new bowlers just suck now...cause bowlers should adopt and think of new ways to get the bestmen...Also i dont see why graphite cant be on the bats...its just art so thats just a gay rule...

 

[Matt79]

Heavy balls = bad idea.

Agreed - equals more injuries for bowlers shouldes and from batsmen and fielders being struck if nothing else...

 

[Matt79]

Where on Earth did I say bats haven't become more powerful? Obviously they have - but it was quite some time ago now, early 1990s at the latest, so hasn't really had much of an effect. Nor should it. A six is worth the same whether it just clears the rope or goes 15 rows back. One area it does make a difference, of course, is that mi****s carry more readily to deep-fielders. Yes, it does mean a few more things go for six that in the 1970s might have been fours, but I don't really think that makes as big a difference as it's often assumed to.

Top-edges, meanwhile, have always flown - that's almost solely down to bat-speed, not weight, as it's only a glancing blow.

I think it makes a pretty huge difference to be honest. Obviously the sixes that fly to the back of the first tier rather than just clearing the fence don't matter much, but you have guys playing shots they would never have attempted 10 or even 5 years ago because they can be quite confident that even if they make crappy contact, its not coming back. And you have shots like reverse sweeps or dead-bat chips (if such a description makes sense, I mean letting the ball strike you bat angled up without a backswing or follow through) that would never have been boundaries, let alone sixes in some instances.

If I was a bowler, I'd be doing a Cameron White and dropping it as a mug's game and practice my slogging.

It's not that it'd be unenforcable - I don't see how a case could be made for such a thing being a fair ruling. The ability to lift a heavy bat has always been one of the things that's pervaded cricket. Standardisation on width, depth and breadth came centuries ago. You'd be introducing new limits govorning what's been accepted practice for as long as anyone can remember.

New limits have been introduced several times, some quite recently. And generally they've been imposed on bowlers whenever they've begun to consistently gain something resembling an upper hand. Restrictions on leg-side fields, restrictions on the number of bouncers per over. Other times rules have been changed to make the bowlers live easier, as in alterations to the lbw rule, after prolonged periods of the bat dominating the ball and killing the contest. Perhaps that's where we are now.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Bats aren't that heavy nowerdays, they just aren't compressed very much at all.

 

[Richard]

Or more, as in the case of balls used in Pakistan domestic competition.

Indeed?

Any further details?

 

[Richard]

it's more likely he's sponsored by S & M and not G & M.

Metallica have joined the Yanks-Love-Cricket Society?

 

[Richard]

Bats have always developed and improved. The bats in the 90s were certainly better than those in years previous. However bat making technology has improved at a far more rapid rate in the last 5 years than in any recent period. They are massively improved to those from 5-10 yrs ago.

Playing with my old bat from the mid 90's (I dont use it but keep it for sentimental reasons) is almost the equivelant of walking out to bat with green rubber spikes on your gloves.

OK, fair enough, as I say - I'm certainly no connoisseur of batmaking.

 

[Richard]

I think it makes a pretty huge difference to be honest. Obviously the sixes that fly to the back of the first tier rather than just clearing the fence don't matter much, but you have guys playing shots they would never have attempted 10 or even 5 years ago because they can be quite confident that even if they make crappy contact, its not coming back. And you have shots like reverse sweeps or dead-bat chips (if such a description makes sense, I mean letting the ball strike you bat angled up without a backswing or follow through) that would never have been boundaries, let alone sixes in some instances.

The shorter boundaries have at least something to do with those, too, mind.

New limits have been introduced several times, some quite recently. And generally they've been imposed on bowlers whenever they've begun to consistently gain something resembling an upper hand. Restrictions on leg-side fields, restrictions on the number of bouncers per over. Other times rules have been changed to make the bowlers live easier, as in alterations to the lbw rule, after prolonged periods of the bat dominating the ball and killing the contest. Perhaps that's where we are now.

The leg-side-field and Bouncer restrictions were hardly without justification IMO.

You're not wrong in anything you say but nonetheless I find the prospect of bat-weight limitations extremely unlikely.

 

[shortpitched713]

Also i dont see why graphite cant be on the bats...its just art so thats just a gay rule...

The graphite is more than just decoration mate. From what I've heard it provides more structural support for the bat, and helps tranfer more power from the stroke into the ball.

 

[shortpitched713]

Indeed?

Any further details?

No, sorry I read about it in an article about a year ago, but I can't find it now. I can't actually confirm it either as I haven't actually watched any domestic cricket in years.

 

[Richard]

You and the entire country of Pakistan.

Seriously, Sri Lanka must be the only country to have worse domestic attendances than Pakistan.

Does anyone really support Habib Bank and Pakistan National Airlines?

 

[Dick Rockett]

You'd be lucky to get more than one old man and his dog at one of our domestic four-day games...

 

[Richard]

Seriously, domestic-First-Class-cricket just isn't a spectator sport and hasn't been for about 50 years...

 

[vic_orthdox]

How many of these games in SA with huge totals have been played at altitude?

And how big are the grounds at altitude?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Seriously, domestic-First-Class-cricket just isn't a spectator sport and hasn't been for about 50 years...

So you were referring to one day games? Didn't realise. Ours still aren't as well attended as they used to be, but there's usually an audience, if not a crowd.

Vic: refer to this for ground sizes.