The World Cup: Good and Bad.

[Making_Splinters]

which does not disagree with what I said

It is a huge misconception, on that is often repeated. The size of the bat has nothing to do with the power it imparts on the ball. What is changing is the power of the players and their approach to batting in limited overs cricket. Players these days are far more muscular than their older counterparts, they have a default mentality to go far harder at the ball as well. When you're built like a rugby player, throwing the kitchen sink at the ball that's why we edges go for six, it's nought to do with the bat.

where have I said a word about the amount of power imparted ?

I have said repeatedly its about the size of the sweet spot which means shots not perfectly timed are still rewarded

the harder you swing makes sod all difference if you don't hit the ball out of the sweet spot , and the bigger the sweet spot means a far higher margin of error , thus timing becomes less important than brute force

The amount of power imparted entirely determins how far and how fast the ball goes, that's basic school level physics. Increasing the size of the bat just gives you a larger surface area to hit the ball with, it's nothing to do with why balls are flying further than they used to. Infact if you look at the design of the Mongoose, a bat specifically made to hit the ball further, it's smaller than a normal bat but with a larger handle to impart more force.

The whole "issue" of bat size is a complete red herring, the distance players hit the ball has changed because their mentality has changed. Even GCSE physics students would be able to explain why this is the case.

[Making_Splinters]

The players go at the ball harder because the bats make that a feasible strategy. Give them Jack Hobbs' bat, and it wouldn't work, however pumped they are.

Older bats were heavier, making it harder to swing them through the line as quickly.

[rich1uk]

if you aint gonna bother reading what I am saying then don't bother replying

at no point have I said modern bats enable people to hit the ball farther when they time it well

I have said repeatedly that modern bats mean poorly timed shots are still being rewarded and as a result batsmen can swing harder at the ball as they have a bigger margin of error because of bigger sweetspots

[Arthur Crabtree]

Bats of the Botham/Gooch era were heavier. Not before that. The density and how much they are pressed gives the new bats more of a middle. Those shots where Dhoni hits a six off the toe of the bat are an example.

Why do they use the new bats, if they don't confer an advantage?

[rich1uk]

Why do they use the new bats, if they don't confer an advantage?

which was the question I was going to ask

this article explains everything I have been saying here including examples from professional cricketers themselves , not sure if any of them have GCSE physics tho ...

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/th ... 6542405236

aaron finch

"The biggest change is that if you need to hit a six it's gonna go regardless. You don't have to worry about it not carrying the rope because even if you just mis-hit it, it's still gonna go pretty comfortably.

Cameron white

"The big difference now is when you hit the middle it might only be a couple of metres difference, but the ones you shank now you can still hit for six.

[Making_Splinters]

Why do they use the new bats, if they don't confer an advantage?

which was the question I was going to ask

this article explains everything I have been saying here including examples from professional cricketers themselves , not sure if any of them have GCSE physics tho ...

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/th ... 6542405236

aaron finch

"The biggest change is that if you need to hit a six it's gonna go regardless. You don't have to worry about it not carrying the rope because even if you just mis-hit it, it's still gonna go pretty comfortably.

Cameron white

"The big difference now is when you hit the middle it might only be a couple of metres difference, but the ones you shank now you can still hit for six.

Perhaps you need to go and look up the basics of momentum and force yourself. Slight redesigns have changed the mass at the point the ball is hit, I remember my youngest being set problems to work out how far a ball would go given the mass of the ball and bat.

The key factor in balls travelling to the boundary is the speed at which the bat is moving when it hits the ball. Modern players are stronger and hit the ball harder, is it any wonder that mistimed shots are going further.

You could give any of the top modern players an old bat and they'd still hit the ball further than their older counterparts. The sweet spot of a bat is to do with the weight distrubution in the bat anyway, nothing to do with its size.

[rich1uk]

i give up , i cba debating with someone who is wrong , has been shown to be wrong but is still acting like a twat

[Making_Splinters]

i give up , i cba debating with someone who is wrong , has been shown to be wrong but is still acting like a twat

Even the article you linked talks about how weight distrubution has changed in modern bats. The fact of the matter is the weight of bats has only marginally changed if not decreased over the years. The basic physics behind the speed or distance a ball will travel is linked to the mass of a bat and how quickly it is moving when it strikes the ball, nothing to do with how large the surface area is. While there are slight considerations to the efficency of a colision between bat and ball which has likely increased over the years.

The advances in bat design are how the weight in a bat is distributed for individual players to maximise their strengths, making a bat larger does not increase the size of the sweet spot of the bat, changing where the weight is does that.

The only advantage of having a larger bat is it gives you a larger surface area to hit the ball with. Everything beyond that comes down to the design not the size.

[rich1uk]

i'll keep this simple

you cannot make the changes to weight distribution which increases the size of the sweet spot which in turn enables batsmen to swing harder at the ball without worrying about a mis-hit thus enabling them to utilise their greater strength and power generation unless you also make the bats bigger

which is why bats are bigger ...

[Making_Splinters]

It is entirely possible to change the wieght distrubution without making the bat larger by simply making it thicker at different points or compressing certain spots more to increase the density of an area. Ultimately it does not make a jot of difference what the ICC try and do about bat size, design will continue to make the ball travel faster off the bat regardless of where it hits it, players will continue to get stronger and hit the ball harder. The size of the bat has very little to do with why more edges or miss hits etc are going to the fence, which is where all this started.

By all means say a bat can only be x wide, y thick and z heavy. Bat manufactures will increase the performance regardless, but as long as people keep banging on about bat size then it's an easy scape goat which will do nothing to solve the problem.

[rich1uk]

The size of the bat has very little to do with why more edges or miss hits etc are going to the fence, which is where all this started.

so all the current and ex-players who say this is wrong are just making it up and you know better ?

[Making_Splinters]

The size of the bat has very little to do with why more edges or miss hits etc are going to the fence, which is where all this started.

so all the current and ex-players who say this is wrong are just making it up and you know better ?

If you read your own article they talk about changing where the sweet spot is and its size. That is to do with weight distrubution not bat size, as well as pressing techniques to increase the efficency of collisions. It's fairly commonsense that making a bat bigger without changing the weight will have no impact on the velocity with which that ball leaves the bat.

[Gingerfinch]

Good. The time of most matches.

Being an early bird meant I got to watch quite a bit of Cricket, which I wouldn't have done if the matches were here.

[Alviro Patterson]

Good - New Zealand's use of venues.

Whilst Australia mainly used large but often unfilled stadia to host World Cup matches, New Zealand used a wide range of grounds consisting of character and creating an unique atmosphere in each one. Even the low profile fixture of Zimbabwe v UAE in Nelson was well supported by townspeople, schoolkids and tourists and the game itself was enjoyable to watch. Gauging local opinion from the townspeople and media, the 2015 Cricket World Cup has made a bigger impact for Nelson than the 2011 Rugby Union World Cup when they hosted a pool stage fixture. The district council invested $1 Million to ensure Saxton Oval was fit for international cricket and are rewarded with publicity that money can't buy.

[andy]

lol arthur the theme tune bit cracked me up... i quite like it to be honest