Can we do something about monster bats?

[Shatterpoint]

"Modern bats are getting chunkier by the day, while not getting much more heavy. This gives batsmen an unfair advantage

Sanjay Manjrekar"

April 25, 2014

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/739039.html

I agree with him, really need to start looking at these bats, it's borderline cheating, it gives batsmen a unfair advantage, when a edge can go for six it's a joke, what do you guys think?

 

[Torz]

I don't think we should penalise manufacturers for innovating. If anything - make the boundaries bigger.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I don't have big issue with it. The best bowlers still get results. Edges carry that may not have with weaker bats. Our expectations of bowlers, especially in limited overs cricket, have changed; a bowler going at 5.5 an over in an ODI isn't unacceptable anymore, whereas 10 years ago it would have been seen as expensive. etc.

 

[The Passenger]

If anything - make the boundaries bigger.

i agree the boundaries should not be roped in so far but there is only so much that can be done about the size of the grounds.

the bats these days are insane how much power they have in them

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I would definitely like to see something done. Not so much in T20, its a game designed completely around six-hitting so let it be about six-hitting.
For the traditional form, something definitely needs to be done.
In the long-short game I really don't know. I'd like to see more stingent rules applied, to differentiate it further from the short-short game. But is it really that big an issue for that version.

 

[Natho]

Those big bats didn't help England in the Ashes

 

[PTizzle]

Definitely haven't thought to myself that batsmen are dominating too much in modern cricket. Don't think it needs to be made out as an issue unless the output of international bowlers start dramatically dropping off.

Technology has improved in many areas of the game.

 

[forwardflanker]

bring back the gn scoop

 

[Shatterpoint]

Yeah increasing the size of the boundaries will help, but a lot of grounds around the world don't have space to extend too far.

 

[Miqar_Baqfhied]

You look at tennis and the evolution of equipment, but you can still look back at marvel at the heroes of yester year - eg: the Lavers and Newcombes. And you can still look at the scoreboards and relate them to performances today. This is because both sides of the net had the same advantage.

With cricket, everything has been innovated to give the batsman an advantage over bowlers - you have smaller boundaries, bigger bats, stupid fielding restrictions, DRS - you can no longer relate scores being produced to earlier times to get a measure of a players skill. Those hundreds ground out by Geoffrey Boycott using stick bats at huge grounds with no ropes you cant get an appreciation of by looking at the scorebooks. Same goes for the bowlers - there are many bowlers around these days with great skill that don't get the accolades deserved because of their stats being destroyed by these pro-batsman innovations. Someone like Nuwan Kulasekara may have been a Terry Alderman or Bob Massie back in the day, but his skills might be downplayed by coming up against the huge pro-batsman innovations. Someone like MS Dhoni with his awful technique might be over rated as a batsman of skill when looking back in years to come because of these factors too.

That's the real shame of it all.

 

[Miqar_Baqfhied]

Definitely haven't thought to myself that batsmen are dominating too much in modern cricket. Don't think it needs to be made out as an issue unless the output of international bowlers start dramatically dropping off.

Technology has improved in many areas of the game.

Well when was the last time the West Indies produced a fast bowler of any significance?

 

[Mateyman]

With all these batsmen advantages, you would expect batsmen to be dominating, no? But they are not, and haven't since the mid 00's.
Pitches have become more result oriented. Also, DRS has helped bowlers IMO because LBWs are much more likely to be paid.

Well when was the last time the West Indies produced a fast bowler of any significance?

How is this an argument? There is clearly still the ability for ball to be dominant as shown by Johnson in the last 8 tests or so. The fact that a once great cricketing nation has not had a lot of fast bowlers doesn't show batsmen to be unfairly dominating.

 

[Miqar_Baqfhied]

How is this an argument? There is clearly still the ability for ball to be dominant as shown by Johnson in the last 8 tests or so. The fact that a once great cricketing nation has not had a lot of fast bowlers doesn't show batsmen to be unfairly dominating.

It is well and truly a batsman game. Pure and simple.

The whole game is orientated these days for big scoring and sixes - that's what brings the crowds and makes the money. A whole new format was developed around this. As opposed to tight, consistent bowling - the young generation doesn't go to watch maidens FFS..

Fast bowlers back in the 70's, 80's, 90's were really no quicker than many speedsters today, but they scared the shit out of batsman and took a lot of wickets at not many runs - they were relatively more effective. Today - slower, low drop in pitches, thick edges where the ball just flies off to the meakly short boundaries patrolled by fewer outfielders cos of field restrictions, ridiculous 'wides' rules - there's nothing that exciting or heroic about striving to be a fast bowler these days as opposed to a power hitting batsman eg: Chris Gayle

A fast bowler dominates for the first time in a decade - about f*cking time

 

[Mateyman]

It is well and truly a batsman game. Pure and simple.

The whole game is orientated these days for big scoring and sixes - that's what brings the crowds and makes the money. A whole new format was developed around this. As opposed to tight, consistent bowling - the young generation doesn't go to watch maidens FFS..

Fast bowlers back in the 70's, 80's, 90's were really no quicker than many speedsters today, but they scared the shit out of batsman and took a lot of wickets at not many runs - they were relatively more effective. Today - slower, low drop in pitches, thick edges where the ball just flies off to the meakly short boundaries patrolled by fewer outfielders cos of field restrictions, ridiculous 'wides' rules - there's nothing that exciting or heroic about striving to be a fast bowler these days as opposed to a power hitting batsman eg: Chris Gayle

A fast bowler dominates for the first time in a decade - about f*cking time

IIRC batsmen have pretty low averages this decade compared to the 70s, 80s, 90s

 

[The_Reaper]

IIRC batsmen have pretty low averages this decade compared to the 70s, 80s, 90s

Really?
How many players averaged >50 for large parts of their career in the 70s and 80s?

 

[Mateyman]

Really?
How many players averaged >50 for large parts of their career in the 70s and 80s?

Can't remember, just remember reading that with wickets being more result oriented than the 00's The last 5 years or so have not been the most fruitful for batsmen.

 

[Miqar_Baqfhied]

IIRC batsmen have pretty low averages this decade compared to the 70s, 80s, 90s

Strongly doubt this but willing to be to proven wrong - any evidence?

 

[Wallaby]

Here you go. Batting Averages by Decade. I've removed Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka (because in the 70s and 80s, Sri Lanka were so weak they distorted those decades figures.

EDIT: Formatting didn't work, but I've separated out the averages. Here is the actual query if you want to play with it. (Just hit Return to Query Menu, and play with the options).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...5;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting



1870s - - - - 17.49
1880s - - - - 18.40
1890s - - - - 24.18
1900s - - - - 23.87
1910s - - - - 25.91
1920s - - - - 31.88
1930s - - - - 31.12
1940s - - - - 34.26
1950s - - - - 27.38
1960s - - - - 30.81
1970s - - - - 30.76
1980s - - - - 30.57
1990s - - - - 29.25
2000s - - - - 32.93
2010s - - - - 31.06

 

[Mateyman]

Here you go. Batting Averages by Decade. I've removed Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka (because in the 70s and 80s, Sri Lanka were so weak they distorted those decades figures.

EDIT: Formatting didn't work, but I've separated out the averages. Here is the actual query if you want to play with it. (Just hit Return to Query Menu, and play with the options).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...5;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting



1870s - - - - 17.49
1880s - - - - 18.40
1890s - - - - 24.18
1900s - - - - 23.87
1910s - - - - 25.91
1920s - - - - 31.88
1930s - - - - 31.12
1940s - - - - 34.26
1950s - - - - 27.38
1960s - - - - 30.81
1970s - - - - 30.76
1980s - - - - 30.57
1990s - - - - 29.25
2000s - - - - 32.93
2010s - - - - 31.06

Yeah, so batting teams average 2.5 runs an innings more than the 70s. Hardly earth-shattering stuff. Very good stats BTW

 

[Miqar_Baqfhied]

Interesting stuff. Nice work. I stand corrected

 

[Belnakor]

Was last year only a couple of batsman were above 50 for the year?

 

[The_Reaper]

It's mainly the Sri Lankans with the inflated averages

 

[brisbane13]

i agree the boundaries should not be roped in so far but there is only so much that can be done about the size of the grounds.

the bats these days are insane how much power they have in them

its go something to do with OH&S, is why the boundaries are roped in so far

 

[brisbane13]

they should let the bowlers tape one side of the ball up so it swings, like back yard cricket, making it harder to hit

 

[Wallaby]

its go something to do with OH&S, is why the boundaries are roped in so far

The powers-that-be want to encourage the spectacular dives etc (checkout some old footage, where, for some reason, players didn't hurl themselves headfirst into the MCG's combination of concrete gutter and metal pickets).

For the same reason they won't address the bat issue - it doesn't matter if the scores are artificially inflated, provided they are entertaining.

I have been rambling on about technology in sport for years (there's a million of my posts around). Cricket bats are just one. The hydrodynamic suits of the recent swimming era are probably the most egregious. It wont change because the equipment manufacturers income depend on us buying the latest and greatest every few months to replace the previous latest and greatest.

It is odd in cricket how the batsman can choose his own bat, while the ball is supplied by the organisers and subject to far stricter rules. Maybe each cricket team should be made to carry a selection of, say, 6 bats - 3 different sizes, 2 weights (heavy or light) - and the batsmen have to use those and those only.