Judging by the Marylebone Cricket Club’s world cricket committee’s latest recommendations you could be forgiven if you thought all of the game’s ills were found in the size of the bats being used nowadays.
Before you do a double take, you read that correctly.
The committee, which proposes changes to the sport’s rules, believes batting has become a trifle too easy because of the sizeable clefts which do the rounds.
As such, they think a restriction on the size of the edges (35-40mm) and depth of the blade (60-65mm) would allow a better balance between bat and ball to be struck thus, if all follows as it should do, benefiting the game as a whole.
In purely theoretical terms this seems like a perfectly good idea. Stop a particular element from getting out of control in order to maintain the integrity of the sport which does, whether you like it or not, heavily favour those doing the batting.
In the words of the MCC:
“The overwhelming (but not unanimous) view of the committee was that it has become too easy for batsmen to clear the boundary in all forms of cricket, even with mistimed shots. Furthermore, it was felt that there is a clear safety concern for close fielders, bowlers and umpires, while the recreational game is also suffering, as balls are flying into nearby residential properties with increasing frequency, thus threatening the existence of some smaller cricket clubs.”
So there you go. Too many sixes, physical danger to other participants and the chance of a cricket ball being hit into someone’s garden (that final point in the MCC statement is nonsense if ever I’ve heard it).
Cricket has myriad challenges to deal with if it is to develop and prosper in the years to come but the size of the bats being used isn’t one of them.
What about the ridiculously crowded international calendar, the ever-present threat of matchfixing, dwindling Test match crowds, ineffectual governance and financial inequality?
There are more I’m sure but all of those may be a good place to start rather than worrying about how big Chris Gayle or David Warner’s respective weapon of choice is.
In simple terms, a ball is hit no harder by Warner than it was by Robin Smith 15 years ago or Viv Richards 10 years before that and they didn’t use bats like those shown off in the modern age.
How a bat is manufactured has definitely changed with the distribution of weight, the way it’s pressed and the density of the wood enabling an identical weight but a significantly larger profile to be attained. That leads to a sweet spot that covers a greater percentage of the blade which would be of advantage to any batsman, however talented they may be.
A bat could have edges half the width and a spine half the depth and it wouldn’t make any real difference if similar manufacturing techniques are used. I would take an educated guess that should bat sizes be limited in the near future, it won’t make any difference whatsoever to the proliferation of six-hitting that is considered to be such a dangerous factor.
Batmakers will find a way of optimising the performance of their products, as they always do, and the results will be the same.
What has certainly been missed by those sitting around the table are other elements which have caused this matter to ever be debated.
Twenty20 cricket has transformed batsmanship to a revolutionary degree across all formats and there won’t be any going back. The necessity to hit boundaries in such a shortened game has bled through to the longer contests in the latest of cricket’s evolutionary traits.
Add to the melting pot the ridiculously short boundaries used in a lot of cricket – watch the Lord’s Test this week and take note of where the rope is – and it really is no wonder they are cleared more often. Boundaries of 60 yards would barely contain 15 year-olds, let alone professional athletes.
And on the matter of athleticism, the cricketer of 2016 is a better equipped physical specimen than many of his predecessors which has to have an effect along with a more gung-ho mentality.
And that, pretty much, is that. If the size of bats alone is responsible for untold damage to the game’s fabric then do something about it by all means but there are other forces at play which need to be given due consideration.
Those making the decisions are struggling to see the wood for the trees and the pun is very much intended.
Rellum
Roar Guru
And yet I would bet most judges think the standard of international bowling is at an all time low, so those modern training techniques/coaching and technology's have not amounted to much apart from improved fitness metrics. I don't much in the way of swing or seam in today's game( and yes some of that can be put down to the pitch but not all, despite what some think you can swing the ball on a road of a pitch)
Rellum
Roar Guru
Who's suggesting we want to return the game to what it was before? We want a good contest between bat and ball, and yes the pitch does play a role, but so does the increased power of the bats as well as a myriad of other factors. You can't just tweak the pitches and it will all be great and ignore all the other issues.
Joel
Roar Rookie
I would love to see the ball swing more and deviate more off the pitch. I used to love the SCG test matches where it would turn from a green monster to a spinners heaven in the matter of a few days. The argument about the size of the bat completely ignores the fact that the person wielding it has an easier time hitting sixes because the ball won't deviate from the middle. How good were the Aussies big bats in England when they played on green tops? How about that pink ball test last year where no batsman was able to properly dominate? If you bring the bowlers back into the game then the size of the bat won't make much difference at all. Batman will actually have to learn proper technique again and to stay compact in their stroke play, reducing the amount of good balls going to the boundary or sixes being hit. Tell me i'm wrong.
Jacko
Guest
So based on your view Joel you wont mind if they change the ball to swing around and to be heavier?Bat size makes a big difference because if it didnt then why are bat manufactures using far more wood to do the same job. Lots of wasted money? All that extra wood for zero?
AlanKC
Guest
Good thoughts Alec, I suspect the pitches being served up (just look at the Lords deck for the Pakistan test) are doing much more damage to test cricket than the bats. as an aside, if the Lords deck was served up to de-fang Amir and Rahab it backfired with Yasir making merry.
Johnno
Guest
Some batters have made the point, and it is maybe accurate that bowlers have got better to. They to have benefited also from modern training techniques/coaching and technology better boots etc, so are fitter and probably have more variety or understanding of what type of deliveries there bowling. So batters are saying "yes they've had bigger or better bat technology" plus training techniques better, but bowlers have benefited from the modern game to. Also most bowlers get better batting tuition as well. Your standard no 9-11 is better than the 80's or 90's. Jimmy Anderson type tail ender would have been useless in the 80's or 90's. Ropes were around in the 90's, and short boundaries in cricket are nothing new eg West indies/England/NZ most of there grounds have always had short boundaries, unlike in Australia/India.
Simoc
Guest
The article is correct. The players are full time professionals and batting has improved out of sight. Sehwag was the first to demonstrate swinging the bat along the line of delivery can be very effective, and now its second nature to nearly all T20 players. The short boundaries also make a huge difference but it is a way better spectacle for fielding heroics. We see spin bowlers doing very well in all forms of the game and medium paced plodders aren't unless they produce something special. That's the way it should be. Riaz demonstrated in Australia not so long back that a bit of hostility from a fast bowler is still very effective, and entertaining.
Johnno
Guest
"Too many sixes, physical danger to other participants and the chance of a cricket ball being hit into someone’s garden (that final point in the MCC statement is nonsense if ever I’ve heard it)". Alex you say that point is nonsense, but what if someone dies if they get hit by a random cricket ball flying into there backyard when there gardening, or a car is driving along and a cricket ball hits there car. Is it a case of "what if/what if" and life has risks eg like living near an airport if a plane crashes into it. What if someone in there back yard gardening gets hits with a golf ball or cricket ball, do we just say oh well accidents happen, and we shouldn't stop a sport at a community level based on the occasional accident. Maybe, but the law suits will be massive if someone gets killed or suffers brain damage, and maybe reduced bat size might reduce accidents. A golf club near where I live runs parallel to a busy road. And now prison like fences surround the road part of the golf course, to reduce the chance of a golf ball landing on the road. Cricket or community sport can't sit idle and ignore it, residents that live next to major sports ovals and community ovals have rights, and these cricket clubs have a duty of care to participate in safe sport practices that don't endanger local residents,cricket clubs can't live on islands, they answer to nearby residents too in my view. I know someone who had a car crash after a golf ball hit his car when he was driving, and he sued that golf club for a lot of money after he suffered serious injuries from that golf ball from that club, that landed on his window causing a crash. Cricket clubs do have to answer to local residents in my view, like it or not.
Peter
Roar Rookie
On another note, how great it is to see Misbah getting a ton on his Lord's debut. At 42. Bravo that man.
Joel
Roar Rookie
big bats are a storm in a teacup.. why? Because the majority of bats being used right now by international players already fall under the new rules to be imposed. That aside, there is no way you can claim that test cricket can be saved by returning it to what it was before. As a spectator sport, you can't take the game back to when there were less boundaries and less runs scored in a days play and expect it to compete with the other two forms of the game for crowd or tv numbers. If you want to create a fair contest, put some juice back in the pitches, put the boundaries back and make the batsman work harder for their runs as a starting point.
Craig Swanson
Guest
At the moment the game is weighed heavily in favor of the man with the willow. So in order to ensure bums on seats but still present a fair contest between bat and ball changes had to be made. Changing the bat size is one of those measures. The next should be making curators prepare fair pitches that provide an enthralling contest and do not consign the bowler to the graveyard. That above all will bring people back to the purist form of our great sport.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I would love to see stats on how many three's are scored in the modern game compared to the 80's and 90's. I would also be interested in how many catches are taken in Gully now compared to previous era's. Gully used to be an important catching position,
Kris
Guest
As long as the entertainment value of cricket matches is defined by the number of sixes hit nothing will change. The most entertaining match of cricket I've seen in years was the day/night Test in Adelaide last year where no-one made a hundred and Shaun Marsh's 60-odd was a match-winning innings. After that match we went straight back to flat pitches, short boundaries and bowlers searching for a bridge to throw themselves from.
Rellum
Roar Guru
The size and weight of the bats is definitely one of those factors, you can look at all the other factors and dismiss the size of the bats. We all know these factors (flat pitches, tiny boundaries, bouncer rules, much better protective gear, etc), things just need to be done taking all of these issues into account to bring balance back to the game.
Liam
Guest
Just because there are other problems to do with cricket - and those problems have more to do with the ICC than the MCC - doesn't mean that the size of bats hasn't unduly influenced the degree to which batsmen have an easier time of it than bowlers. And the safety concerns are legitimate beyond belief. You are absolutely right when you say that Warner doesn't necessarily hit the ball harder than his predecessors, but Warner is absolutely not the only batsman getting away with strokeplay that would have seen Viv Richards dismissed. It is through the leeway modern bats grant batsmen that their value is found; the degree to which going harder at the ball is forgivable, as the ball flies over point or gully where it should carry to the fielder for a straightforward catch, or a ball mishit that flies towards the midwicket boundary off the edge from a crossbat slog that traditionally would have been caught in the infield. Don't mind the middle of the bat being quality, because that rewards timers of the ball and sensible strokeplay. It is the shots which come from the edges of the bat which draw my ire, and it is for this that I applaud the MCC for legislating against them.
bryan
Guest
Bat thickness itself does not change the power of a shot. In the end, mass is far more important. What is really the problem is stiffness and other vibration reducing designs that result in mishits actually being real hits. This has some good stuff http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html
Joel
Roar Rookie
I think you're missing the point. The fabric of the game has been completely altered in the last few years by a huge amount of factors, almost none of which is the size of a players bat. There are more important things the boys at Marylebone should be focusing on... like how bigger bats wouldn't mean that much if the ball was able to move through the air and off the pitch on a regular basis. The six hitting capabilities of the modern players is more emphasized by their confidence to hit hard through the line without fear of the ball deviating. They could be using an old stump and still clear the ridiculously short boundaries.
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
Are you for real? The size of these bats is ridiculous - Smith and Richards may have been able to swing as hard as Warner (a claim I'm not convinced on - have you seen the guy's forearms?) but there's no way they would have been clearing the ropes as easily as Warner, Gayle, McCullum, de Villiers, et al do today. When an edge can sail over the keeper's head and clear the boundary, there's an issue. The maximum 6 runs for clearing the boundary should be a reward for a well-executed, cleanly-timed hit. We aren't playing baseball here, swinging as hard as possible and hoping for the best. The tools available to bowlers - ie. The ball - is highly regulated, and therefore the tools available to the batsmen should be also.