posted May 8, 2008

The authorities have once again confirmed their reluctance to embrace new technology when other sports open their doors to innovation to improve public appeal and entertainment.

It is difficult understand the argument about upsetting the balance between the ball and bat if the bat benefits from better technology. Both sides get a chance to bat don't they? Besides, who defines the right balance and have we now achieved it with the traditional bat? And how about allowing improvements to the ball as well?

Regulation is essential so as to ensure fair play for both sides but this sounds like shutting the door completely to innovation.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 8, 2008

I think the MCC are trying to cut down on the amounts of drawn games which will happen more and more if both sides can bat forever.
What do peaple think about using the golf system where there is a maximum C.C of clubhead and M.O.A.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 8, 2008

I'm in favour of this decision and think it's absolutely the right move.

However I wonder if they could experiment and allow the new bats in Twenty20? That game is really all about pulling crowds and if it did make for bigger hits and more runs that might make for bigger crowds and more kids getting into the game?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 8, 2008

TrevorBarker, why is this 'the worst decision ever'?

It's not about embracing new technology. Cricket has survived as a great games for centuries under its traditional laws and I applaud the MCC for keeping the contest between bat and ball a fair one.

Bowlers aren't allowed to have lead in the ball to weigh it down for the batsmen, so why should the batsmen be allowed to make the ball (effectively) lighter with all this graphite.

Leather on willow.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 8, 2008

Of course it’s different for one-day cricket, which seems increasingly intent on turning itself into a slogging contest. 60, 50, 40 overs – we’re now down to 20 and I don’t see why we should stop there. Let’s have 15 overs a side, humungous great bouncy bats, the bowler has to deliver underarm dollies, and the fielders stand blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs (or don’t bother with fielders at all). There, sorted. And let the rest of us get on with proper cricket.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 8, 2008

Makes sense to me.

Now, if football could revert to those old-fashioned dubbined balls that induced immediate headaches and stiff necks for those foolish enough to to get their heads in the way.....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 9, 2008

Cricket bat handles always used to break or come off at the splice. The stronger fitter batsmen and harder machine made balls have made handle breakages an even bigger problem. Modern materials and adhesives have partially cured handle problems now the ICC see fit for us to go back to using Horse Hoof glue etc. These old fashioned bats will be pulverised with the new machine made balls.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 10, 2008

Finally my wish has come true.
I have always been worried by the fact that bat technology is going too far ahead for the good of the game. As a bowler i have seen how batsman are finding it easier and easier. First the pitches these days are made for batsman. Then to nail the coffin they have bats which weigh as much as a feather and yet impact with phenomenal power.
We saw what happened when the curator prepared a bowling pitch in India. SA bowled India out for 76!!! We dont want that extreme either.
A perfect balance is required.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 10, 2008

Alot of people here condemning MCC desicion. They probably have never bowled to batsman. I used to bowl when batsman had the old bats. And i have bowled these days to batsman with the space age bats. Let me tell you with these new bats batsman are getting away with playing poor shots which in the past would get them out. How many times have we seen a mistimed shot clearing the boundary?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 10, 2008

Steve_Ireland,
First, you are correct in pointing out that ponting did not play with graphite bat in that world cup. I was really under impression that he played.
And the reason I did not mention Jayasurya etc because i did not they were playing with graphite bat. (just not keeping track of who is doing what).

Anyway, when you mention ponting's figures with and without graphite bat, you write as if when he was not playing with graphite bat he was just using a wood stick. Professional players use the best equipment that time has to offer. May be graphite bat is not very much of improvement over what he was already using. (But still graphite bat was better).
Do you really belive ponting would score the same with using bats of say 100 years ago.

You made it all about ponting but the point that I wanted to make was, in professional level equipment is very very important. And we (researchers) work very hard to improve things (even if the improvement is very little).
Yes talent is very important but may not be sufficient for success at professional or world class level.
I give you an extreme example. Consider Woods. He is very very talented and way ahead of current players. Given the todays level of golf, if he plays with equipment of 50 years ago, there is almost zero chance that he will win any trophy now.

Anyway, having said all this. I personally believe that people should be allowed to play with the new equipments, if they wish to play with it. And the reason why I feel so is if we do not embrass new things change would not come. And change is usually good, specially when we put so much effort to improve things (why to do so much research if they all would be termed illegal).

There are many ways graphite bat helps. For example if it give player less shock player would get less tired. Important for long innings.

add comment | complain about this comment