Are modern bats now too good?

These days, miss-hits are going for six on a regular basis. Several shots from Watson and Warner were nowhere near the middle last night but still they sailed well over the fence. This is most unfair for the bowlers, and I reckon the ICC needs to start considering some sort of restrictions on the thickness of bats.

Yes they are. You get rewarded to getting bat on ball, not for hitting it out of the middle.

I think there is a restriction on the thickness already. It's the "springiness" that's the problem.

Watson toed a 95 metre six last night.

It's just getting out of hand.



Bring back honesty, I say.

Bring back hockey sticks and oars.

But yes, bats are a bit too good nowadays.

Need to keep it in check or it will just become baseball, or have a transformation like tennis had between the wooden rackets era and the serve-dominated Sampras borefest era. Maybe that's already happening... but T20 does need sixes to be entertaining, even if Test cricket doesn't. Better fast pitches than bats that make it easy though.

It was always going to be the case, though, wasn't it? You can't halt progress. As mentioned there is a restriction on how thick the bat can be but it's to do with how the bats are compressed. As beamer says, the only thing that can help to even it up is to keep the pitches with a bit of nip. It makes for better cricket anyway, IMO. Every discipline loves a fast pitch.

Make boundaries bigger as well. 65 metres? Way too short. 80 should be the minimum these days.

PeterCS wrote:It's just getting out of hand.



Bring back honesty, I say.

That is a brilliant pic

They're still not good enough for Chris Martin.