The Cricket Bat Journal

Patents from the archive: Nicolls and Wavex

2011-04-08T16:35:00.000+01:00

In the late 1880’s Levi James Nicolls created a novel method of making a bat handle, for which he subsequently filed a patent (No. 14,250) in October 1888. The handle was referred to as ‘The Automatic Bat Handle’ in magazine adverts. One of these bats was used by WG Grace to score over 1,000 runs, and his 100th century.

The handle was a two-piece unit that fitted together with opposing curved (sinusoidal) faces. The idea was to interlock the two sides of the cane handle with curves instead of the traditional flat surfaces. The two curved faces were interposed by a strip of gutta percha (that's a type of rubber in modern language). The claimed benefit was improved vibration damping, although Nicolls used the more prosaic words "automatic non-concussive handle".

Nicolls wasn't the first to use rubber slips to improve vibration damping. The curves running up the handle could have had some additional benefit that Nicolls knew worked, but couldn't explain why.

Fast forward in time to the 1990’s and the creation of a concept by a Taiwanese Dr. Suk-Ho Ryu, and commercialised by Canadian company Wavex. The idea was initially proposed as a solution to reducing tennis elbow in tennis players, but was then put forward as a shock-absorbing feature for many applications that involved humans and repetitive impacts, such as hammers and power tools.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have survived as a viable commercial product, which calls into question its benefits over more conventional and standard methods of vibration damping. The Wavex company claimed their idea would offer benefit to cricket bats, and this was covered by a patent application in December 2002 (No. 2,396,563). It was later licensed for cricket bats to Kippax in the UK.

How does the Wavex idea work and look on a cricket bat? It uses a curved surface pattern on the handle (sound familiar?), but this time on the outside of the handle, and with a shallow curvature. Alongside the claimed benefit of reducing vibration, there is also a claim of increasing bat power (see the Kippax website).

The veracity of the Wavex claims for increasing power in cricket bats is debatable, as is the vibration damping properties of a shallow curved surface in a continuous solid. This will be the subject of a future blog when I have found time to do a little experimentation to back-up the theory.

For the moment though, I am struck by the echo of the past in the future. Two completely unconnected events, yet similar ideas.

Tendulkar's Magic Bat - epilogue

2011-04-06T18:06:00.001+01:00

Well, it didn't go quite to plan. Only 18 in the World Cup Final, and out to a in-two-minds push away from the body, caught behind off Lasith Malinga. India won anyway, since they have an astonishingly brilliant batting line-up. But, what possessed the little Master to change his bat in the semi-final, and continue into the final? Could it have been some gently applied pressure of adidas, one of his big sponsors?

"Please Lord Sachin, it's the world cup semi-final. Could you go out and score a a lot of runs with a nice new shiny adidas bat. Zillions and gazillions are watching, and they aren't going to get turned on by those mucky old bats you usually trot out with, huh?"

I do hope it wasn't this. He is cataclysmically more important to cricket than a being a celebrity clothes horse to sell product, and be denied the best chance to craft his 100th century on such a grand stage in his home city by such a cheap compromise.

I hope it's revealed in any future ST biography. I'm intrigued.

Tendulkar's Magic Bat?

2011-04-01T14:13:00.000+01:00

So, Sachin Tendulkar decided to take a new bat into the World Cup semi-final. Well there's nothing interesting about that on its own. However, his 85 run innings must have been one of the most charmed of all time in such an important match. He was dropped four times, almost stumped (saved by one video frame) and given not out to an LBW appeal that left even the die-hard supporters of URDS looking in to their tea leaves for re-assurance. Had this cricketing God imbued special powers on this new bat to try and get him to a World Cup final in his home city? If you believed in the supernatural you would say it could happen.

Here's an alternative view, if he had played with an old bat as he usually does he would have got his 100th ODI century in the semi-final. Changing his usual routine and familiarity with an old favourite, and playing with a shiny new just knocked in bat moved him away from a warm and cosy place that has brought him to the verge of 100 centuries. He had his reasons (I'd like to know what they were), but if he hadn't made those chancy 85 runs India could easily be watching Pakistan play Sri Lanka in Mumbai.

Superstition and trust to lady luck doesn't make a champion. Unshakable confidence in your own ability and well-worn routines does, and Sachin has shown to be a master of this. Changing his bat for this most critical match in his own glittering career is as brave as it is foolish. He got away with it.

The Edge - innovation or gimmick?

2011-01-06T17:18:00.000Z

Following on from the Dual T20 (double sided bat), GN have produced another novelty bat called The Edge for 2011. Is this another case of letting the Marketing Department sniff glue once again?

The GN marketeers make a worthy opening line for The Edge, "Gray Nicolls continues to innovate the bat making process to keep pace with an ever changing game". Nothing wrong in that, although I thinks this innovation is more like the 'innovations' that appeared in the erstwhile Innovations Catalogue, which was full of things that were novel but mostly pointless. This is why I used the word novelty bat earlier. It is in no way a genuine innovation.

GN stray further into a fantasy world by saying "The Edge’s handle is offset to combat any sideways movement in the pitch and aid the common batting fault of over balancing. Simple but hugely effective without having to learn a new shot or take any performance away from the blade."

Point 1. The tangled prose aside, what if the ball does not move sideways? It happens, a lot.

Point 2. True, the blades performance stays the same, but only if you un-train your eye-hand from years of practice of hitting the centre of a bat which is normally in line of the handle. Otherwise you'll be hitting away from the middle, so performance is down a tad. However, if you get a sideways moving ball in the right direction, then bingo, you hit the middle.

Point 3. If a bowler sees you with The Edge, is he not going to tailor his tactics to move the ball the opposite way, or not at all? "Oh look, he's got The Edge, I'll feed him some nice balls that move sideways so as not to make him look like a prat".

Point 4. Is over-balancing a common fault worth buying a special bat to correct, where a bit of simple coaching would suffice? Look at Alistair Cook, toppling over like a drunk last summer and no runs. Gets a bit of decent coaching and applies himself. Now, front foot inside the line of the ball, perfectly balanced, and 766 runs in an Ashes series down-under.

Point 5. Who is the target audience? It's a low grade bat (retail price around £100 and below), so not for the serious cricketer. Is it for school-kids? Surely not, for GN would lose all credibility among the coaches, and cause an ECB committee or two to splutter into their large glasses of claret at the damage it would do to its coaching and skills development programme.

Point 6. I could go on, but enough has been said. Wanting to un-pick the marketing blurb is making me as giddy as GN must have been when they dreamed it up.

So, The Edge can only be a mere novelty, not a true innovation in bat design. But that nonetheless I commend GN for giving me a good laugh at the end of a difficult year in 2010. I froth in anticipation of the next offering at the end of 2011.

p.s. it's also not on their website (yet) - is that a clue to its credibility?

Charting inventions in cricket bats

2010-11-19T12:06:00.003Z

In some spare time a few years back I began to compile a record of patents relating to cricket bats. I now have a near definitive record for all patents published. An analysis of this data threw up a number of trends and notions around the inventiveness and capacity to invent in cricket playing nations. Some of these are instinctive, and some are revealing.

Bear in mind that this is a brief analysis of patents published. It does not include ideas and inventions or otherwise that were never patented, of which there must be many. The data provided here shows how human invention reveals itself in cricket bats, and I make a connection to their countries of origin. Not being a historian or social scientist I will leave more detailed interpretations and analysis to those with the knowledge to do so, but hope that any who do will share it and improve my own historical knowledge around cricket and creativity.

In total there has been (at least) 107 cricket bat related patents published since 1884. On-line records show 100 patents going back as far as 1894. An additional 7 have been found through research that date from 1884 to 1891. There may be a few more published patents hidden in the archives, although this is unlikely to be more than a handful.

The first graph below illustrates the frequency of patents applied or published by decades, and split between ideas for improvements in handles and blades.

There are some interesting observations in the data. Handle related patents were the most frequent before the Second World War; at which point there is understandable absence of patents while a large part of the world were preventing dictators from taking over said world. Around five years of post-war austerity and re-building kept minds away from play. Then patents started to appear again as humanity re-discovered leisure, and a spark of inventiveness occurred through a renaissance of life in the 1950’s. From this point onwards there is a reverse in the bias towards more blade related patents. This is probably explained by the growth in new materials such as polymers and alloys, and attempts to apply these to improving performance of blades.

The rules of cricket up to 1980 had no restriction on materials for blade or handle, and this led to many variations on the composite and lamination theme. In 1954 John Lewis of the Rubber Improvement Company patented the first idea for a plastic bat to be made in a mould. He referred to using hard-setting resins that could be reinforced with glass, nylon or cotton, and the cavity filled with cork, wood, sponge or 'like-filling' substance.

There's nothing like covering your options, as all good patents should. All previous composite ideas were either wood combinations or variants on using rubber sheets or layers. Aside from the creation of a spliced cane handle, the earliest patent recorded for a novel laminate (or composite) bat was around 1887 by the Cobbett Cricket Bat Factory. The idea is best described as a cricket bat having an ash frame with a cork playing surface reinforced with cat gut.

A modern example of striving to use new materials is a patent by Michael Curtis (no relation) of Dunlop's in 1993, who were then the owners of Slazenger and producer of Slazenger cricket bats. He proposed a predominantly plastic bat that had a willow insert for the striking surface.

The odd thing here is that the laws had been changed back in 1980 banning any non-wood materials in the blade. So why make the effort and expense to patent something that can't be used? It is not un-typical of inventors to patent ideas even in the light of conditions that would prevent it becoming a commercial success. I guess Dunlop's thought that one day the rules may change back in favour of non-wood materials, and had the cash to spend on a speculative patent. However, the rules have been tightened ever since, and it's only an event such as willow supplies drying up that would force the MCC to consider a change to Law 6 covering the blade.

I then took the same data, but replaced the blade/handle differential with the countries that published the patents. The second and third graphs show the UK as the most prolific (with 88), followed some way back by Australia (13), whilst India (1), South Africa(3) and Canada (2) showing no more than a few patents each.

The UK’s dominant productivity in patents is entirely expected given its industrial heritage, population size, and a strong culture for both cricket and invention. Up to around 1970 the UK had a complete monopoly on the global supply of cricket bats.

Perhaps a more balanced comparison is one where population size is taken into account. The graph below moderates the data by dividing patent number by population size, and with a multiplier to create a sensible magnitude we get what I call a patent-population index. I've taken an average population using 1900 and 2010 data. The main observation to draw from this is that Australia performs much better when population size is factored, but again this is probably not unexpected given its cricket heritage and rising industrialisation during the 20th century.

Although no complete surprise it is certainly interesting to note that all patents published outside of the UK are former dominions of the British Empire, where quite naturally the sport of cricket was spread as part of the great 'imperial cultural exchange'. Canada is an exception to the others as major cricket playing nation.

Australia's most memorable and infamous patent is the one taken out by Graham Monaghan and Dennis Lillee for an aluminium bat in 1979, which forced a rule change by the MCC. It was only meant as a low cost bat to make cricket accessible in poorer countries, but Lillee couldn't resist the publicity stunt of using it in an Ashes test match. Little could he have known the consequences of his action on the future of cricket bats.

In fact, there have been two major amendments to Law 6 (The Bat) in the last 30 years, in 1980 and 2008, where previously there had been no change since 1809. Both changes were related to bat advancements that were patented. It's clear that this has coincided with the rapid advancement in material technologies over this period.

If technological advancement continues unabated then, despite the restrictions of the current laws, it is inevitable that another idea in the next 20 years will cause a further rule change.

Over the coming months I will hopefully draw out further insights on cricket bat patents, but for now, that's all.

Change required in cricket bat retailing

2010-01-06T11:34:00.003Z

There appears to be a current trend in bat buying that might go something like this:
"I want a big edged bat with lots of meat in the middle"
"Here you are sir, this one should do nicely"
Cricketer swings bat in favoured strokes.
"Nah, it's too heavy. I want one that looks big, but plays light"
“Ordinarily sir, I’d say wouldn’t we all! But today is your lucky day sir. We've just got these in this morning from India."

And so opened a Pandora's box that threatens some instability among bat makers using high-grade English willow.

I've picked up that these 'big-and-light’ bats originate in Pakistan and India, and are only achieved by excess drying beyond the standard moisture point that willow is normally dried (typically 12-14%). Removal of moisture means removal of mass while retaining volume. The downside of over-drying willow to reduce weight is that the bat will not last as long - for moisture in the wood is essential to giving the bat a decent life. Dry bats will be prone to early cracking, and potential brittle fracture.

The root cause is that cricket bats are sold on weight (lbs and oz) and, if buying in a shop, the very subjective 'pick-up'. It has been this way since year dot, but is no longer good enough for the consumer or the bat maker. Firstly, pick-up is no use if you are buying on-line. On-line sales are increasing, and expected to reach 25% in 2011. Secondly, with a rising trend for the 'big-light' bats, there is going to be less demand for the heavier bats. Now, large volume bat makers buy whole trees, and then try to get as many bats as possible from that tree. There will be a range of weights produced. Even the smaller bat makers, while not lumbered with a whole tree, still have to choose graded clefts 'sight unseen' from the supplier, such as J.S. Wrights. Only when the cleft is cut, pressed, and shaping begins does the bat maker get an idea of the final weight of bat this piece will be good for.

As on-line sales increase, and the trend for 'big-light' bats is sustained then bat makers will be left with stocks of heavier bats they cannot sell. The bat makers will then be asking themselves 'how do we get the retailer to stop buying on weight alone, and the retailer from selling on weight alone?'

The answer is quite simple - use swing weight not static weight to select a bat. The implementation of this is not simple. It will require a shift in bat buying culture, and the psyche of the batsmen who rather like their new 'big-light' bats. This was illustrated recently in a conversation with a colleague who has one of these bats. He said he liked it because not only did it have good pickup, BUT it gave him added confidence when batting [because of its greater physical presence in the eye]. Once a habit has been formed it is hard to change.

Understanding that the consumer will have to go through a painful withdrawal process must be part of the solution. It’s painful because all the while standing in front of them will be those big bats, but from the less fashionable brands at very good prices, which play well for an unknown period.

So to effect the change, and a re-education of cricketers in how to buy a bat, a carefully orchestrated campaign will be required by those bat makers that want to take this on-board. Maybe the governing bodies such as the ECB can be part of this because in the end it is in the best interests of the game.

The wind of change could be blowing soon, and this is good for cricket.

Wind and the Willow

2009-11-20T12:42:00.010Z

Does wind 'stressed' willow improve cricket bat performance?
I had a conversation with a colleague recently about wind damaged willow, and its effect on making a cricket bat. He had a piece of second-hand knowledge that in South Africa someone was making 'wind-damaged' bats that perform better than the standard. At the time I hadn’t a clue whether this was true or not, so I tried to find some answers.

A little trawl of the web revealed the somewhat obvious that wind damage results in fibres buckled under compression, or fractured under tension. But nothing of any detail on wind damage relating to performance of bats. In conversation with Gunn and Moore they referred to 'compression creases' caused by wind damage, and some bats returned broken are logged under this term. Manufacturers will often replace a bat free of charge if such catastrophic breaks occur within one-year of purchase.

Tom Evans at Mongoose chipped in and told me that a number of retailers will sell storm damaged bats at low cost. Newbery have a bin in their Sussex shop with these bats on offer. I guess when you've bought the willow, and you find it damaged you might as well make a bat and try to sell it, otherwise its just firewood and not good business.

Correspondence with Jeremy Ruggles at J S Wright and Sons, probably the world’s leading supplier of cricket bat willow, revealed the basic truths, but no evidence from him that a piece of wind damaged willow might perform better. He mentioned that wind damage is often seen by the bat maker when selecting his future bat material, occasionally missed, and not always rejected. A bat with visible or hidden fibre fractures has potential for the bat to fracture after a period of use, but by no means is it guaranteed.

Then finally Paul Borst of D&P Cricket in South Africa, for they are the ones mentioned at the start, responded with some answers. "As Jeremy [Ruggles] explained they try not to sell wind damaged bats, but I would say approx 5% of current willow to us shows these wind damaged markings. We have also found over the years that the wind damaged bats do generally respond (hit the cricket ball) very well. Every piece of willow is different but as a very general rule we have found that the wind damaged pieces of wood have a better than average response. We normally sell them off at cost with no guarantee as the can split in half at any stage."

Well there it is, from the horses mouth. I wonder if there are professionals out there that might be in on this, and have their custom bats including some wind damage to extract better performance? After all, they can afford for the bat to break at any time. Fred Flintoff had his Woodworm bat break in spectacular style against South Africa in 2003 at Lord's. This bat is now on display in the MCC museum at Lord's.

Tinkering with Law 6

2009-10-15T13:29:00.009+01:00

This piece is about the MCC Laws of Cricket, and the changes to Law 6 (the bat) made in October 2008. Two innovations in bat making sparked this eventual reaction from the MCC. They don't get called on very often. Since the first codified rules were written in 1744, the chronology of changes affecting the bat is, 1774 (first rule for the bat), 1809, 1979, and 2008.

In this latest episode, the first innovation was the colourful (or glaring) glass-fibre sheet covering the back of the Kookaburra bats launched in December 2004. The second is the carbon-fibre composite bat handles produced by Newbery, Puma, and Gray Nicolls from 2006. The changes might have made some sense to protect the spirit and balance of the game had the Mongoose bat not appeared in 2008 and be declared legal. I’ll explain.

Kookaburra glued a thin sheet of glass-fibre across the back of their bat, printed some colourful branding and called it a 'sticker'. Its thickness of approx 0.40mm was a superficial covering that intuitively should add no performance benefit to the bat. Its thickness was certainly far less than the 1.56mm allowed within the rules for ‘coverings’. Off the back of what appeared to be protests from other bat makers that it contravened the rules, the MCC investigated. Kookaburra put up independent expert evidence that the covering did not improve bat performance, but was intended to increase bat life through prevention of cracks. The MCC said it did improve performance, quoting its own independent expert opinion. It stated that the glass-fibre sheet modified the bat vibration properties, and therefore improved performance. They subsequently ruled the bats illegal under Law 6.2 (2000 code - 2nd edition 2003) relating to covering material, which stated that it "shall not be likely to cause unacceptable damage to the ball". So it seems more of a supposition by the MCC that the material (on the back of the blade) will cause an increase in performance of the bat, which will then damage the ball. Kookaburra withdrew their bats under much protest and threat of possible legal action. I think they had a point.

I have a 2005 Kookaburra 'Beast' in my possession. With a little close inspection, and based on the work we have undertaken on bat vibration, my opinion would sit with Kookaburras. I also reference a research paper called ‘The effect of microstructure on the impact dynamics of a cricket bat’ by Grant and Nixon. The paper reports that “if the density and elastic modulus of a beam could be uniformly increased by a common factor, then the weight and flexural stiffness of the beam would increase in proportion.” The research was looking at the effect of the pressed layer on the face of the bat. The conclusion that I draw is that a performance increase from the glass-fibre covering might only come from placing it on the face of the bat, not the back. It seems the MCC decided that a principle had to be established on new materials, and interpreted their own rule in a way that suited a new agenda to protect the balance of play.

Then, in 2006, along came the carbon-fibre composite handle, with Newbery (the original patent holder), and Puma offering up a product. Gray Nicolls follow in 2007 with the Fusion. The MCC were clearly nervous of the direction some of the manufacturers were taking. The principle concern was that new materials were increasing bat performance and giving the batsmen too much advantage. Action was required to maintain the traditions and spirit of the game. I don’t disagree with that stance, or the manner in which it was dealt with, but I challenge the conclusions being drawn.

Taking advice from engineering researchers at Imperial College, the MCC was offered two options. The first was to impose a bat performance measure, and a test that all bats must undertake, which would be similar to that used for baseball bats in the USA. The second was to limit performance through material constraints. The former would initially be onerous and complex to govern, the latter very simple to initiate and govern. Simple won the day. Law 6 was changed and a 3rd edition of the 2000 code was published in 2008.While this is practical, I believe it is not in the best interests of the game in terms of giving some incentive and scope to the manufacturers to bring novelty and excitement to the game through new bat designs. There is one thing in creating a challenging environment for innovation, it is another to constrain it so tightly that all interest is lost.

And then along came the Mongoose cricket bat in 2008. It is unconventional, inspired by Twenty 20, innovative, and approved by the MCC. However, in the right hands at the right time this bat can give a significant advantage to the batsmen. Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that the main reason why the MCC changed Law 6? There appears to be an inconsistency in the application of the laws by the MCC. I doubt I’m the only one to notice this, and would hope that some tidying up takes place. As it stands though, the latest change to Law 6 is likely to prevent any innovation of interest in cricket bats for the foreseeable future. What is there left to do, genetically engineer willow trees to create 'super-willow'?

At the end of a long blog, I will add an epilogue - what of the consumer cricketer? They've been exposed to the possibilities of real innovation in cricket bats, not just design gimmickry, but then had them taken away. Will it leave a slight sour note around the game? Are the MCC spoil sports? Does the image of the sport portrayed stack-up against other sports vying for our attention? In many ways it does, but not in the primary tool for batsmen. The most visible and potent tool in the game. Compared to other sports, cricket has become anachronistic in its control of the bat laws.

Dad's Army - The Test

2009-10-02T10:11:00.002+01:00

This piece is not about bats. I’m taking the liberty to remind those who have never seen it to watch an episode of Dad's Army called 'The Test'. It's episode 10 in series 4, and is the funniest dramatised game of cricket you will ever see. Granted that humour is subjective, and you might say "what's funny about a bunch of old men playing cricket badly". But for lovers of cricket and classic situation comedy it should bring a big smile to your face, and maybe a few titters. Yes it's dated, being first broadcast in 1970, but there's much that is familiar to us today because after all it's a cricket match, played then as it is now. I challenge anyone who has played village cricket not to recognise something of themselves, or an experience that resonates in The Test.

Here is a piece of dialogue between Captain Mainwaring, and Mr Yeatman the Verger who has been roped in to umpire. There is no love lost between them Mainwaring thinks Yeatman is an idiot, and Yeatman thinks Mainwaring is a pompous up-start. Mainwaring waddles in to bowl and on delivering his dolly sparks the following exchange:

Yeatman: No ball!
Mainwaring [perplexed]:   That was my googly.
Yeatman:   Well, from where I was standing it was a chuck....and don’t argue with the umpire or you’ll be sent off.
Mainwaring:   You don’t send people off in cricket.
Yeatman:   I do.
Mainwaring:   I suppose I’m very lucky not to be given offside.
Yeatman: I’m taking your name for that Mainwaring [writes in his notebook] gross impertinence and sarcasm.

Of course, it’s much funnier on screen, and if you need proof, YouTube has the episode for viewing; in three parts because of the 10min limit on clips. Just search on Dad’s Army The Test.

Patents from the archive….high-tech handles

2009-09-06T21:23:00.006+01:00

Over the last three years there has been a spate of innovation in cricket bat handles, with carbon-fibre and graphite materials introduced to improve bat performance. It echoes a previous burst of creativity at the start of the last century, but this time the guardians of the rules, the MCC, have taken a dim view of all this new cleverness by the manufacturers. The MCC decided the trend would tilt the balance in favour of the batsmen too much, where ball, pitches and boundaries have remained unchanged. So they modified Rule 6, and allow only 10% of 'non-wood' material in the handle. This constraint now ensures a continuation of the laminate cane handle with flat springs we all know well, which was first seen patented by Henry Gradidge in 1910.

In the good old days of cricket at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century there wasn't the need to control bat power in the same way. The high-tech material of 100+ years ago was india rubber, and used only for damping in the handle. A trawl through my cricket bat patent database reveals some quirky ideas in cricket bat handles being offered up at the time, and here is one…

In 1908 Summers Brown filed a patent to improve the cricket bat handle. Summers Brown Ltd manufactured bats in Finchley, and these were used by the legendary Jack Hobbs. In this interesting and slightly bizarre idea, Brown takes a solid cane handle and makes deep saw cuts along its length, then inter-weaving a rubber band to create the damping element (see image above). The end result created what was in effect three longitudinal rubber springs, but appeared to use an awful lot more rubber than was necessary. It probably made the handle too flexible and was likely to have a short life. Was the Summers Brown idea ever used in anger by cricketers, even Jack Hobbs? Did it work, or did it make the handle too flexible? I hope to find out one day through further research.

It appears that bat makers of this era were experimenting with improvements on the early laminated cane handle of the 1860s. The preceding 20 years from Brown's creation had seen a raft of patented ideas on the theme, some daft, and some sensible. The 'automatic' handle patented by L J Nicolls in 1888 used a curve profile to join two halves of the handle, and was used by W G Grace to score over 2000 runs and his 100th century. There were 15 handle patents in the 20 years spanning 1890 to 1910, compared to 5 blade patents. Ultimately most of the handle ideas proved unsustainable, being either ineffective or uneconomic to make compared to the flat slip laminated cane handle with flat sheets of cork or rubber springs, of the model that was finally patented by Gradidge in 1910 (see pic left).

The first use of cane for the handle and the method of manufacture from multiple pieces in 1853 has remained largely unchanged. The 1910 Gradidge concept appears to be an optimal design, and due to the constraints of Law 6, it remains so.

For the technologist and the progressive, cricket is a frustrating sport when it comes to innovation. If one of the worries of the new breed of bats was that 'mis-hits were now going for six' then is that not something the bowler can adapt to? Does it really un-balance the game? The Mongoose bat is legal. But surely this is designed for big power hitting, and consequently edges and mis-hits might also go for six? Is it therefore okay to permit the game to be un-balanced in twenty 20, but not in any other forms? If the MCC are going to be consistent then either the Mongoose bat should be banned, or the high-tech handles should be allowed to return.

One size doesn't fit all

2009-08-06T20:00:00.010+01:00

Newbery, the UK cricket bat maker, has launched a new bat called the 'chic'. It's a bat designed and scaled specifically to suit women, http://tiny.cc/1o5S2. Let's get the obvious and trivial out of the way first. I guess the chic is meant to be 'sheek' a la fashionable, but it's inevitable that the blokes are going to call it the 'chick'. I suspect a name change for next season.

Before I finally get on to the serious stuff, Grays produced a pink hockey stick a few years ago directly marketed to women, which was apparently successful. Despite the gross gender stereotyping that both men and women would do a double-take on, it was actually very popular. Lesson: there's nothing wrong with gross gender stereotyping sometimes, and delightful to fly in the face of political correctness. It seems though that the product no longer exists in its pure girly form, and they seem to have toned their graphic design that may also appeal to the blokes. Pink is after all okay for men in sport now thanks to the Breast Cancer awareness campaigns, not sure about anywhere else though.

So, to the matter of scaling of sports equipment. In cricket children have been catered for some time with 'Junior' ranges. Women have been left to use lighter adult (i.e. men's) versions, or much like the way women with small feet buy kids shoes, they may use a Junior size 6 or Harrow bat. Research has shown that scaling of sports equipment for children is mostly based on a mythical 'average child' in specific age groups. Equipment has at worst simply been shortened, and at best geometrically scaled. In cricket, children's bat sizes are scaled based on height ranges, with a nominal weight for each of the eight sizes available. The choice appears to be wide enough to provide a bat to suit most children, but while there appears to be a range of weights on offer for each size, in reality bat makers only supply a single weight per size. Some children will therefore not be able to get a bat suited to their size, build and ability. Here we have a case of one size does not fit all.

While children have 'junior' bats to choose from, women have had nothing until now. This is surely long overdue since the physiology and biomechanics of women are quite clearly very different to children and men. For instance, hand sizes are smaller, so handle diameter should reflect that, arm length and strength is different so weight but more importantly pick-up should be different, and so on.

So well done Newbery for making a smaller bat with a smaller handle. Not rocket science, but why has it taken so long? Designing products to suit women is commonplace, but it has to be cricket that only finally just gets it. The sport where, at the heart of the cricketing establishment (Lords), women have only recently been given equality in the game by being allowed in to become members in 2003.

Here's another clue to where scaling is imperfect. I read the recent reports on England Women's success in the World Twenty 20. After perusing the stats, and doing some sums, it was striking that only 23 sixes were hit by women in 15 matches. Compare this to156 sixes in 27 matches by the men in their World Twenty 20 - a factor of 4 difference on the average per game. Surely they are allowed to enjoy the thrill of sending one over the boundary a little more often? Might also be good for spectators too? The ball is lighter (5oz compared to 5.5oz), the bats are lighter, but the boundaries are the same. Why not bring the boundary rope in a little on those big county grounds? Would the women want this?

Also of interest, while the Laws of Cricket specify a dimension and weight of the ball for women, they offer no specifications at all for the bat. There must have been some research to establish a women's ball, why not the bat? I think an enquiry to the MCC is required, unless anyone out there who sees this can illuminate the matter.

Nothing like a joke to kick things off

2009-07-21T16:35:00.005+01:00

While thinking of what to write of any substance I thought why not start with a themed joke.

Patient: Doctor, doctor, I have a cricket bat stuck in my ear
Doctor: How's that?
Patient: Don't you start!