I have long suspected that bat technology has been speeding out of control faster than the game, and also suspected after witnessing an exhibition of hitting on what are normally considered to be fairly large sized grounds in Australia that the bat of Ricky Ponting was packing more power than Harry Potters wand.

Put an technically advanced bat in the hands of one of the worlds best exponents of finding the middle of the bat and the obvious inevitability occurs every spectator in the stands between square leg and wide mid-off were human targets in Ponting's indulgent pull fest in a ODI here a few years ago.

Thats the upside, but the downside of seeing good bowlers like Brett Lee watching batsmen that they are dominating being over rewarded 6 runs for streaky nicks over the keeper and slips is a sign that things are becoming overbearingly in favor of the batsmen.

This is a good decision, although I'm still a bit peeved about the treatment Dennis Lillee and his Aluminum bat got 25-30 years ago.

Quote:

The alteration has been brought in to stop the extra power gained by players when the handles contain substances such as carbon. A bat used previously by Ricky Ponting has been banned while another Matthew Hayden trialled does not fit the specifications. "The new Law stipulates that 90% of the volume of bat handles should consist of cane, wood and twine, with the other 10% for the purpose of reducing vibration, for example rubber," an MCC spokesman said. "It states bat handles, including the splice, must not exceed 52% of the overall length of the bat, and restricts the thickness of materials that can be used to protect and repair bats."

Cricinfo - MCC changes law on bat handles

I read the link to Cricinfo, and agree that some extra control should be put where the composition of bats is concerned in order to prevent unfair advantage on the part of the batsman.

I also saw some rubbish about modern training methods making batsmen fitter and able to hit the ball harder than their predecessors - on the contrary, I find that the batsmen of yesteryear hit the ball just as powerfully as those of today - and don't forget Albert Trott''s straight drive over the Lord's Pavilion with an 1890's bat and 1890's fitness...

I think modern training method's have raised the standards of some players who were coming off a low fitness base to start with, and two Australians spring to my mind Shane Warne and Phil Jaques.

Both started as pudgy less than fit lads, and the Australian team trainers and dieticians turned both of them into lean muscular types with six pack abdominal muscles. I'm still scratching my head about how Tubby Taylor seemed to miss the boat. But I do know in the case of Jaques, chairman of selectors Andrew Hilditch told him 12 months prior to getting selcted in the Australian team, that he needed to get himself into better physical shape to be considered for selection and assisted in hooking him up with a personal trainer and dietician.

But it is foolish to think that all modern cricketers are vastly fitter than cricketers of the past. During World War 2 Sir Donald Bradman was a fitness instructor in the army, he also won the Australian army 100 yard sprint while he was well into his 30's against allcomers many a lot younger than him. Keith Miller was playing top level Aussie Rules football which is also very physicaly demanding. These blokes would still match up pretty well in a test of strength and speed against todays fittest cricketers.

I think we pretty much all do. You should check out the "Greatest Test XI" thread from last year which talked a lot about Headley, Hammond, Ames and Lindwall among others- in fact it's how I found the forum in the first place. Besides, there's nothing to stop you from starting such a discussion yourself.