Reading Cricket Cub

Cricket bats are the key tool used in cricket other than the ball. Bats are described as paddle shaped, flat on one side but V shaped on the opposite side. This is said to improve airflow around the bats making them swing faster and with more power. The material bats are made from is willow wood, this is the wood of choice for the bats because it is tough, light weight and shock resistant. The bats are also treated with linseed oil, this is used to provide additional protection and also creates more friction on the ball giving batters more control while playing cricket.

Before the 18th century cricket bats were shaped similarly to current day hockey sticks. This suggests that early games of crickets were played using shepherds crooks as the bats. Although there is not a great deal of evidence about the very early cricket there is still a bat in existence from 1729 and this is representative of the early shape of the cricket bat.

When purchasing new cricket bats it is imperative that proper care is taken to ensure the bat is well prepared for the game of cricket to last a great deal of time. Before a brand new cricket bat is ever used it should be knocked in. The process of knocking a bat in is done by hitting the bat with either a cricket ball repeatedly are using a special cricket mallet. The process of knocking in a cricket bat will compact the fibres in the willow wood making it stronger, so when it first used it will not break. The process of knocking in can take anything from 3 to 6 hours and will often consist of the bat being hit 8000 to 9000 times. Pre-knocked bats are available on the market at a slightly higher price but this saves the time of the player having to knock the bat in, installing confidence when playing that the bat will stand up to the task in hand.

Law 6 of cricket says that cricket bats must be no more than 97 centimetres in length and no more than 10.8 centimetres in width. Importantly it states that the hand holding the bat is considered part of the bat, therefore the hand hits the ball it counts as a hit. Also the rule states that bats may be made of no material other than wood.

When selecting the type of cricket bats you wish to use you must carefully consider the type of player you are, whether it is a big hitter or someone who likes to pick and choose their strokes while batting. Also you must consider the size and weight of the cricket bats before purchase as all too often players performances are hindered by picking a bat the is too small or large or that weighs too much. It is recommended that a lighter bat be used, especially at a young age, to help with the control of the ball when playing.

Established in 1973, Morrant Group Ltd is a family run business with over 35 years experience in mail order team sports equipment. Father, Daughter, Son and staff are working hard every day to ensure that our company achieves its aim. We sell a range of sports gear, including cricket bats and other goods. Please visit our website at http://www.morrant.com.

The use of technology in sports has been the subject of intense debate. The governing bodies of rugby and cricket have acquiesced to the use of technology for purposes of officiating. However, cricket includes technology in a limited way.

Television replays are used for stumping decisions, run outs and boundary calls. Cricket’s reality is that several umpiring errors are highlighted by comprehensive television coverage with cameras at all angles. Therefore, it is no surprise that some quarters are clamouring for the use of technology to assist umpires. On the other side of the continuum, there are those who insist that the status quo should be maintained.

There is the view that increased technology use would make the game of cricket fairer by reducing umpiring errors. To evaluate this, the International Cricket Council experimented with a decision referral system whereby umpires could refer dubious decisions like disputed catches or leg-before-wicket decisions. The results of this have shown that in critical cases, the footage used to examine decisions sometimes provides inconclusive evidence.

Cricket purists advanced the notion that increased technology use would make the game of cricket more protracted. This seems to be a moot point, since minutes are wasted replaying a boundary call that would be a matter of a couple runs. The technology advocates suggests that it is better to spend this time determining if a batsman is out or not out. If purists are thinking about the game-length, then they’ll address the problem with over-rates.

Purists argue that the human element is and should remain an integral aspect of the game. They opine that everyone makes mistakes and that cricket is a microcosm of life. Therefore, unfair decisions give teams the chance to demonstrate character.

The counter-argument is that viewers and supporters don’t want to see a microcosm of life. They want to see a match-up of skills, not umpiring decisions that adversely affect a team’s fortunes. For the less-passionate fans, it seems a pyrrhic victory if obtained by a glaring umpiring error.

The series that the West Indies won against Pakistan in the year 2000 is a good example. The West Indians were nine wickets down and about to lose the series. Then not one, but two umpiring errors ensured that they won the series based on one undeserved win. As a West Indian supporter and the victory certainly felt hollow to me.

Undeniably, the role of the umpire will be affected by the increase of technology. The nature of that change will be subject to debate. There is the view that the umpire’s role and authority will be undermined by increased use of technology. However, this is yet another moot point, since umpires are made to look foolish (via replays) each time they make an error. This is exacerbated when the cameras focus on them for a few seconds after the commentators denounce the decision as “atrocious” or “a shocker”.

The entire technology debate is useless. What the ICC should forbid is the constant replays that place too much emphasis on umpiring errors. The fact is that umpires make few errors, but TV coverage and the way the human mind works makes them appear as buffoons who can’t see very well.

The television viewers are privy to the analysis provided by “Hawkeye” or “Hot Spot” and the benefit of several replays. The ICC must decide to either continue to allow the over-examination of umpiring decisions or discontinue it. If decisions are going to be scrutinized, then those making it should have the same tools. If this is not the case, the decision should not be scrutinized. After all, many viewers or supporters wait until they see a replay before their emotions go one way or the other.

The law of cricket states that if the umpire is unsure whether a batsman is out, he should give the batsman the benefit of the doubt. The modern umpire is not too interested in giving the benefit of the doubt, because there is a lot of pressure to get the decision correct each time. The ICC needs to make a decision to give umpires some more toys, or take them away from the television and stadium coverage. The game of cricket will be better off for it either way.

Darrell Victor is a freelance writer and cricket enthusiast from the West Indies. For articles on West Indies cricket, read:

Reasons for the decline of West Indies cricket: http://www.helium.com/items/1264594-west-indies-cricket

A West Indian Perspective on Test cricket: http://www.helium.com/items/1258936-test-cricket

Being a cricket umpire is a tough job, but that does not excuse under-performance. Some cricket umpires are better than others are. The role of the umpire is to enforce the rules and laws of cricket and to ensure that players maintain the spirit of the game. Judging the best umpire goes beyond this; it must include the respect of peers and recognition by the International Cricket Council (ICC).

Some of the most prominent umpires in recent cricket history include Harold “Dickie” Bird, David Shepherd, Steve Bucknor and Simon Taufel. What set these umpires apart were their decision-making ability and the respect that they earned from captains and players.

The best cricket umpire must be one who officiated in recent times, where technology was available to scrutinize their decisions. The top umpires mentioned have officiated in high-profile games and after 1995- where TV broadcasters used technology to enhance television coverage and assist the third umpire.

In the old days, assessing an umpire was difficult as there were no replays or even television coverage. In the modern era, there are replays and even decision aids like ‘Hawkeye’ and ‘Snickometer’ that commentators use to assess umpiring decisions. The best umpire would be one whose decisions were generally spot-on, even under the intense scrutiny of modern technology.

Simon Taufel of Australia is the best umpire in modern cricket. He is young, prudent and has the respect and admiration of players and management teams. Taufel began umpiring at international level in Boxing Day Test against in Australia- at the age of 29. When the ICC implemented the elite panel of umpires, Simon was a certain selection. He won the ICC’s Umpire of the Year award for every year between 2002 and 2009.

Even though cricket authorities, commentators and players regard Taufel as the best umpire almost unanimously, he is capable of the odd error. However, he is less likely to make howlers like Sri Lankan umpire Asoka de Silva. Taufel’s mistakes are palpable and usually defensible. Taufel does not court controversy as his compatriot and fellow umpire, Darrell Hair, was inclined to do.

Taufel’s level of fitness is an important attribute that enables him to concentrate for long periods. Born in 1971, Taufel was the youngest elite umpire- making his exponential rise to the top of the umpiring ladder even more remarkable. He may even have officiated in the 2003 and 2007 ICC Cricket World Cup finals if Australia did not earn a berth on those two occasions.

Other umpires like Steve Bucknor and David Shepherd were good, but they made several howlers towards the end of their career- tainting their reputations a bit. Harold Bird last umpired an international match in 1996- when the technology used to scrutinize umpires’ decisions was not as advanced. Simon Taufel officiated in many international matches and still maintained over 97% accuracy with his decisions. He is the best modern umpire by some distance. Given the significant pressure on modern cricket umpires, Simon Taufel may be the best cricket umpire of all time.

Darrell Victor is a freelance writer and cricket enthusiast from the West Indies. For articles on West Indies cricket, read:

Reasons for the decline of West Indies cricket: http://www.helium.com/items/1264594-west-indies-cricket

A West Indian Perspective on Test cricket

http://www.helium.com/items/1258936-test-cricket

When discussing great commentators, Richie Benaud automatically comes to mind. Naturally, there would have been many more great commentators before Richie Benaud, but those were way before my time. Richie Benaud was popular, knowledgeable and pleasant to listen to, but he was not my favourite commentator.

Cricket commentary- whether on radio or television- is an art. A good commentator needs to have certain prerequisites, including good voice, command of language, knowledge of cricket, awareness of history and current events surrounding cricket. The cricket commentators that get my attention have all the basic requirements. What sets them apart is the perspective that they have. My favourite commentators have insightful comments and candour.

To select a favourite, I would reduce my selection pool to four renowned commentators. Tony Greig, Tony Cozier, Geoff Boycott and Michael Holding are the names that pop to my mind immediately. All of these commentators are experienced and have something unique to offer in their commentary. They are not mundane as some of the recently retired players, like Nasser Hussain and Ian Bishop. Some commentators are so parochial and limited in scope that I cannot even consider them good commentators.

Tony Greig

The South African born Englishman is quite an effervescent personality. Even in his playing days, he courted controversy with outlandish remarks. Before a 1976 series against the West Indies, Greig- as captain of England- infamously remarked that he would make the West Indies grovel. He is not as outlandish as a commentator but very straightforward. He is opinionated and knowledgeable in the game of cricket and the politics of the game.

Tony Cozier

Cozier has provided cricket commentary for nearly five decades and is referred to as the voice of Caribbean cricket. Although he did not play the game at the highest level, Cozier has been around the game long enough to have an appreciation of its history and issues as well. He provides lucid commentary that is always interesting for the cricket enthusiast. You can usually learn something just by listening to Cozier.

Michael Holding

Tony Cozier is the voice of Caribbean cricket, but Michael Holding must be his deputy. The former West Indies fast-bowler gives no quarter with his commentary. Although he is West Indian, he is capable of giving objective commentary even when the West Indies are playing. He speaks with a soothing Jamaican accent that belies the sharp comments that he makes from time to time.

Geoff Boycott

‘Me grandma can bowl better that that!” or ‘That is lollipop bowling’ were signature comments of Boycott’s. Apart from his cheeky comments, Boycott is regarded as one of the best openers in cricket history. As such, his opinions have considerable authority. Geoff Boycott’s batting was as stodgy as his commentary is abrasive. However, no one can argue that he knows his stuff and can support his abrasive comments and interesting insights. Boycott ’s comment are often lively and engaging- even when the cricket is not.

My favourite commentator is Geoff Boycott because he is the kind of commentator that you love or love to hate. Just as his batting had a character to it, so does his commentary. Whether he is writing or speaking about the game of cricket, Boycott’s dry humour appeals to me. In addition, Boycott’s grandma can give better commentary than several contemporary cricket commentators can!

Darrell Victor