Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
Advertise on CBF

Author Topic: Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...  (Read 2158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Buzz

  • Administrator
  • International Superstar
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12714
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Clear your mind, stay still and watch the ball
Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
« on: January 24, 2013, 09:31:47 AM »

Note sure many have a times subscription, so I thought I would share this - he doesn't mention Johnathon Trott in this - or in fact Mike Hussey who changed from Ice to Rogue kit mid ashes and went from run machine to blobs (I think Swanny made a comment about upsetting the mid series kit gods... good article though

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/columnists/mikeatherton/article3666436.ece

Mike Atherton Sports Columnist of the Year
Last updated at 12:01AM, January 24 2013

Johnny Miller drooled over those old clubs. The way he described them, you just knew that he tended to them with greater loving care than any old set gathering dust in the garage.

They were not so much an exercise in branding or marketing but an extension of an arm, helping him through the hottest of streaks in 1974, such as the ten flags he reportedly struck from the fairway during a storming final-round victory in the Tucson Open of that year.

Miller’s Tommy Armour 915T stainless steel irons, made just after Second World War, might have been the oldest set of clubs anyone had won a major championship with when, a year before Tucson, he took the US Open.

He had tinkered with them so that they gave him perfect feel: he shortened the hosels, re-ground them and layered on lead tape to give a better balance. “I had moulded that set to me in a very personal way,” he said, and you can picture him hunched over them, mending, altering and reshaping, as a proud cobbler would a leather shoe.

For a couple years in the mid-1970s, Miller, as much as Jack Nicklaus or Tom Watson, was the man. And being the man, he had choices to make, specifically whether he should stay with his MacGregor clubs or whether he should follow his agent’s advice and move to Wilson for a whacking fee. He chose the latter, changing drivers, irons and balls, and lived to regret it.

“They were so different, I never had the same precision or feel again,” he said. “It was one of the biggest mistakes of my career.”

Miller was a star that burnt brightly for a short while and there were many other reasons why his career fizzled out. Comparing himself with Nicklaus once, he said that when the Golden Bear reached the top of the mountain, his immediate reaction was to look for the next summit to scale, whereas Miller was all for admiring the view. In other words, he did not have the inner drive that marks out the true champions. Still, the change of clubs did not help.

Rory McIlroy, the brightest star of the moment, has had some choices to make recently and he has made them with the kind of breezy nonchalance that marked out his arrival at the 1st tee at Medinah last year when he missed his alarm call, ensuring that he had to play his Ryder Cup singles match without having spent time on the practice range.

Commenting upon the technicalities, rather than the finances, of his move from Titleist, his choice of club since a teenager, to Nike, McIlroy thought it a non-issue, as there is little difference, he said, between the manufacture of top clubs these days. His coach agreed.

Mind you, things did not go altogether smoothly on his first outing with the new sticks. A pair of 75s meant that he missed the cut in Abu Dhabi, at a course he has always played well, and after the first round his trusty old Scotty Cameron putter had found its way back into his bag in place of the Nike. He has a month to find the same rhythm and feel with his new clubs that he had with his old. To judge from the way he coped with his alarm-call fiasco in the Ryder Cup, he looks the type not to worry.

But a player’s relationship with his equipment is not a straightforward one, certainly not as straightforward as cashing the cheque from a new sponsor. Confidence, feel and judgment are hard to acquire and easily lost. You cannot judge the character of a player by his choice of equipment — how many of us, after all, would have turned down the Nike money? — but perhaps you can judge him by his relationship with it. Is a driver, cricket bat or tennis racket a logo and status symbol first and foremost, a tool of the trade second, or the other way round?

The most fastidious sportsman I have ever seen was Jack Russell, the former England wicketkeeper, whose meticulous attention to two pieces of kit, his hat and his wicketkeeping gloves, went beyond parody. The hat was an upside-down flower pot and had a cutaway peak, the better to see the ball.

It had been stitched, restitched, layered and relayered and on two occasions was the cause of a stand-up row; the first when Russell refused to wear a coloured hat in the 1995-96 one-day series in South Africa, the second when he refused to bow down to the corporate demands of Lord MacLaurin, the ECB chairman, who insisted upon standardised headgear.

On each occasion the argument was put forward that this was not just any old hat, but a piece of equipment central to his strategy and identity as a wicketkeeper. The argument was on firmer ground with his gloves, which only he and his wife were allowed to touch.

He carried with him a repair kit — sewing equipment and pimpled rubber for every hole and scratch that needed to be mended — emulating with uncanny resemblance the care taken by his hero Alan Knott, who used to take his gloves home during every match, lest the leather stiffen in the dressing room overnight. These were the tools of their trade and they defined who they were as cricketers — tools that, in Russell’s case, stayed with him throughout his career.

Knott and Russell were the ultimate eccentrics, for sure, but those of a far more normal disposition have also lost their equanimity over their kit. Graham Thorpe would take his bats to his hotel room and fiddle for hours with the handles just to get the right feel. Towards the end of his career, Mark Ramprakash cared for an old favourite lovingly, patching it up until it broke after scoring his 99th first-class hundred. After trying out five others to no avail, his scored his 100th hundred with a bat borrowed from a Surrey colleague.

Being neurotic about kit is not really about the kit itself, rather that sportsmen feel the need to surround themselves with familiarity in what is after all the most uncertain of worlds. Convincing yourself that an old favourite can bring an advantage is one of many psychological tricks a sportsman will use to help to haul himself over the line.

McIlroy seems engagingly oblivious to all this in his publicised move from Titleist to Nike. Not so Sir Nick Faldo, who is cut from a different cloth and old enough to have seen the uncertainties that being blasé about your kit can bring, not just to Miller but to other notables such as Lee Janzen, Nick Price and the late Payne Stewart, who all moved suppliers with unhappy results.

“If it begins to hold him back for a split second in his mind, you will have to question it,” Faldo said.

Me? The opposition wicketkeeper had a view of the same distinctive red logo on the back of my bat throughout my entire professional career. I stayed partly out of loyalty, partly because I was nervous of change (if it ain’t broke ...) — and mainly because I didn’t have another manufacturer brandishing a cheque worth millions of dollars in my face.
Logged
"Bradman didn't used to have any trigger movements or anything like that. He turned batting into a subconscious act" Tony Shillinglaw.

Six Sixes Cricket

  • Forum Sponsor
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4339
  • Trade Count: (+20)
    • Six Sixes Cricket Ltd
Re: Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2013, 10:48:34 AM »

Good Read,

Cheers Buzz

sfa82

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2013, 10:53:15 AM »

Thank you very much for sharing this article, it is certainly a good read. I don't know if changing cricket equipment is as much of an issue as batsmen could just resticker their bats. This is certainly what comes up on the forum often with speculation about who makes bats for the various professionals.

It has been shown that golf clubs are certainly more different from range to range, as the article highlights with the equipment changes often changing the results of the golfer. For me, no matter which clubs I use, I still struggle to hit in straight and break 100.
Logged
Life is like a box of chocolates...

uknsaunders

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8656
  • Trade Count: (+4)
    • Farmers CC
Re: Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2013, 10:58:51 AM »

funny that sunhats were mentioned. It's the only bit of kit I use to get really fussy about. I had one sunhat that was cover in sweat/mould marks etc. Despite the wife's disgust I kept on using it. I'm sure she binned it in the end. Nothing beats a decent fitting sunhat and with my large head it's often difficult to find one.
Logged
email and googletalk: uknsaunders@gmail.com
club website: http://www.farmerscricketjersey.net/

Johnny

  • Administrator
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4566
  • Trade Count: (+9)
Re: Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2013, 11:17:20 AM »

Moot point for bats though innit? Does any true bat geek reall believe that JT and Mr Cricket were really using different bats or just different stickers?
Logged
Email - Johnny@CustomBats.co.uk
Twitter - www.twitter.com/CustomBatsForum
Facebook - www.facebook.com/CustomBatsForum

ad2606

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2013, 11:32:17 AM »

Would think that a golfer changing their club manufacturer would have a much bigger affect on their game than a cricketer. The only comparable piece of kit to clubs is the bat which as mentioned above can be restickered, I suppose when you get to test level slight differences in comfort of kit can make a difference especially if your batting for hours but would have thought the gear is tailored and fitted to each player
Logged

Vitas Cricket

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6625
  • Trade Count: (+20)
  • Cricket Retailer & Coaching Centre in Peterborough
    • Vitas Cricket
Re: Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2013, 11:35:19 AM »

Most golf clubs don't have TON stamps running down their edges.  8)

I certainly think this point has some legs with regard to cricket though.

Look at Ian bell, presumably Kookaburras highest earner as he is on the front of the catalogue, he's signed up to promote the menace range yet refuses to wear the menace gloves. Only the really observant people (forum dwellers) will notice that he isn't wearing mittens, but he obviously feels they will. Have a negative effect on his game. I suspect he's scared stiff of the ripping he would take from the oppo.

Buzz

  • Administrator
  • International Superstar
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12714
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Clear your mind, stay still and watch the ball
Re: Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2013, 03:55:28 PM »

Here is another from Athers...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/columnists/mikeatherton/article3760433.ece

Heavyweights push boundaries of big hitting
Mike Atherton Sports Columnist of the Year
Last updated at 12:01AM, May 10 2013
He was described by Neville Cardus as being “as strong as a lion: huge hands and a moustache that needed copious wiping after he had swallowed a pint of ale at one pull”. If the image brings to mind an agricultural swiper, fresh from the blacksmith’s anvil, then Albert Trott did something that nobody has emulated. Which, when you think about it, is remarkable.

In 1899, playing for MCC against the Australians, Trott cleared the Lord’s pavilion with one mighty blow. There has always been a little doubt just how far his hit went — some witnesses said that it cleared the pavilion, landing in the gardens at the back — but it is generally accepted that it landed on the reverse slope of ornamental railing along the back edge of the roof. Not clearing the pavilion in its entirety, then, but still clearing the old façade, which has stood impregnable to allcomers ever since.

No modern player has emulated the feat. Not Chris Gayle, who hits the ball consistently farther than any player I have seen, not Shahid Afridi — old “Boom, Boom” himself — and not Kieron Pollard, the West Indies slugger, who, three seasons ago, came closest, when he landed one on the top tier.

Trott’s blow was not mentioned in the Wisden report of that game, although maybe it was not so out of kilter with the hitting of the time because F. T. Mann reportedly struck a ball on to the top balcony, while the ball was still on the rise.

The history of sport has been one of continuous improvement: runners running faster; jumpers jumping higher; golfers hitting the ball farther; and tennis players serving faster. Often, these improvements have been given impetus by the technological changes within the sport — the move from wooden tennis rackets being the classic example — and more often than not these improvements have been measurable, to which the modern-day golfer, hitting a pitching wedge to a green that 40 years ago would have required an eight-iron, can attest.

In cricket, neither has been possible. MCC keeps a tight grip on what can and cannot happen with bat and ball, and only recently has the speed gun — unreliable, in any case, and based upon methodology that has changed over time — charted the speed at which bowlers bowl. It is impossible to measure in their entirety big hits that land on stadium roofs, or go out of the ground. All of which allows old-timers to wonder whether bowlers really are quicker now, and whether batsmen really do hit the ball farther.

What is measurable is the frequency with which batsmen now clear the boundary, even if many of those boundaries have been brought closer. The decade for which statistics are first available is the 1920s, when barely 40 per cent of runs were scored in boundaries, as opposed to more than 50 per cent now. In the 1920s there were 324 sixes in Test cricket, not quite 1 per cent of the total runs scored; within the past decade there have been 17,574 sixes hit, which represented just under 4 per cent of the total runs.

Relatively, then, there are more sixes being hit today than ever. This is obviously owing to the increased aggression and intent on the part of batsmen, mainly as a result of one-day and Twenty20 cricket, and their improved physical conditioning. As a rule, players are fitter and stronger, and they are looking to score quicker. Boundaries are often shorter, too, particularly in Twenty20 tournaments, where it is assumed that the audience wants to see the pyrotechnics recently produced by Gayle and David Miller in the Indian Premier League.

That bat-making has changed is also undeniable, and this must have something to do with the frequency of six-hitting. More mis-hits go for six, as the redistribution of weight in the blade has increased the size of the sweet spot. A couple of weeks ago I made the trip to my old bat-maker at Gray-Nicolls to check out the bats used by today’s players. The change in shape and size is remarkable: huge edges, with blades that incorporate massively curved bows for bats that pick up with the same lightness as those of an earlier vintage.

The clefts arrive in the factory from the same willow farms as they always did and they are left to dry as they always were. But whereas bats from my era were 30-35mm thick, they are now 65-75mm thick, a change that has come without any discernible change in pick-up because of the amount of moisture taken out; a bat 20 years ago might have had about 18 per cent moisture; today’s professional player will use one with about 10 per cent (although the bats sold to the public, to make them longer-lasting, will be about 14 per cent).

They are pressed more, too, to create the bow that modern players like. Neither of the bat-makers at Gray-Nicolls was convinced, however, that these changes make the sweet spot better, simply that it is now larger. The company knows all about the need to stay with the times because, as a maker of squash rackets, it was slow to change from wood to graphite, a reluctance that almost resulted in it going bust in 1985.

So it was quick to go with the flow where cricket bats were concerned, when players began to demand bigger (if not heavier) bats. One of the bat-makers has been at the company for more than 50 years, another is younger, but neither feels that the actual sweet spot is any sweeter now than it was.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the same. When, during a one-day international last year, I picked up one of Alastair Cook’s bats and made the usual noises old players do about how many runs I would have scored, or how many sixes I would have hit with such a massive piece of wood, Cook was quick to point out that the best bat he used was an old-fashioned thin-edged blade.

Cook, more than most players (and understandably perhaps, given his worked-for success), is touchy about any intimation that scoring runs is easier now than it was, but as to how sweet a sweet spot is, or was, he may have a point.

Trott, by all accounts, used a bat that weighed more than 3½lb. Thirty years ago, I saw Clive Lloyd, who also used a 3½lb bat, smite a ball clean out of Old Trafford and on to the railway lines. I have never seen anyone else do that.

The challenge remains for the modern player to prove that Trott’s feat is achievable. By chance, this week I bumped into the maker of Mongoose bats, a company that has marketed itself on the hitting potential of its blades.

After Pollard’s near-miss at Lord’s some years ago, it wanted to sign him up on a seven-figure bonus if he managed to clear the Lord’s pavilion. While Mongoose was happy to take on Marcus Trescothick, no insurer would take the risk with Pollard. Of the chance of emulating Trott, Trescothick felt that it was “just a matter of time” — 114 years and counting, Marcus.
Logged
"Bradman didn't used to have any trigger movements or anything like that. He turned batting into a subconscious act" Tony Shillinglaw.

Six Sixes Cricket

  • Forum Sponsor
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4339
  • Trade Count: (+20)
    • Six Sixes Cricket Ltd
Re: Top gear: Status Symbol or tools of the trade...
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2013, 08:09:15 PM »

Another great read. Is banger still being offered the million squid today?
 

Advertise on CBF