i'll ask this, would you pick a crash helmet over the lightest strongest Ayrtek? the crash helmet would be far too cumbersome but provide ultimate protection for the job required. We require the lightest pads to give us better movement and flexibility whilst batting, so they are therefore more suited to the job as a lighter product in my opinion.
But, and herein, you've missed the point, do you really need to fork out £90 for the lightest, best protection or would you be fine with forking out £45 for something that gives you enough protection, and costs a lot less?
The extreme position you have taken is a redundant argument, simply because you don't need that level of protection at any level of cricket. Even with those who have been hit through the grille of a Masuri or Albion, have they been killed?
In an era when you can have both lightweight and high protection combined, there is no need for us to compromise.
It is not a two argument question though. It is also about cost. The majority of cricketers, unlike most of the forumites, cannot and do not afford to pay loads for the best.
Compromise comes either in weight, protection or money available to pay for it...
Author
Topic: Weight versus Protection - do we overthink it? (Read 2456 times)