Buzz, what we have to consider here is the facts.
The facts are, as soon as Masuri announced that they would be ditching the popular traditional styled helmet in favour of this idiotic design, virtually ALL the international players who were Masuri users have DUMPED Masuri and have voted with their feet by defecting to Shrey.
What does that tell you?
It tells me that Shrey will soon be rivalling Albion as the most popular helmet used.
It also tells me that the recent changes will ensure that Masuri will be bankrupt within two years and will end up as nothing more than a footnote in cricket equipment history, much like Saint Peter who were all the rage in the late 70's.
God bless Shrey for having the courage to stand up to the corrupt fat cats.
The international players have spoken - and it is Shrey they support.
I don't see any players in the Ashes wearing a Shrey lid? Also I could be wrong but I haven't noticed any at the big bash either.
Not sure what that video of the Shrey helmet shows other than proving that current masuri helmets (whether they carry slazenger, masuri or shrey branding) do not meet the new standard. Regardless of ball speed (I suspect slow) the video shows a fail as the grille slams into the neck/chin, the peak clearly flexes creating a wider gap too. It is also clearly evident that the chinstrap is properly secured.
This is not an initiative by the ECB, the English government, masuri, ayrtek or any combination of those 4. It is the ICC's medical panel who have proposed a new helmet standard, in Response to increasing facial/head injuries. In the UK the BSI governs safety equipment and they have updated their testing to meet the new standards proposed by the ICC, as have/will equivalent bodies in the other cricket nations.
The current test sees a weight dropped on the top of the shell to test for crumple damage. There is no current safety test that examines the grille/peak. That is what the new regulations are proposing, hence these slow motion videos of balls fired at the grille suddenly appearing everywhere.
My understanding is the ICC are proposing that all cricket nations are required to meet the new standard. Exactly what that means is still a little murky, does it mean all ICC sanctioned matches will require the use of these new helmets? I don't know for sure but I certainly hope so. What I do know is that according to what I have read the retailers and manufacturers will soon be unable to offer you a helmet that doesn't meet the new standard. This includes Shrey according to everything that is written.
Of course I fully believe that India will just continue to do as they wish, Pakistan too, especially in their local markets, both are a law unto themselves.
So you may well be able to directly import a Shrey helmet that will be illegal to sell anywhere away from the subcontinent, but to claim this is all scare mongering from the UK Government, or that Shrey will dominate the market at the expense of the rest I am afraid is just not correct.
Before long there will be a majority of kids who have grown up only knowing the type of helmet that meets the new regulations. The parents will make the initial purchase when the child is young and will be interested in safety. They will not be looking to import a helmet from India because it looks better, nor would the vast majority of parents even know that Shrey exist. The child who knows nothing else during their early cricketing years will not suddenly reach the age where the buying choices become their own and say "you know what, these helmets that have served me well so far just aren't good enough, I'm going to get one from India that doesn't pass the ICC safety standard."
I understand that the helmets on the heads of (mostly) international players on TV will have an impact. I suspect it will be difficult to get elite players into a new style helmet, although not impossible, as Aytek have proved in the past with various players and are continuing to prove under the Adidas brand. The ICC and respective cricket boards will need to take a tough line, it may be that a compromise is reached possibly through signing of disclaimers or whatever, but this will only be with the current players. The change may well be gradual at the elite level for this reason.
I hope/assume that up and coming cricketers playing international age group cricket will be required to wear the new helmets. I assume any first class clubs will insert a clause into the contracts of players they take on from their academies too. These boys who have smaller egos and whose threats carry little/no weight compared to say a Pietersen or a Chris Gayle will have been wearing the new lids for their whole career, if/when they emerge onto the full international scene they won't suddenly make the switch to an illegal helmet (should any even exist by then)
For this reason, as well as others that I will explain later, I believe Shrey will be a relatively short lived exercise.
As for the regulations in Aus regarding helmets, if my understanding is correct and you are not obligated to wear one, I would assume that if you choose to wear one then soon you will only be able to buy one that meets the new standard, just like most of the rest of the world. I can't see Chappell Cricket Centre or Kingsgrove or anyone else taking that kind of risk. Australia might be far less politically correct than the UK (something I really liked) but I lived there long enough to know that the American compensation culture is having an ever growing influence. I can see it now on 60 minutes. A mother is assured that a Shrey helmet is right for her kid, he gets an injury and then the journalists do a big expose on how the retailer went against the rules/advice/suggestions/regulations (whatever is the appropriate strength word to use when all this comes out in the wash and the ICC finalise everything) of Cricket Australia and the ICC by selling a helmet that doesn't meet the safety standard. There would be hysteria from protective parents.
As for the question asking where all the evidence is of players getting hurt in the existing helmets? There is plenty of footage out there, there really is no need to link to it here, but to get you started Brett Lee hitting McCullum and Malinga hitting Marlon Samuels spring to mind immediately. Both impacts drew blood, the ball that hit McCullum passed straight through the gap and hit his nose, I assume breaking it, there was a lot of claret. The ball from Harmison that hit Ponting's Albion helmet and forced the grille into his cheek didn't exactly cause major damage to Ricky, but shows Albions current design also needs work to meet the new standard.
Sorry for the rant, this is in no way intended as a personal attack on you Vic, I'm simply putting my interpretation across (as a very interested party) with regard to what is going on in this part of the industry. Nor is it an attack directly at TK Sports/Shrey, they have produced a great helmet for Masuri and Slazenger for a number of years, but the times are a changing, and to release this product just as everyone is learning of new regulations and many are also reacting negatively to new helmet designs, smacks of a short term marketing ploy to make some quick bucks. Dare I suggest, it is maybe even a move motivated by spite, as Masuri have elected to produce the helmet to meet the new regulations here in the UK, instead of using TK Sports/Shrey.
I don't expect Shrey to be the only ones, before long the usual suspects from Pakistan will pop up with something I imagine, maybe our friend in Thailand will release a ground breaking Xtrax helmet?
So, forums are a place for lively back and forth. I'm sure I've made some errors or at least said a few things that people will disagree with, I've got a thick skin, let's hear from you. I won't take it personally I promise
Author
Topic: Shrey Helmets (Read 77915 times)