Why is it whenever I read this thread and one side of the debate am I minded of Desmond Tutu's quote - "Don't shout, get a better argument."?
Any chance we can ask this banned forum member who can enlighten us on why we're being duped by the British Government (and I love a conspiracy); who killed JFK, where's Elvis, what really happened at Roswell and, most importantly, why KP isn't batting at 3 or 4 in this ODI series?
I think the reason players stick with/go back to a certain brand/design is, as has previously been touched on, familiarity. They put their trust in the manufacturers that the helmet is fit for purpose. Bell tried the Kookaburra helmet, went back to Masuri. Broad went back to his, I would guess, because he wanted one less thing to think about while batting. We all know what it's like with new gear - there's a period of getting used to it. Broad clearly likes the Aditek - he's worn it for England and Notts, but probably wants some extended netting time in it to get used to it. I may be wrong, maybe he hates it, but no-ones forcing him to wear it, it's his choice. At test level I imagine, you have a finite amount of time to get used to new gear - maybe the back end of an English summer and build up to an Ashes tour wasn't the best time to introduce a new lid to him. Carberry's been wearing his for a while now.
Are people terrified we'll see batsman running up to fielders waving their Ayrteks/Aditeks in their face? Tell you what, let's call these people 'progressive helmophobes....'
If people want to wear a Masuri/Shrey, fine. I just get the feeling that, in 10 years time, traditional helmets such as those with be in the minority. Look at American Football - one or two different designs that evolve almost every season and are safety tested rigorously. Surely we want that in cricket? Technology and cricket equipment moves on. I for one am happy in the knowledge that the helmet I use has been tested sufficiently enough that I'm not going to lose my teeth or fracture an eye socket. If the Masuri/Shrey prevents that as well and they have a place in future global markets, great. I just don't see the need to be tribal about it and, seriously, the generalising of colonialism and that all us English are the same is, frankly, offensive. It dilutes your points significantly. I refer you to my opening sentence.