Topic: the stuart broad incident (Read 95938 times)

tim2000s · « **Reply #165 on:** August 11, 2014, 08:45:20 PM »

Nothing like a tagline of article sponsored by Masuri...

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Red Ink Cricket · « **Reply #166 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:04:15 PM »

Now I may have missed something but where were the press releases when kiesey got smashed in the face? Did masuri defend themselves? Or for that fact numerous other players in the past that have had the same issue. Aditek helmet is different so as soon as something goes wrong everyone jumps on the bandwagon to say its rubbish etc and competitors come out with pointless statements just to get one up on them.

Nato · « **Reply #167 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:27:37 PM »

I wonder how much Masuri paid the telegraph for that article? So much for objective, impartial journalism.

golden duck · « **Reply #168 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:39:31 PM »

The telegraph article seems hopelessly one sided, and is also factually incorrect (re James Taylor). Granted it's a small thing, but still it's basic - if they can't get that right then you have to question everything

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #169 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:41:02 PM »

It's all pr rubbish from all sides. Each will always say it's better, lighter, safer than the other and try to gain one up-man-ship if they can. Unfortunately individuals are intelligent, people are stupid so believe pr gumff. We've all done it and do it every day. Who makes the best bats? Salix? Rob pack?.. The answer will be whose pr you choose to believe the most!

Gingerbusiness · « **Reply #170 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:45:25 PM »

"Seven current England players � Robson, Bell, Root, Buttler, Jordan, Stokes, Anderson - choose to wear Masuri�s new Vision Series helmet, which has been designed and developed to meet revised ICC safety standards."

When Masuri say 'choose' I assume that is a mistake and is meant to read 'are paid a swag bag full of money'...

I think it is very much a company worried about anyone encroaching on their 'turf'.

Masuri should be very careful when it comes to this sort of one-sided oneupmanship - especially as it would not be the first time one of their helmets 'failed'.

I think everyone needs to put the Broad thing into perspective. Safety equipment does not always stop people from getting hurt. If people shun Ayrtek, it would almost be as stupid as people going out tomorrow looking for an alternative to seat belts because the 0.0001% of every car journey, someone got whiplash.

Cricket is a dangerous game. As adults we accept the associated risks. If Broad didn't set his lid up properly, I would be seriously considering removing my sponsorship of him, instead of looking at Ayrtek - Broad has a responsibility to the brand as much as Ayrtek/Adidas has to supply him with kit.

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #171 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:49:34 PM »

Quote from: Gingerbusiness on August 11, 2014, 09:45:25 PM

"Seven current England players � Robson, Bell, Root, Buttler, Jordan, Stokes, Anderson - choose to wear Masuri�s new Vision Series helmet, which has been designed and developed to meet revised ICC safety standards."

When Masuri say 'choose' I assume that is a mistake and is meant to read 'are paid a swag bag full of money'...

I think it is very much a company worried about anyone encroaching on their 'turf'.

Masuri should be very careful when it comes to this sort of one-sided oneupmanship - especially as it would not be the first time one of their helmets 'failed'.

I think everyone needs to put the Broad thing into perspective. Safety equipment does not always stop people from getting hurt. If people shun Ayrtek, it would almost be as stupid as people going out tomorrow looking for an alternative to seat belts because the 0.0001% of every car journey, someone got whiplash.

Cricket is a dangerous game. As adults we accept the associated risks. If Broad didn't set his lid up properly, I would be seriously considering removing my sponsorship of him, instead of looking at Ayrtek - Broad has a responsibility to the brand as much as Ayrtek/Adidas has to supply him with kit.

In the modern day, you can't blame masuri for doing it. Plus, the only reason people here are more inclined to defend arytek is because we have been told more often that it's safer etc etc. (Not saying it isn't but as Tom is so good on here, we believe him. More easily). We actually have not the first clue which is safer so it's all just pr and is saying one is better is just individual choose based on whose pr we've swallowed.

Gingerbusiness · « **Reply #172 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:59:13 PM »

Quote from: ProCricketer1982 on August 11, 2014, 09:49:34 PM

In the modern day, you can't blame masuri for doing it. Plus, the only reason people here are more inclined to defend arytek is because we have been told more often that it's safer etc etc. (Not saying it isn't but as Tom is so good on here, we believe him. More easily). We actually have not the first clue which is safer so it's all just pr and is saying one is better is just individual choose based on whose pr we've swallowed.

Purely trying to balance the unbalanced argument

tushar sehgal · « **Reply #173 on:** August 11, 2014, 11:47:45 PM »

I am not sure if wearing a masuri would have been better or worse, There is no way of knowing. I know that I have had both and which one feels safer. We have to keep in mind that first person that Ayrtek has to answer to is Adidas top brass then it will be general public. I was disappointed at the press release but its understandable. Lets hope we hear soon till then lets support one brand thats has grown more than anything else on this forum with good design and tech. We can be harsh but it might be worth it to not sling mud without proof, if you have nothing good to say then wait till Tom has a chance to defend his product

Nmcgee · « **Reply #174 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:36:31 AM »

What a cheap shot by Masuri. They clearly have very short memories.

@187no · « **Reply #175 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:44:14 AM »

Some forum members may find this link interesting http://bit.ly/1r65A49

RossViper · « **Reply #176 on:** August 12, 2014, 06:08:21 AM »

I really think ayteck could sue the telegraphover that article, it makes a statement that is an opinion, but it is stated as a fact. Very poor reporting.

JB · « **Reply #177 on:** August 12, 2014, 06:28:13 AM »

Quote from: Red Ink Cricket on August 11, 2014, 09:04:15 PM

Now I may have missed something but where were the press releases when kiesey got smashed in the face? Did masuri defend themselves? Or for that fact numerous other players in the past that have had the same issue. Aditek helmet is different so as soon as something goes wrong everyone jumps on the bandwagon to say its rubbish etc and competitors come out with pointless statements just to get one up on them.

I like this point, I think there have been alot of knives sharpened at the ready in the event of something happening to a player using an Ayrtek.

tim2000s · « **Reply #178 on:** August 12, 2014, 06:49:40 AM »

Quote from: JB on August 12, 2014, 06:28:13 AM

I like this point, I think there have been alot of knives sharpened at the ready in the event of something happening to a player using an Ayrtek.

Of course there have. When a new, disruptive, product comes on to the market that allows claims that the existing brands had something inferior (and note, I said allows claims, i.e. doesn't necessarily make the claims themselves), then the existing brands get concerned and ready to leap on whatever they can to stop the outflow of business.

That's the way that a market works. Some brands will of course not make derogatory statements as part of their values (I've seen this outside the Cricket industry), but it depends entirely on how you want to market market...

Dan W · « **Reply #179 on:** August 12, 2014, 07:30:20 AM »

Quote from: ProCricketer1982 on August 11, 2014, 09:49:34 PM

In the modern day, you can't blame masuri for doing it.

Arggggh!

YES YOU EFFING CAN! We do not exist in this vacuum where this sort of "it's ok, a shared reliance on capitalism means we can disassociate ourselves from responsibility and can treat others as competitors...as the enemy".

It's exactly the same thinking of people that don't walk "It's ok, I don't need a conscience as I have an umpire to tell me if I'm out or not"

It was a whoppingly desperate, cynical, and most importantly arsey thing to do, that had all the hallmarks of a company being led by their a PR agency.

I would say I hope their business suffers but I think they'll KO themselves with the new helmet design.

Quote from: ProCricketer1982 on August 11, 2014, 09:49:34 PM

Plus, the only reason people here are more inclined to defend arytek is because we have been told more often that it's safer etc etc. (Not saying it isn't but as Tom is so good on here, we believe him. More easily). We actually have not the first clue which is safer so it's all just pr and is saying one is better is just individual choose based on whose pr we've swallowed.

Sure, we have an affinity with Tom (however small) and because we understand his heart and soul went into this, this must feel like his worst nightmare. A cricket helmet is PURELY a purchase of comfort and safety. Any brand that doesn't have this front and center of all their marketing is, frankly, doing it wrong.

No helmet will be infallible (without losing too much to visibility etc), and the worst thing is, there's a potentially significant amount of human error applied when using it...Anyone from the manufacturer want to step forward and point the finger at our international 'talent'?!

(Sorry, wasn't a dig at you PC, just your text was handy to quote

)

Author Topic: the stuart broad incident (Read 95938 times)

tim2000s

Re: the stuart broad incident

Red Ink Cricket

Re: the stuart broad incident

Nato

Re: the stuart broad incident

golden duck

Re: the stuart broad incident

ProCricketer1982

Re: the stuart broad incident

Gingerbusiness

Re: the stuart broad incident

ProCricketer1982

Re: the stuart broad incident

Gingerbusiness

Re: the stuart broad incident

tushar sehgal

Re: the stuart broad incident

Nmcgee

Re: the stuart broad incident

@187no

Re: the stuart broad incident

RossViper

Re: the stuart broad incident

JB

Re: the stuart broad incident

tim2000s

Re: the stuart broad incident

Dan W

Re: the stuart broad incident