SL22 Comparison
Advertise on CBF
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: SL22 Comparison  (Read 10027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Buzz

  • Administrator
  • International Superstar
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12725
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Clear your mind, stay still and watch the ball
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2016, 10:20:42 AM »
Andrew, you shouldn't be rolling your back foot.  !
Logged
"Bradman didn't used to have any trigger movements or anything like that. He turned batting into a subconscious act" Tony Shillinglaw.

AndrewS

  • Club Cricketer
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2016, 10:29:19 AM »
Possibly the wrong word, more pivoting as below. Obviously one of us probably has a better technique than the other.

Logged

icewolf

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2016, 03:44:34 PM »
Just received mine and just looking at the sole I am not confident that the grip would be as good as the normal spikes but like others have mentioned they are great so could only test that in the ground ;) I think the pointy things in the sole are not sharp enough to damage any matts? But the great thing is they are very light weight...just wow...same as my running trainers.
Logged

Silver Bullet

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 338
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2016, 07:26:11 PM »
Anyone know is the Boost can be worn on artificial surfaces ?
Logged

Woodyspin

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2232
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • www.twitter.com/thewoodyspin
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2016, 07:46:02 PM »
apparently not reccomended by adidas
Logged

icewolf

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2016, 02:50:24 PM »
Quote from: Woodyspin on April 06, 2016, 07:46:02 PM
apparently not reccomended by adidas

I dont think so, not because of those spikes are sharp or anything but because thats hard plastic and would be slippery on artificial surfaces.
Logged

i12breakfree

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2291
  • Trade Count: (+3)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2016, 04:19:04 PM »
and these are not cheap that one can just buy to try it out :)
Logged

Vitas Cricket

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6625
  • Trade Count: (+20)
  • Cricket Retailer & Coaching Centre in Peterborough
    • Vitas Cricket
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2016, 04:42:23 PM »
I suspect it will more to do with the nature of the artificial surface. It may well cause the soleplate to wear quite quickly.
Logged

brokenbat

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2328
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2016, 04:45:09 PM »
Quote from: Vitas Cricket on April 07, 2016, 04:42:23 PM
I suspect it will more to do with the nature of the artificial surface. It may well cause the soleplate to wear quite quickly.

ok so maybe not good for cement...but perhaps workable on a matted or astroturf pitch?
Logged

Vitas Cricket

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6625
  • Trade Count: (+20)
  • Cricket Retailer & Coaching Centre in Peterborough
    • Vitas Cricket
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2016, 04:48:30 PM »
Quote from: brokenbat on April 07, 2016, 04:45:09 PM
ok so maybe not good for cement...but perhaps workable on a matted or astroturf pitch?

It was astro/matting i was thinking of. The nature of this surface means an awful lot of friction (compared to grass or even a rock hard cricket square) which will wear the soleplate in my opinion.
Logged

brokenbat

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2328
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2016, 05:02:41 PM »
Quote from: Vitas Cricket on April 07, 2016, 04:48:30 PM
It was astro/matting i was thinking of. The nature of this surface means an awful lot of friction (compared to grass or even a rock hard cricket square) which will wear the soleplate in my opinion.

actually thats a good point. I use the asics "soft resin" replacement studs, and have to put in new ones twice a year. they get gobbled up pretty quickly.
Logged

bk

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 237
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2016, 06:39:05 PM »
The orange sole is really tough and the 'spikes' are sharp . They're more like a blade football/rugby boot than an astro sole.


Adidas had to develop a new material as they couldn't bond a normal studded sole to the Boost foam. These would definitely tear up normal outdoor nets and probably be very slippery.


Early feedback is that these are actually grippier than the normal SL22s on grass
Logged

GoodLeave

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1062
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2016, 05:39:54 PM »
SL22 Boost are £90 @ All Rounder this weekend Only (allegedly). Bargain, if you're willing to wait 300 years for them to show up.
Logged

HallamKeeper

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2016, 12:24:54 PM »
Played my first game in them yesterday and they were great. Outfield was very soft and the wicket cut up quickly and I had no problems. Also the mud didn't stick to them so kept grip all the time unlike my old spikes where I had to keep knocking the mud off in wetter conditions.

Just thought people might like to know.
Logged
The artist formerly known as CalverKeeper

Cover_Drive

  • Moderator
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5698
  • Trade Count: (+14)
Re: SL22 Comparison
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2016, 02:53:40 PM »
Quote from: Vitas Cricket on April 07, 2016, 04:48:30 PM
It was astro/matting i was thinking of. The nature of this surface means an awful lot of friction (compared to grass or even a rock hard cricket square) which will wear the soleplate in my opinion.

Good point, does this at least means that it won't rip the astro/matting? Nor get stuck in matting?

Because that's what I/we play on and I am looking to justify a reason to buy them. I don't mind them wearing off because at least that would be after use!!
Logged
Twitter: @_UzairM
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »
 

Advertise on CBF