Comments on: England Away Kit Review

By: John Devlin

John Devlin — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:06:29 +0000

I think I’m with you on all of that John! Seeing 1-11 at the recent England game was great!

By: john b

john b — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:50:24 +0000

there shouldnt in my opinion be numbers on the front of the shirt,the numbers on shorts are enough,but then again i’d go back to 1-11 in domestic football and no names either!

By: Andrew Rockall

Andrew Rockall — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:47:52 +0000

Having seen the new Eire kit I really wish the England away kit had used that template.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:30:05 +0000

Some of the new Nike kits are spoiled by dodgy front number placements. Take the new USA jerseys, which have a diagonal sash on the front – the front numbers are placed below the badge.

Turkey is another victim of this – the Turkish crescent and star symbol is in the middle of the chest band, like their kits from years ago, but the front number is placed on the top right, where normally a badge would go. You could argue Portugal’s away kit is spoiled too by the large white patch breaking the two front stripes just to house the number.

Still, it’s better than having a sponsor logo on the front, which was an idea FIFA were seriously considering allowing a few years ago but decided to reject it.

By: Rich Johnson

Rich Johnson — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:57:18 +0000

That is indeed correct John. It was also the first tournament where player names appeared on the back of the shirts.

By: John Devlin

John Devlin — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:40:45 +0000

I’m with you as well Tim – that was one of my first comments when I saw the kit in action. Apart from being on the left it was too close to the Umbro logo.

The positioning of numbers on the Scotland shirt is also dubious IMO. I think thats why I liked the Welsh Kappa shirts from a few years back. With the Kappa logo only on the sleeves it left a suitable space on the chest for the number.

If memory serves me correctly, the first time numbers appeared on the front of shirts was Euro 92.

I’m sure someone else can confirm this?

By: Rich Johnson

Rich Johnson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:40:17 +0000

Tim, totally agree. The positioning of the number on the right instead of the middle just seemed to unbalance the whole thing. I also thought the scroll seemed too prominent due to the white background, which works fine on a white shirt but seemed too fussy on the red. Overall, however, it’s still the best away kit for a long time.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:56:02 +0000

Does anyone else think that the numbers on the chest ruin this kit?

Come to think of it, what even is the point of having a number on the front of the shirt, and when did rules come in demanding them there?

By: John Devlin

John Devlin — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:23:37 +0000

Its interesting that Andrew, Umbro specifically designed the long sleeve shirt so that it would act as a baselayer as well so I would imagine they would be a bit disappointed that Rooney didn’t go for a long sleeve. I was at the game last night with Umbro and Rooney’s choice of shirt was noticed. I think it was only two players (Crouch and Carrick?) that wore long sleeves in the end.

John and Rich, agree with you as well on Puma’s WC kits – I’m really not sure about the collars, and that shadow pattern reminds me of Reebok’s kits for West Ham/Man City a few years back.

By: Rich Johnson

Rich Johnson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:10:30 +0000

John b, totally agree re Italy’s kit…it’s horrendous! The neck is a mess (though worse on Uruguay’s where there’s a collar on top of it) and the robochest pattern on the front is a cartoon joke. Puma’s last few Italy kits have been their most stylish for years, but they’ve lost their way with this one.