Manchester United 2010-11 Kits

Posted by John Devlin

man-utd-h-10-11For many, the launch of a new Manchester United kit is one of the most eagerly awaited events in the football kit calendar. This season once again there are two new Nike kits to get United fans excited (with last year’s black and blue affair relegated to third choice). Plus of course this season we have to get used to a new sponsor, Aon, on the Red Devils kit.

Retro influence can be seen once again as this time for the home shirt Nike look back to the early 80s adidas outfits (not the late 70s Admiral ones as so many lazy newspapers seem determined to make us think) with the giveaway clues being the old-fashioned collar and taping/trim down each sleeve.  My initial opinion was favourable but on seeing the strip in action on TV and looking at a shirt close up my enthusiasm has waned slightly. The collar seems very big (especially at the back) and very flappy and whilst I think the white trim (complete with delicate black and red markings – and devil motif) is smart the shirt does have a slightly cheap feel about it for some reason. Still its great to see plenty of white back on the United shirt rather than a simply red (no pun intened) and black ensemble.

man-utd-a-10-11The away has ruffled a few feathers simply as it breaks from a safe and comfortable design with dynamic red and black flashes on each sleeve (zig zag flashes seem to be Nike’s signature 2010-11 design element). The shorts and socks are sensibly designed to be interchanged with the home kit (a thumbs up from me). Its a brave design that I can understand would be unpopular with some of the Old Trafford faithful but for me, with its predominantly white colour scheme splashed with ample doses of red and black, screams ‘Manchester United’.


27 Responses to “Manchester United 2010-11 Kits”

  1. Alan Says:

    I agree with your comment about the kits being interchangeable. It makes a nice change from having six pairs of shorts last season. The socks are an interesting change, not being predominately one colour and I have to say I’m not a big fan of collars on shirts. I often think it’s a case of the manufacturer having excess material to offload!

  2. Mark Jessop Says:

    I completely agree about the home shirt looking cheaply made. The away kit on the other hand is a clean modern design.

    I don’t see why it should particularly ruffle any feathers as the colours are Man U’s traditional away colours and the design is nothing like as radical as last year’s giant V’s.

  3. Adam Says:

    When the two shirts were announced, I loved the home, and didn’t like the away.

    But after seeing both kits in action during the season, the away was worn for the first time today at Villa Park, I have flipped over. As has been said, the home looks cheap, where as the away looks very stylish and modern.

    Also, I’m glad the black and blue third kit has been retained from last season. I’m not entirely sure why, but I love that kit, when worn with the change white and blue change shorts and socks.

    Although, I suppose it doesn’t sit well as a “set” of kits, with the home and away.

    Excellent illustrations, as always, John. :)

  4. Denis Hurley Says:

    Is the zig-zag design the same as Nike used on their first few Arsenal kits in the mid-90s?

    Darren Fletcher wore a numberless shirt for part of today’s game, it amazes me that teams don’t have a second set with them

  5. Adam Says:

    I think teams do have two sets of kits with them, but they (or at least some players) change at half time. That’s what I heard, anyway, it might be a load of rubbish.

    I was at a match a few seasons ago and a player got blood on his shirt in the first half, and changed into the numberless “blood shirt” for the remainder of the half. When he came out for the second half, he was wearing a new shirt with his number and name on the back.

    Maybe Fletcher changed his shirt for a fresh one at half time, and didn’t have a fresh shirt, as his blood on shirt incident happened in the second half. Or, maybe he didn’t change his shirt at half time, but it was just quicker giving him the “blood shirt” – rather than sending somebody to the dressing room to get his second shirt with name and number. Or, maybe you’re right and they only take one set of kits.

    I better stop now, my brain is starting to hurt. :S

    It would be interesting to find out how many kits teams take to a match. Maybe John knows?

  6. Tim Says:

    The home shirt looks better in your graphics than it actually is. I agree it looks a bit “cheap”, but I think all the Nike kits do this season. They are made out of recycled materials, which is great, but they are also extremely thin and of quite an open weave. Not a good combo. The collars should have been made of a more rigid fabric, as they bunch up and look untidy on the players.

    The away kit is in the right colours for a change, but suffers from the same cheapness as the home kit. Not a fan of that fussy crew neck on it either. Again, your graphic does it a few favours it doesn’t really deserve.

    I’m not a fan of the striped trim and the socks have too much red on them for my tastes.

    I’d have prefered if Nike did what they usually do for United (and most of their other teams) and made the home and away kits in the same style but in different colours. A white away with red collar and black trim would have been great.

  7. Neil Says:

    I think that the red Nike logo on the white jersey looks quite stylish…

  8. Andrew Rockall Says:

    Some clubs have no’s 49 & 50 reserved to be blood shirts numbers.

    I don’t understand why they didn’t chose a green and gold away kit this season?!?!?!

  9. Mark Jessop Says:

    Yes Andrew at least the anti-Glazer brigade would have had a shirt to match their scarves!!!

  10. john b Says:

    i agree with the fact that at least we have the correct colours this season,i also agree the home looks cheap,cant Nike embroider the badge on rather than stick a patch on,the away badge is the same,looks cheap.

  11. Rich Johnson Says:

    When I first saw the leaked pics of the away kit, I assumed it was a training shirt as it just looked naff…Having now seen it in action, I stick with that view…I just don’t like it. The home shirt on the other hand I do like…simple and cool. Not seen the material up close though so couldn’t comment on the cheapness of it.

  12. Willie Says:

    I’m glad someone as mentioned the issue of patched on club badges. A few manufacturers appear to have gone down this cheap alternative to embroidery. My own club has introduced this tacky knock off back street market look to our new kit. I expect more from Nike and our kit supplier Puma.

    As for the new Man United kits, I prefer the old school home to the slightly ”comic strip“ away look.

    Cheers,
    Willie

  13. Rich Johnson Says:

    I always thought the patched on badges were for player comfort (as you don’t get the inside of the embroidery rubbing one’s nips) rather than cost. I know that player shirts have had heat transfer patches for years…I first spotted them on adidas’ world cup kits in 02 and the ‘player issue’ Argentina shirt I bought last year has a plastic iron on badge whereas the replica versions have the embroidered versions.

  14. Tim Says:

    United’s crest was always embroidered on the jersey up until the white 2008-09 away shirt and blue third shirt. Now only the devil is embroidered. Even in the Umbro years when they used those patch-style surrounds on the shirts they were embroidered all the way through so it was next to the skin rather than behind a layer of the regular shirt material, which I thought was odd for the same reasons you suggest. It must have been embroidered after the basic shirt was assembled.

    Considering players shirts have had other special ammendments for the player’s comfort such as heat sealed seams, I always thought it was odd that they had a patch of embroidery rubbing against a sensitive area.

    The patches on the player and replica shirts now are like the ones on the Umbro replicas in the mid 90s which I always thought were a bit cheap looking and I felt cheated as the players had fully embroidered ones. At least now they are the same as the ones the players wear. All Nike shirts have these now by the way, not just United and I think the Adidas ones are similar. Is the crest on the new Liverpool kits printed on now, by the way?

    I must say I’m not particularly bothered that the United crest is not embroidered as I hate the current one. With the chunky “balloons”, the lack of “football club” and the ugly black outline it looks like an ugly cartoon version of the traditional one. However they apply it to a shirt it will look cheap.

  15. Adam Says:

    I went to the Birmingham-Chelsea game today, and Chelsea wore the lime green third kit. I was just wondering, is this the first time they have worn that kit this season?

    Also, Petr Cech wore a change goalkeeper – navy blue with green trim – because the first choice goalkeeper kit clashes with the outfield third kit.

    It seems so silly to have a goalkeeper kit which clashes with one of your outfield kits…

  16. Adam Says:

    Actually, come to think of it, the change goalkeeper kit Petr Cech wore today would also clash with the black and orange outfield away kit.

    Madness!

  17. john b Says:

    i agree with tim regarding the badge,bring back the traditional badge with ‘football club’ and give it back its white centre background,the badge doesnt stand out against the background,it gets lost in the shirt.I believe it was umbro who removed the white centre back in 1992.

  18. Denis Hurley Says:

    Adidas weren’t averse to tweaking the crest slightly either – the ’scrolls’ at the top were replaced with football boots, which of course had three stripes on them!

  19. John Devlin Says:

    Thanks for all the comments chaps – interesting stuff. Tim – great to hear more from a United expert – you’re bang on about the collars, in the flesh they don’t really cut it for me. Its funny how the badge situation has reversed from the early days of modern replicas, back then an embroidered badge had far more kudos and was viewed as more authentic than a flock/felt or transferred motif. Now with weight and comfort more important on the pitch the reverse is true. Have to say though, I would like to see the end of the United ‘patch’.

  20. john b Says:

    whats with that under-garment rooney is wearing? red with black flashes on it? why carnt he just wear a long sleeved shirt to cover it? what are the rules on these things? and cant clubs provide sock tape in the same colour as the socks?

  21. Adam Says:

    I’m not sure what the exact rules are, john b, but I remember a few occasions when players have been told to change their shorts under-garment because they were a different colour to their shorts.

    As far as sock tape being the same colour as the socks, well, there was an “incident” in a recent Champions League match involving Manchester United where an opposition player (I can’t remember the team, or player) was about to be introduced as a subsitute, but the fourth official wouldn’t allow him on to the pitch because his sock tape was a different colour to his socks.

    I remember the TV commentators and touch-line report having a chuckle about it, with the annoying under-tone of “it’s political correctness gone mad!”

    Maybe it’s just something that’s enforced in the Champions League, because in the Premier League everybody just seems to use white tape – regardless of the colour of their socks.

    Also, I noticed in the Villa-Arsenal game yesterday, regarding the discussion earlier in this blog about blood shirts, that Laurent Koscielny got blood on his shirt during the first half of the match – and wore the numberless blood shirt for the remainder of the half.

    He came out for the second half wearing a new shirt with his name and number on.

    I don’t know if that answers any questions on if teams take more than one set of kits to matches – or if it’s just what Arsenal do…

  22. Denis Hurley Says:

    Did anyone else notice that the Premier League patches on United’s away kit last night looked very ‘pink’?

  23. Adam Says:

    I did, actually, Denis.

    I’m probably wrong, but I assumed the patches were a bit too “thin” and looked pink because they were placed over the red “zig-zag flashes”.

  24. Denis Hurley Says:

    Odd though, first time I’ve noticed it, they look fine here http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/106807451/Aston-Villa-FC

    Maybe it’s from too much washing!

  25. Adam Says:

    Could be! :D

    Talking about the West Ham-Manchester United game, watching the match on TV last night it looked like the West Ham goalkeeper kit was yellow with brown.

    But, going through some photos of last nights game on GettyImages, trying to find some photos of the ‘pink patches’, the goalkeeper kit looks yellow with grey.

    It’s really annoying me now, so I want to see what others think – as maybe there’s something wrong with my eyes!

    http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/107214251/Manchester-United

  26. John Devlin Says:

    Denis – the expression on Ferdinand’s face in that pic cracked me up!

    Adam – I think its grey – similar to the grey used with the yellow on Arsenal’s away kit a few years ago. I know what you mean about colours looking different in different sources, the latest Man City home kit has a different shade of blue in almost every photo I see of it.

  27. Denis Hurley Says:

    If anyone’s interested, the grey Arsenal used on that away kit (a kit I never warmed to, despite a win at OT in 06) was officially described as ‘anthracite’

Leave a Reply