Manchester United's New Away Kit

[TheFloridianLogoMan]

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Club-News/2011/Jul/manchester-united-unveil-new-away-kit.aspx

So......they have mostly red in their primary logos and merch.......they're even nicknamed "Reds" by local faithful......so

........

.....why is there no red (other than the logo) in the road kit?.....and even more confusing, why is it blue?????????? If I didn't know better, I could mistaken them for Stoke City Potters.

EDIT: I believe I've posted this in the wrong forum....if someone could move it to the Logos section so I don't get reprimanded, I'd appreciate it

[Jahgee]

I have wondered for years why Oregon gets constant bashing for their football unis that omit main colors, yet no one bashes any soccer teams for doing the same thing, only worse in the case Man U.

[Billy B]

Maybe because it's a clash kit. If it was red then it wouldn't clash with what the other team was wearing.

[IceCap]

I have wondered for years why Oregon gets constant bashing for their football unis that omit main colors, yet no one bashes any soccer teams for doing the same thing, only worse in the case Man U.

In soccer there's a long tradition of wearing colours unrelated to your team colours for your clash kit. See, there are no "home" and "road" uniforms in soccer as we understand them in hockey, football, basketball, and baseball. In soccer there are "primary" and "clash" kits. A team wears their primary kit most of the time. They only wear their clash kit if the other team's primary is similar in colour to theirs. Since the goal of the clash kit is to provide contrast in an instance where the primary kits are to similar many clash kits use colour schemes completely different from that of the primaries.

In football the road uniforms always reflect the same colour scheme as the home uniforms, since both sets are worn roughly the equal amounts of time through a season. That's why people give soccer teams a pass when their clash kits use a different colour scheme but blast Oregon for forsaking green and athletic gold in favour of black, highlighter yellow, and three types of silver/grey.

[Don]

I think ive seen Chinese knockoffs that look exactly like this in previous years.

[Don_Kay]

Maybe because it's a clash kit. If it was red then it wouldn't clash with what the other team was wearing.

This is the main reason. In football, the 'Away' kit is pretty much only used when both Home kits clash, whereas in American sports its far more usual for teams to have have seperate uniforms for Home and Away matches exclusively. As far as there being no red in the kit, well thats mainly due to most kits using two, sometimes three colours. It wouldn't make sense for Man United to have blue and red or black and red hooped shirts.

[ARTnSocal]

http://www.manutd.co...w-away-kit.aspx

So......they have mostly red in their primary logos and merch.......they're even nicknamed "Reds" by local faithful......so ........

.....why is there no red (other than the logo) in the road kit?.....and even more confusing, why is it blue?????????? If I didn't know better, I could mistaken them for Stoke City Potters.

EDIT: I believe I've posted this in the wrong forum....if someone could move it to the Logos section so I don't get reprimanded, I'd appreciate it

Stoke City's new away kit may have the same colors, but their striping is vertical, not horizontal as Man U's new away kit .... not to mention Stoke has excess white around the collar, along the shoulder, and shorts, and a totally different shirt sponsor.

FTR ... Man Ure are nicknamed 'Red Devils', it's their arch-rivals Liverpool who are the 'Reds' ... or 'Bindpipers'

[TheFloridianLogoMan]

Well, I guess it's not a bad thing to learn something new.......Thanks for the explanations, it makes perfect sense to me now......except what Oregon is doing.

[AJM]

Already a thread...

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=79615&st=0

[-kj]

And... you're not a mod.

As has been explained before, it's okay to have a separate thread for an individual team's release.

That said, it is true that there's likely some more information about this kit in that thread that you haven't yet seen if you haven't read it; you just may have to wade through a lot of other things to see it.

[ARTnSocal]

Well, I guess it's not a bad thing to learn something new.......Thanks for the explanations, it makes perfect sense to me now......except what Oregon is doing.

Ha ha .... The Oregon thing is so unique tho' .... every week I find myself looking for their game just to see what they're wearing, plus they've been an explosive team to watch in addition to their weekly uniform set.

The Ducks are like pot-luck or a box of chocolates ..... They're the only ones that will wear either throwbacks and 'throw-forwards'

[andrew.]

To be fair, Manchester United have had blue/primarily blue kits at least four times in the last ten seasons that I'm aware, and possibly more times, and they've all looked good. That's pretty nasty, though, but I'd rather they try something new every season than stick with red home, white away, black third every year. Consistency like that is fine in sports where it's frowned upon to even change your sweaters every five years, let alone every season, but I'd rather they try something new once in a while, like United have done. They may be known as the Red Devils, but how does that make blue the only color that's off limits? Why is no one annoyed when the 'Red Devils' wear white away kits? Black thirds?

All a matter of taste, though. As far as crest colors in the main jersey, the only preference I personally have is that if a crest is green, white and red, the team use the same shades of green and red in their uniforms (if they use green and red at all, and if they don't, fine).

[MJWalker45]

Manchester United has rotated between royal blue, white and black clash shirts since at least the 1920's. It hasn't been until the 1990's that teams religiously rolled out a new clash shirt every year. United have actually tried combining those colors with their last few kits. royal blue/red, white/royal blue and black/royal blue have been the shirts they have used that that intended to mix their alternate colors together

[Bayne]

Thats a bland design if you ask me.

I understand the whole different colour scheme thing in soccer kits, but I don't see the point. Hypothetically, if a team wears blue with yellow trim at home, and their away kit is predominately yellow but with orange trim, why not just use blue trim to stay within the team's colour scheme? This happens all the time and its just not necessary imo.

[ARTnSocal]

Why is no one annoyed when the 'Red Devils' wear white away kits?

Gulp!! . . . You've probably never been to West Yorkshire-England before if you believe that . .

[StillS]

They may be known as the Red Devils, but how does that make blue the only color that's off limits? Why is no one annoyed when the 'Red Devils' wear white away kits? Black thirds?

Because they already have white as part of there uniform (shorts) and imo black can be excused since it's in there logo.

Personally i wouldn't mind a black/yellow clash kit instead of this blue/black.

[Gothamite]

Aesthetically speaking, so would I.

But in the sport's context, the blue is okay. United were wearing a blue clash shirt for decades before they put that crest on a shirt, and I think that history has to be respected.

[CAB]

I actually wish most sports would use primary and clash uniforms. That would provide for more opportunity for great color on color matchups. Specifically baseball, which IMO could use way more color.

[hawk36]

I love the clash kit concept. Let's teams kind of break out of their mold a bit. To me it's almost like what the NFL did with AFL teams a few years back. Many like the Broncos had a completely different look/colors, etc. Was kind of a nice change for a game or two.

[Jarred Revolver]

http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Manchester_United/Manchester_United-change-kits.html

United has a LONG history of blue clash kits...