Jump to content

United States 12/14 Home Shirt Leaked


carlosgg6

Recommended Posts

I think "hoops" is a fantastic term, instantly distinguishable from "stripes."

Crest aside, this is my favorite look:

usa%20soccer%20jersey%20nsh.jpg

I wish I could find one for sale...

I agree with this. I love the red/blue stripe, though I wouldn't mind seeing a small strip of white separating the two.

I don't think it needs any additional white; looks perfect as it is.

Without a doubt, the finest US mens' shirt since the 1950s red sash, if not before.

It bugs me as well that the US MNT keeps trying on and discarding identities. If not the racing stripes above, then they should own the sash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Heh, considering I wasn't a huge fan of the previous white shirt's invisible sash (though I did like the red shirt), the hoops idea is good, though the execution could've been better. Still, I think this'll be a good look for the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't like it at all. The sash was not only a perfect homage to the 1950 World Cup team but aesthetically pretty nice (and, as mentioned earlier, only one other country - Peru - has popularized the sash as a design element). This comes across as a club jersey to me.

Plus, I can't believe I'm the first person to ask this... but will the uniforms feature matching stocking caps and round glasses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear U.S. Soccer

You've had a lot of really good looks in the last decade, but you need to pick one of these and turn that 'look' into an identity.

1. The RACING STRIPE. This is a nice, modern look that teams seem to use intermittently but no one seems to own.

A white shirt with a red and blue stripe running vertically down the left, through the crest. Blue shorts, White socks with red and blue stripes to match the jersey. Change kit swaps the blue and white.

2. The RUGBY STRIPE. This was a nice take on hoops. It was stylish and ownable, though it was very subtle.

A white shirt with thick hoops in a very light, tonal grey. Red pinlines to separate the white and grey. Blue shorts. White socks with hoops and pinlines to match the jersey. Change kit swaps the blue and white.

3. The SASH. This was the perfect homage, but the sash must be red. Ghost sash was not the best use of the element.

A white shirt with a thick red sash beginning under the right armpit and stretching to the left hip. Blue Shorts. White socks with red tops. Change kit swaps the blue and white.

4. The HOOPS. These are bold, and make perfect sense. They are also pretty unique in terms of international play.

A white shirt with seven red hoops. Blue shorts. White socks with red hoops to match the jersey. Change kit could either swap the blue and white, or it could use a set of tonal blue hoops on a blue jersey and blue socks, with red sleeve ends and sock tops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "hoops" is a fantastic term, instantly distinguishable from "stripes."

Crest aside, this is my favorite look:

usa%20soccer%20jersey%20nsh.jpg

I wish I could find one for sale...

I agree with this. I love the red/blue stripe, though I wouldn't mind seeing a small strip of white separating the two.

I don't think it needs any additional white; looks perfect as it is.

Without a doubt, the finest US mens' shirt since the 1950s red sash, if not before.

It bugs me as well that the US MNT keeps trying on and discarding identities. If not the racing stripes above, then they should own the sash.

Interesting. I hated that uniform. My least favorite since some of the adidas disasters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 200+ national teams affiliated with FIFA. Not everyone gets a "look".

But not all of them are well-known, represent huge, powerful nations, consistently make it to the World Cup, etc. Those that do (like the U.S.) should have an established identity. Even so, it's still possible for 200 countries to all have unique identities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 200+ national teams affiliated with FIFA. Not everyone gets a "look".

But not all of them are well-known, represent huge, powerful nations, consistently make it to the World Cup, etc. Those that do (like the U.S.) should have an established identity. Even so, it's still possible for 200 countries to all have unique identities.

The US is late to the party in terms of being a prominent team, and has done most of the climb wearing white/navy/white as a primary. Why blow it up now to be "unique"? You can't manufacture "iconic".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 200+ national teams affiliated with FIFA. Not everyone gets a "look".

But not all of them are well-known, represent huge, powerful nations, consistently make it to the World Cup, etc. Those that do (like the U.S.) should have an established identity. Even so, it's still possible for 200 countries to all have unique identities.

The US is late to the party in terms of being a prominent team, and has done most of the climb wearing white/navy/white as a primary. Why blow it up now to be "unique"? You can't manufacture "iconic".

I don't think I agree with this. This qualifying period and upcoming World Cup is the ripest time for U.S. Soccer to become one of the world's elite. Expectations are going to be at an all-time high, and they have an opportunity really cement their place in international soccer. If they were ever going to make a statement with a unique look, this is the time to do it, because if they succeed and make a run to the semis or the final, they will have, in essence, manufactured 'iconic'. These hoops will have become the lasting image of the renaissance of U.S. Soccer if they make serious noise over the next three years.

I mean, Spain is a relative newcomer to the world of elite teams, with one Olympic gold, a couple Silvers and a previous best of 4th place in the 1950 World Cup, so I don't buy that the U.S. is too late to be prominent. I think the fact that they are the U.S. almost gives them instant prominence, regardless of past performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 200+ national teams affiliated with FIFA. Not everyone gets a "look".

But not all of them are well-known, represent huge, powerful nations, consistently make it to the World Cup, etc. Those that do (like the U.S.) should have an established identity. Even so, it's still possible for 200 countries to all have unique identities.

The US is late to the party in terms of being a prominent team, and has done most of the climb wearing white/navy/white as a primary. Why blow it up now to be "unique"? You can't manufacture "iconic".

I don't think I agree with this. This qualifying period and upcoming World Cup is the ripest time for U.S. Soccer to become one of the world's elite. Expectations are going to be at an all-time high, and they have an opportunity really cement their place in international soccer. If they were ever going to make a statement with a unique look, this is the time to do it, because if they succeed and make a run to the semis or the final, they will have, in essence, manufactured 'iconic'. These hoops will have become the lasting image of the renaissance of U.S. Soccer if they make serious noise over the next three years.

I mean, Spain is a relative newcomer to the world of elite teams, with one Olympic gold, a couple Silvers and a previous best of 4th place in the 1950 World Cup, so I don't buy that the U.S. is too late to be prominent. I think the fact that they are the U.S. almost gives them instant prominence, regardless of past performance.

Spain have always been elite but they have always under achieved. If anything the US has over achieved. The US doesn't have a soccer infrastructure, or at best has a fragile, relatively new infrastructure.

Remember with Spain that the Franco regime didn't help the national team, however much money and influence it had in Real Madrid. The history of the Spanish national team is well worth properly studying before righting it off. (Also the whole Madrid/Catalunya problem plays into it's underachieving.)

You certainly aren't going to improve the fortunes of the US soccer team by switching and swapping it's identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 200+ national teams affiliated with FIFA. Not everyone gets a "look".

But not all of them are well-known, represent huge, powerful nations, consistently make it to the World Cup, etc. Those that do (like the U.S.) should have an established identity. Even so, it's still possible for 200 countries to all have unique identities.

The US is late to the party in terms of being a prominent team, and has done most of the climb wearing white/navy/white as a primary. Why blow it up now to be "unique"? You can't manufacture "iconic".

I don't think I agree with this. This qualifying period and upcoming World Cup is the ripest time for U.S. Soccer to become one of the world's elite. Expectations are going to be at an all-time high, and they have an opportunity really cement their place in international soccer. If they were ever going to make a statement with a unique look, this is the time to do it, because if they succeed and make a run to the semis or the final, they will have, in essence, manufactured 'iconic'. These hoops will have become the lasting image of the renaissance of U.S. Soccer if they make serious noise over the next three years.

I mean, Spain is a relative newcomer to the world of elite teams, with one Olympic gold, a couple Silvers and a previous best of 4th place in the 1950 World Cup, so I don't buy that the U.S. is too late to be prominent. I think the fact that they are the U.S. almost gives them instant prominence, regardless of past performance.

Spain doesn't exactly have a consistent identity either. They've been switching between navy and royal blue for years now. Another important team that doesn't have iconic uniforms is Portugal, as they've been alternating all maroon with gold trim and red jerseys, white pants and green trim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it. I actually always thought red/white hoops would work well for the USMNT, now that I see it, I don't like it. I dislike the sash too. I am actually not that convinced Nike really knows how to design a great soccer jersey. They seem to tinker too far on the "radical" side and seem to keen to pull the plug on old ideas and too eager to adapt new ones.

I am not sure what the answer is for USMNT. I thought this would work, but now that I see it, I really don't think I can wear it.

One problem with hoops is it makes you look fat. I am a pretty decent weight (for my age anyway), so I can get away with a shirt that add ten pounds, but a lot of people (especially American men) really can't afford to do that. It's gonna look really bad on guys with a pot belly, like, really, really bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say they're too late to be prominent. But the complaint is that the US changes too much, and that they should fix that... by changing. Huh?

Well, when you don't have any consistency to build upon, your choices are limited. Your only other option is to roll with whatever you're currently wearing and put all the eggs in that basket, no matter how good the look is. I think a calculated decision should be made about what the identity of U.S. Soccer is going to be, and then get behind it. If it's the sash, then it's the sash, but if it's something else, then this is the last radical change we should see in U.S. Soccer, ideally.

I wouldn't change to something new; I always look to the past for design inspiration. The aim would be to stick with something for the long haul, for once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.