New Kits 23/24

charlenefan said:
Bit of a piss take that you have to get the £100 shirt to get the same actual design that the players wear. I thought usually it was only better materials used on the more expensive shirt not a different design as well. With that being said £65 for an inaccurate shirt is probably about £25 too expensive
Click to expand...

The player quality shirts are always £100 and much nicer too.

Last seasons one was so much better looking than the replica version.
 
mu4c_20le said:
Hard to believe that highly paid professional designers would spend two minutes slapping that onto the shirt and say yep, that looks fine
Click to expand...
Need to say this again: The kit designers don't design the sponsors logos. They just put them on the shirt at a size decided by other people's rules.
 
Why is this the first I’ve seen of this collar and the subtle stripes? It doesn’t look like that on other pics?

 
One of the best looking kits we’ve had in my lifetime, without a doubt. There are always those who immediately have a moan, so that’s a given; but this kit is fecking class. Feels very Manchester Unitedy. It’s like a flash back to watching them growing up as a kid. Love it. I think I’m actually going to buy one of the long sleeve authentic versions. The details are amazing. And I haven’t bought a kit in 15-20 years except a replica retro jersey.
 
sillwuka said:
Quite surprised we didn't line up a sponsorship for our training kits, looks a bit odd.
Click to expand...
Didn’t the sponsor pull out last minute because of the protests, I’m sure we’ll get one later in the season.
 
sillwuka said:
Yeah, i read that at the end of the season. I think it was MyProtein?
Click to expand...
Yep you’re right MyProtein should have been the sponsor, they’re going to regret after we walk the league and champions league this coming season.
 
VeevaVee said:
Ahh makes sense. I like the fancy one but it’s a ridiculous price. They almost tempted me to get my first shirt since I was a kid, but feck em.
Click to expand...

Feck them indeed. A replica is supposed to be made of cheaper materials but it's supposed to look like the authentic. Hence the name, replica. It's the first time I see a replica so visibly different from the authentic.

Ain't no fecking away I'm paying £100 for the authentic. I'll skip or order from China.
 
MadMike said:
Feck them indeed. A replica is supposed to be made of cheaper materials but it's supposed to look like the authentic. Hence the name, replica. It's the first time I see a replica so visibly different from the authentic.

Ain't no fecking away I'm paying £100 for the authentic. I'll skip or order from China.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's an Adidas thing - they have been doing this on MLS kits for a couple of years now and it seems they finally expanded the reach of that initiative into world football.
 
Kearnkoff69 said:
Agreed. It's an Adidas thing - they have been doing this on MLS kits for a couple of years now and it seems they finally expanded the reach of that initiative into world football.
Click to expand...
It's not 'an adidas thing', as Nike have been doing the same for years. There has always been a difference between the players' kits and the replica kits. I remember the 1994/95 kits having the Umbro and Sharp logos as part of the print on the shirt rather than embroidered or embossed like on the player shirts. I remember the Nike kits having woven logos instead of embroidered ones ones, and the players' shirts having heat-bonded seams and those weird rubber 'T' things on the shoulders. The old replica Admiral kits in the 70s were made of nylon and had screen-printed logos, while the players wore cotton shirts. It's not new.

The only difference is you have the option to buy the player-spec version now, whereas before you didn't. In the 90s, you had to hope that the megastore had some of the actual shirts that the players had worn in a match that were no longer needed, if you wanted a player-spec shirt.
 
decorativeed said:
It's not 'an adidas thing', as Nike have been doing the same for years. There has always been a difference between the players' kits and the replica kits. I remember the 1994/95 kits having the Umbro and Sharp logos as part of the print on the shirt rather than embroidered or embossed like on the player shirts. I remember the Nike kits having woven logos instead of embroidered ones ones, and the players' shirts having heat-bonded seams and those weird rubber 'T' things on the shoulders. The old replica Admiral kits in the 70s were made of nylon and had screen-printed logos, while the players wore cotton shirts. It's not new.

The only difference is you have the option to buy the player-spec version now, whereas before you didn't. In the 90s, you had to hope that the megastore had some of the actual shirts that the players had worn in a match that were no longer needed, if you wanted a player-spec shirt.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, but the complaint I was replying to is specifically an Adidas thing. You are correct that all kit makers have differentiated authentic from replica kits by using different materials or heat pressing the badge instead of sewing (etc.). However, I do not remember Nike or Umbro excluding visual details from replica kits the way Adidas has been doing the last couple of years (e.g. lack of stripes on the replica kit this year, plain white collar and cuff instead of having the detail).

In other words, instead of there being performance-oriented differences between the two versions of kit (as you noted, this has always been the case), there are now visual differences between the two versions. I don't mean to speak for the other poster, but I believe that is the crux of the complaint here. Does that make more sense?
 
decorativeed said:
It's not 'an adidas thing', as Nike have been doing the same for years. There has always been a difference between the players' kits and the replica kits. I remember the 1994/95 kits having the Umbro and Sharp logos as part of the print on the shirt rather than embroidered or embossed like on the player shirts. I remember the Nike kits having woven logos instead of embroidered ones ones, and the players' shirts having heat-bonded seams and those weird rubber 'T' things on the shoulders. The old replica Admiral kits in the 70s were made of nylon and had screen-printed logos, while the players wore cotton shirts. It's not new.
Click to expand...

It is new, from what I can tell. There were always differences between replicas and authentics, mostly to help athlete performance. Differences were in the materials used for the shirt as well as for the crest and sponsor logos so as not to chafe or oversweat those parts.

The replica tries to mimic the design of the authentic as close as possible. But it's the first time I see an aesthetic design feature missing completely. To use your analogy on the 1995 shirt, this is like the Old Trafford background picture missing. The authentic is striped, the replica isnt. It's not even tryng to replicate the desing of the authentic more cheaply. This is new.
 
I love this retro vibe I get from these shorts. The socks are absolutely killer. One of the best kits I can remember.
 
Kearnkoff69 said:
With all due respect, but the complaint I was replying to is specifically an Adidas thing. You are correct that all kit makers have differentiated authentic from replica kits by using different materials or heat pressing the badge instead of sewing (etc.). However, I do not remember Nike or Umbro excluding visual details from replica kits the way Adidas has been doing the last couple of years (e.g. lack of stripes on the replica kit this year, plain white collar and cuff instead of having the detail).

In other words, instead of there being performance-oriented differences between the two versions of kit (as you noted, this has always been the case), there are now visual differences between the two versions. I don't mean to speak for the other poster, but I believe that is the crux of the complaint here. Does that make more sense?
Click to expand...

I fully agree with you. They are completely omitting visual details. One is a striped shirt and one isn't. They didn't even try to replicate the design.
 
horsechoker said:
It feels like our women's team is becoming a bit of joke to the club.
Click to expand...

This doesnt have anything to do with the club though, this is an intern at Adidas who wrote the wrong first name and sent it to pring without quality control. It's not great, but its 100% a blooper, not an intentional affront to the womens team.
 
MadMike said:
It is new, from what I can tell. There were always differences between replicas and authentics, mostly to help athlete performance. Differences were in the materials used for the shirt as well as for the crest and sponsor logos so as not to chafe or oversweat those parts.

The replica tries to mimic the design of the authentic as close as possible. But it's the first time I see an aesthetic design feature missing completely. To use your analogy on the 1995 shirt, this is like the Old Trafford background picture missing. The authentic is striped, the replica isnt. It's not even tryng to replicate the desing of the authentic more cheaply. This is new.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but the stripes are part of the different material. What's odd to me is that the replica kit material seems identical to what the previous 'Authentic' shirts were made of, with a kid of waffle texture. I think the stripes definitely could have been included on the replica shirt, mind. Surely it couldn't have cost any more, but who knows who makes these desicions? I'll ask the design team if I get to talk to them again.
 
Tom Cato said:
This doesnt have anything to do with the club though, this is an intern at Adidas who wrote the wrong first name and sent it to pring without quality control. It's not great, but its 100% a blooper, not an intentional affront to the womens team.
Click to expand...
Adidas probably don't get interns to design the marketing materials for one of their biggest clients and sign it off with no checks. It's an unfortunate mistake, yes, but it does show the fact that less care seems to have been given to one of our women's team players. I've had conversations recently with people where it is overwhelmingly apparent that many of the people who work at the club don't even have a cursory knowledge of the women's team players.
 
decorativeed said:
Adidas probably don't get interns to design the marketing materials for one of their biggest clients and sign it off with no checks. It's an unfortunate mistake, yes, but it does show the fact that less care seems to have been given to one of our women's team players. I've had conversations recently with people where it is overwhelmingly apparent that many of the people who work at the club don't even have a cursory knowledge of the women's team players.
Click to expand...


Who designed it isn't really relevant, if its an intern or a employee of Adidas, someone working graphics design made the card and it was passed without anyone picking up on the mistake. A player like Bruno or a Ronaldo, are names everyone knows by default and are easier to pick up than a player from the womens team only someone keenly interested in the sport would pick up on sight. Thus the accidental mistake.

My issue with this is only that it's (to my knowledge) a single mistake, out of all teams, men and women, that has been made. One. One too many sure, a proper quality control would have picked it up. She's been an adidas athlete for 2 years, they have used her name in marketing before.

The club has 0 to do with this whatsoever, it's all a accident on Adidas' part. One which they have apologized for publicly and I assume in person as well.

My point is, mistakes happen. Lets not make it into something it's not. To balance it out, here are some mistakes on Men's jerseys









D5CE6C17-DA39-4AC4-A86E-476DC40E6680.jpeg
 
Tom Cato said:
Who designed it isn't really relevant, if its an intern or a employee of Adidas, someone working graphics design made the card and it was passed without anyone picking up on the mistake. A player like Bruno or a Ronaldo, are names everyone knows by default and are easier to pick up than a player from the womens team only someone keenly interested in the sport would pick up on sight. Thus the accidental mistake.

My issue with this is only that it's (to my knowledge) a single mistake, out of all teams, men and women, that has been made. One. One too many sure, a proper quality control would have picked it up. She's been an adidas athlete for 2 years, they have used her name in marketing before.

The club has 0 to do with this whatsoever, it's all a accident on Adidas' part. One which they have apologized for publicly and I assume in person as well.

My point is, mistakes happen. Lets not make it into something it's not. To balance it out, here are some mistakes on Men's jerseys









D5CE6C17-DA39-4AC4-A86E-476DC40E6680.jpeg
Click to expand...

I've seen all of these before. Surely you can see there's a difference between what is essentially a typo by someone ironing letters onto a top and getting someone's whole name wrong on a big marketing campaign. Closest comparison is probably 'Mike' Smalling!

Just as an aside, I don't know who was responsible, and I'm sure a lesson has been learned, but it does give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the Women's team is a bit of an afterthought. Especially in the wake of Casey Stoney leaving.
 
decorativeed said:
I've seen all of these before. Surely you can see there's a difference between what is essentially a typo by someone ironing letters onto a top and getting someone's whole name wrong on a big marketing campaign. Closest comparison is probably 'Mike' Smalling!

Just as an aside, I don't know who was responsible, and I'm sure a lesson has been learned, but it does give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the Women's team is a bit of an afterthought. Especially in the wake of Casey Stoney leaving.
Click to expand...

The point was that human error can happen when humans perform manual tasks.

Anyway, the marketing material was posted on Adidas' website, presented by Adidas, and created by Adidas. It was all Adidas. And Adidas knows her name very well, so they made a human error.

There's lots of things to harp on about the club, but they have literally nothing at all to do with this incident.
 
Tom Cato said:
The point was that human error can happen when humans perform manual tasks.

Anyway, the marketing material was posted on Adidas' website, presented by Adidas, and created by Adidas. It was all Adidas. And Adidas knows her name very well, so they made a human error.

There's lots of things to harp on about the club, but they have literally nothing at all to do with this incident.
Click to expand...
When, in any of my posts have I said it was United's fault?

Having said that, I know these campaigns are done in collaboration between Adidas marketing department and United's sponsor servicing departments, with the assistance of United's in house design team. I know this having worked for United.
 

I am completely won over, our best kit since 2008/2009, this season will be iconic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.