• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Kits 2013/2014

Gather App
ratsapprentice said:
That's the trouble with smaller companies though...

For every good kit, you're just as likely to get a complete head-scratcher.
Click to expand...

What has the size of the company got to do with ability to design a shirt? It's not as if the bigger companies have had their fair share of rubbish kits any less so.

It's totally subjective anyway. There was a thread for worst national team shirt of all time a few months back, and some even liked the monstrosity Canada wore at the 1995 World Cup.
 
look at all the terrible kits in this thread, most of them are done by smaller companies.

A good example is Wasps.
I think most people would agree that the quality of their kit (aesthetically, and to a lesser extent physically) went down significantly when they moved to Kukri from Canterbury.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'd be surprised though.
 
Last edited:
ratsapprentice said:
look at all the terrible kits in this thread, most of them are done by smaller companies.

A good example is Wasps.
I think most people would agree that the quality of their kit (aesthetically, and to a lesser extent physically) went down significantly when they moved to Kukri from Canterbury.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'd be surprised though.
Click to expand...

Canterbury? The one who designed the baby bib kit with a billion pointless lines all over them and then used that crap template for every team. They are hardly incapable of making terrible kits and in fact did so with a 100% success rate during that phase when they gave every team a shirt like below. The Argentina shirt has been messed up since Nike took over as well.

It's subjective though, somebody might like those strange shoulder things and lines all over their shirts, but there is no reason to say that the size of a company has anything to do with how good their designs are. There's no reason why you for example, couldn't design a Scotland or Argentina shirt that would look better in some people's opinion than the designer at Canterbury or Nike for example.

IMG_2629.JPG
IMG_6268.JPG
 
Last edited:
I think there are more shirts that are, by general consensus, badly designed made by smaller companies like Macron than there are by bigger companies like Nike, Canterbury or Adidas.
You obviously disagree. But at no point did I say that bigger companies are incapable of making bad kits, nor that small companies can't make good ones.
 
ratsapprentice said:
I think there are more shirts that are, by general consensus, badly designed made by smaller companies like Macron than there are by bigger companies like Nike, Canterbury or Adidas.
You obviously disagree. But at no point did I say that bigger companies are incapable of making bad kits, nor that small companies can't make good ones.
Click to expand...

You've just conveniently skipped over posting any substance behind that opinion and just announced it as "by consensus". You've been fooled by marketing. Bigger companies must be superior in every way possible because they have adverts on TV ...

Yet money has little to do with ability to design a good shirt (which is subjective anyway). There used to be a poster here who designed shirts for fun (http://www.therugbyforum.com/showthread.php?23931-RWC-2011-Custom-Jersey-Designs), I guess in your view he will be a mile off as good and far more rubbish as compared to the designs from Canterbury or Nike because he doesn't advertise on TV and do publicity stunts, which is palpable nonsense.

Also as I said above, how can you say that the smaller companies have a lower rate of good shirts when Canterbury for a while made 100% of their shirts with those ridiculous lines and shoulder things all over them
 
What marketing have I been fooled by? I don't read any press releases...
I see the kit, and what fans think (on forums like this). That's the extent of it.

It seems to me that smaller companies generally tend to make unconventional kits more often.
An example would be that Bristol kit, I personally couldn't imagine one of the bigger companies putting that out.

Nowhere have I said small companies are incapable of making good kits, which you keep inferring that I have.
Or that big companies never put out ****ty kits, Canterbury's last Scotland away kit was gaudy too, probably even more so.
And England's current away kit has very little to do with England symbolically, even though I quite like the kit itself.
Those "Ridge Sports" designs are decent for the most part, the Argentina one is certainly better than the one in use currently imo.
The designer has avoided the mistake of straying away from the traditional colours/patterns that teams have.

Like you keep saying the appeal is subjective, I don't remember that many people complaining about the old Canterbury shirts.
 
29bm64k.jpg


The kit's growing on me slightly, but still not enough. It's just too busy for my liking. The unnecessary purple stripes to the side and the saltire on the left chest. It's just not needed... Without these additions it'd be a much nicer kit.
 
Photo with best quality:
130902064618975476.jpg


Beautiful!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Macron: I like you!!!!!!!!

I'll have to buy two shirts of Scotland, home and away
 
Will said:
The kit's growing on me slightly, but still not enough. It's just too busy for my liking. The unnecessary purple stripes to the side and the saltire on the left chest. It's just not needed... Without these additions it'd be a much nicer kit.
Click to expand...

I like all these additions, buddy LOL
 

Similar threads

D
Rugby Challenge (2011) and Rugby Challenge 2 (2013) kit mods from OG Sidhe forum?
Replies
1
Views
637
Bogdam
Bogdam
Don't Skip Leg Day
Kit manufacturers
Replies
7
Views
1K
davten
davten
T
Seasons when notable teams failed to qualify for the Champions Cup for the first time
Replies
7
Views
813
Tooting Carmen
T
TRF_Olyy
England 2025/26
35 36 37
Replies
735
Views
25K
Geordie
Geordie
Vaughan
Vaughan's RC 3 kits
27 28 29
Replies
574
Views
61K
FlavorZA
F

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top