Canterbury’ve been getting steadily worse since they lost out to Adidas on the New Zealand contract (no-one messes with the All-Blacks shirts – only change in the last 50+ years was from white to black collars). It was bad enough when Scotland ditched White shorts for Navy (if you don’t have to wash them, why not wear white?) but that??? I also notice that South Africa, who last time I checked, wear Canterbury haven’t been announced with that design, their official RWC gear is yet to be unveiled, but I doubt they’ll go for it – they used to wear Nike and wouldn’t let them mess about with their tradition at all.

Although I just remembered the design Nike have done for England – see below (France will probably have the same in Blue and white) apparently the odd swirl is supposed to confuse the opposition’s perception of the players body position therefore making it easier for Englands backs to break the line, probably one of the most nonsensical claims ever…

For a quick look at how things have changed in Rugby in the last 14 years, check out this from the BBC.

It looks like Rugby World Cup ‘07 will be a new low for Rugby.

http://www.thestar.c...

Mike from Queens said:

Alan #44 said:

I despise the Islanders, but that article is kind of funny.

Note over at newyorkislanders.com that four of their new players were introduced today in last season’s uniforms. They don’t appear to be the new material, but they’re all wearing the dark blue, so maybe my computer screen is hiding something in the details. So, for now at least, Islander fans can rest easy that the prototype jersey is just that.

Not only are they not the new material but they are replicas. Note the CCM logo on the left sleeve cuff.

Last week the Leafs introduced Toskala and gave him a replica jeresy too- it was easy to tell it was a replica because they didn’t even bother to take the “my nhl” tag off of the cuff! Classy those Leafs…

Paul says, and I quote “…I’m simply not willing to print my logo and sign my name on something that’s purple…”

Paul, I was just looking at the card gallery, and none of the back of the cards has your signature, name, or logo on it. Only on the front. If you were to give in to the protest for purple, your name will still be on the front, and the back will have the name of the person who wanted purple after all. The way I see it, it’s a win-win. Your not associated with purple, and members get their desired team on the back. Comprende?

That makes no sense. That’s like saying that my Blue Jays cap isn’t affiliated with the MLB because the MLB logo is on the back of the cap.

What’s wrong with keeping the hologram sticker? The Size sticker on the top of the brim should be removed, but I always keep the underbrim sticker.

Why?

Paul, I was just looking at the card gallery, and none of the back of the cards has your signature, name, or logo on it. Only on the front. If you were to give in to the protest for purple, your name will still be on the front, and the back will have the name of the person who wanted purple after all. The way I see it, it’s a win-win. Your not associated with purple, and members get their desired team on the back. Comprende?

Ugly or not its part of the uniform…Thats what baseball is its about the uniforms. Shouldnt be able to choose whether or not he wears a hat…It was issued by the league as a team you want to be part of the team you wear the hat.

I’d prefer to see the club hats on the participants but in the absence of that I want to see every one in UNIFORM.

I disagree in this instance.

The All-Star Game is an event which celebrates and promotes an individual’s accomplishments over the first half of the season.

These hats are simply a bad, unapologetic attempt to offer another merchandise option to the person who already has his team’s All-Star hat or whatever else.