2003 RPL Kits: Another attempt at an ubiased review

Uniform, of course, is the single most important thing in team sports because, whatever stories your father had spun for you in the olden days to bring another sheep into the flock, without the clothes you would have never known whom to love and whom to hate. But this way it's easy: good guys wear red, bad guys wear blue and that's the way it is.
Of course, if you are not sure whom to root for, it's easier stil: good guys wear red and bad guys wear brown and orange with green sleeves, gray shorts and a pink sponsor logo.

Here is the good, the bad and the ugly of 2003 Russian football.

I am going to try to be a bit scientific about the selection process. Here is how the grading system works:

1) The team receives the minimum of 1 and the maximum of 10 points for the overall look of the uniform.
2) A maximum of 3 points can be taken off if the team's uniform is straying away from traditional colours or desings. A maximum of 3 points can be added on if the team is straying away from a bad trend of the past years.
3) Max. of 3 points will be added if this year's kit is an improvement. Max. of 3 points will be subtracted if it's worse than last year's.
4) At least 1 point will be taken off for each sponsor logo on the kit (2 or 3 if they are especially ugly).
5) Other points may be added or subtracted based on miscellaneous accounts, maximum of 1 per.

Let's start with this year's champions and go down the list.

CSKA Moscow



* There are worse things you can do to blue and red, even without copying Barcelona (home) or the Enlgish national team (away). Overall, the kit looks decent, even though I am not crazy about that thing on the shorts. Unlike CSKA's red-blue stripes of two and three years ago, these do not blend to look pinkish from a distance. 7 points for the looks.
* Though the Army side's traditional design is simple red shirts with blue shorts, the stripe trend started in 1998 is both unique and good-looking, and I am glad they are sticking with it. I would give them 1 more point for that if it weren't for the fact that blue is the prevalent colour here and not the traditional red. As a matter of fact, from a distance one may think they are wearing all blue, and that should never happen to CSKA.
* There are very few differences from last year's kit, the most noticeable being the red thing on the shorts. The away shirt is a slight improvement.
* Commendably sponsor-free and single minded (no variations with shorts and socks, overwhelming preference for the dark kit).

Overall: 8.0

No extra credit for blood stains and extreme popularity in Macedonia.

 

Zenit St. Petersburg


The primary (left) and the summer alternate kits, with dark blue piping. The secondary is white with the same blue piping.

* Piter fans will say it's the most original and elegant thing in the history of clothing, fit for only the most enlightenned kings of Europe and, perhaps, the emperor of Japan, if he correctly names at least one member of Leningrad. They are the Cultural Capital, so they obviously know better, but for me this generic Umbro crap deserves a 6.5 at best.
* Will there ever be a day when Zenit shows up in all 3 of its colours?! Those being blue, white and sky blue. Last year they only wore sky blue and white, this year it's royal blue and white. The navy piping on the alternates doesn't cut the mustard, I am sorry. Either change your official colours or comply, damn it! 1 point off.
* The kit is definitely worse than last year's classy baby blues, and that's another 2 point deduction.
* 1 point off for the Gazprom logo, 2 points off for another logo on the arse. A note to the aspiring sponsors out there: unless your name is Pierre Cardin, there are certain parts of the male garment you DON'T want your brand to be on.
* Throw on some points for knowing exactly what they like (blue was worn almost all the time) and for not being too cute with shorts-and-socks combinations.

Overall: 2.5

A bit too avant-garde for my provincial tastes, I am afraid. But despair not, oh Cultural Beacons. You are bound to find someone appreciative of your sofistication some day.

 

Rubin Kazan



The primary red and the secondary green kits.

* Not much can be said about these, safe for the colour. So, there is goes: they are red. Yes, it's generic Nike crap, and outdated to boot, but as far as generic crap goes, you are probably always better off going with simple stuff. Deserves an 8.
* Rubin means "ruby" so red is more than appropriate. Green is worn out of respect for the Tartar national flag and an all-white kit was thrown out after the season-opening 4:0 loss at CSKA. Nothing against traditions here. Add a point for being steadfast.
* No sponsor logos. THANK YOU!
* They had two different green shirts, but red was used almost all the time anyway. There really isn't much to take a stab at here.

Overall: 9

A bit too simple? Maybe. But I still have nightmares of the 90s, so please forgive me for favouring the vanilla.

 

Lokomotiv Moscow


The primary red (more often worn with red shorts) and the alternate green and black. The secondary was all white.

* Hm... Gradients... Gradients?!!.. GRADIENTS!!! What the hell is this, Arena Football???? 4 points, and that's cutting my own throat!
* Red and white ARE the traditional colours, and red and green ARE the club colours, and that black and green thing was only worn once, so no points are subtracted here.
* I will take 0.5 points off for the sponsor logo, because it is not that ugly and it relates to the club's origins.
* Definitely worse than last year kits, but the logo is smaller and no longer neon green. So, only 1 point off.
* Unlike last year, they did prefer the traditional red, but never quite figured out whether they like red or white shorts. Still, kudos for not over-using the green.

Overall: 2.5

Bring back the white sleeves, and leave the gradients were they belong: in laundry accidents. The best club in Russia deserves to look the part.

 

Shinnik Yaroslavl



Primary black-blue stripes and secondary white.

* There is nothing ever wrong with black and blue stripes, especially when they are worn in Milan and not, say, Denver. Yaroslavl will do. Deserves an 7.5 (those vertical sock stripes must go!).
* Black and blue is a new tradition for Shinnik, but a good one, compared to the utter lack of any tradition whatsoever, as was the case prior to 2000.
* What the hell are they advertising? Is there any point if nobody knows? It's better than pimping for a political party like they did last year, but still... 1 point off.
* The kit is largely the same as last year. Constancy... Not a bad concept for a poor provincial team, especially if one manages to finish in the top five.
* Additional point for stick-to-it-iveness and lack of unusual short-sock combinations. Take a half-point off for being very boring with the away strip and not updating the website with pictures. Remember, kids, you kit is no good to anyone if nobody sees it.

Overall: 7

Tire-makers should probably wear more black, but why does the logo suggest blue and sky blue as the club colors? A yellow card is issued.

 

The tire company sponsor is very appropriate then. But the logo was a dead ringer for the Putinjugend.

 

Where do you see sky blue on the Zenit kit?
The gradient jersey in and of itself scored 4.0, while Zenit's generic Umbro crap got 6.5. It is not my fault that they desided to defile their own kit by sticking a sponsor logo on the arse.
Lokomotiv's score is second-worst so far, I wouldn't exactly call this favouritism. You should take a chill pill and relax in the knowledge that the daring fashions of the Cultural Capital are once again misunderstood by the provincial plebeans that are the rest of the world.

 

Dinamo Moscow


http://www.kc-camapa.ru/cgi-bin/photo/img.cgi?400,20030579

The primary white, the secondary blue and the alternate "retro" kit (click on the link).

* The retro shirt and shorts combination is fabulous and should have been used throughtout the season. Unfortunately, the fugly primary outfits bring the overall grade down. I guess, the Diadora agreed to make the traditional Dinamo uniform only after taking its pound of flesh first. It's an overall 7.5.
* White and blue are the colours, so no beef there. Add 2 points for making an effort to go retro late in the season.
* Alas, I have to take 3 points off for the sponsor logo. This atrociously repugnant drop of snot completely overshadows even the lovely retro jersey.
* Another point off for not knowing what they like: the primary white jersey was used with white shorts and with 2 different kinds of blue shorts, and was itself changed as the season progressed. Stick to something you like, boys.

The final grade is 5.5

Dinamo is a fine example of how a good thing can be ruined. And this doesn't only cover the uniforms.

 

Saturn-Ren TV Ramenskoye



* Hmmm... Generic Nike crap it is, but I have seen FAR worse versions of this one. One of them was on the Russian national team. Nice to see the trend to simplifying things after some atrocious Saturn kits of the years past. It's a 7.5.
* The colours are blue and black, yet black is only present on the numbers on the secondary white jersey. Take a point off.
* Put it back on for finally making a clean break from the home white jerseys. Blue has been long overdue as the primary colour.
* No sponsor logos. Wodnerful.
* It's a little easier on the eye than last year's kit, but not a significant improvement.
* Nothing more to say about it, really.

The total grade is 7.5

A bit too matter-of-fact, but at least it's no longer a cnscious attempt to be as ugly as possible. The Teletubbies get a pat on the belly.

 

Torpedo Moscow



Primary white and secondary black kits.

* Very basic, very stylish, very much to the point. Aside from a few minor things, nothing to take a stab at, really. 8.5
* Since establishing black and white as the official club colours in 1997, Torpedo has never swayed from them, which is commendable. I do wish, however, that they bring back the old T on the left side of the chest.
* The kit is much superior to last year's, which featured a multitude of little Diadora logos. Add a point and a half.
* No sponsor logo for the third straight year. Wow... I will give them another half-point for that.
* I am still not too crazy about the logo (Torpedo's emblem, of all clubs, really does not need a football on it. Bring back the simple old T) and they still can't make up their minds on whether they like white or black socks with the primary uniform. Take a point off.

Total: 9.5

From here on, the only way you can improve is to go totally retro. Or dig up Eduard Streltsov.

 

Krylya Sovetov Samara


Primary blue and secondary white kits.
Also: Early-Season Alternate Gray, Late-Season Alternate Navy

* I am not too crazy about the primary and secondary kits (a bit cute with the side and shoulder striping, in my opinion), and I am by no means a defender of the whole concepts of gray uniforms (although, if you go that way, this is probably the way to go), but the sheer gorgeousness of the navy kit deserves the highest marks. 6.5 for the primaries, 7.0 for gray, 10.0 for navy, averages out to 7.5 overall.
* Blue-white-green are the official club colours, but blue and white are the traditional uniform colours. Gray and navy do not break the tradition, since they are alternates, and navy probably deserves to be primary.
* Unfortunately, I will take 1 point off because the primary kit is worse than last year's, though not by much.
* And I will put it back on because the Wings have come back to wearing blue as their primary colour, breaking last year's trend of preferring white.

Total grade is 7.5

I hope they never give in to the fans' pressure and introduce green into their kit, like Lokomotiv did. There are plenty great things one can do with blue and white, and the navy alternate is one example. I only wish it were worn more often. Easily the best RPL shirt of the year.

 

I don't have anything against team names being printed on the chest (provided that it's done tastefully and not like on the Colorado Rapids' shirt of years' past), but it's the sponsor logos that I dislike.
I just think that this stuff should be left to car racing. Football uniforms in the old Soviet Union never had sponsor logos until the late 80s, which coincided with the time they got really ugly. There is just something about seeing Spartak with LUKOIL splattered accross the chest that rubs me the wrong way. Think the Yankees' pinstripes and Lay's Potato Chips.

 

Spartak Moscow



* Both are simple, classy and traditional-looking. A very solid 9.5 for appearance.
* I will always mark Spartak down for the absence of their traditional white stripe on the red shirts. Another half a point off for the logo. Nothing wrong with the star, but the ball must go.
* Another point off for the sponsors. If you want to be the People's Team, be the people's team. How many Russians identify with an oil giant?
* Everything else in on the level. These kits are slightly better than last year's, so that's another point up.

Except very early in the season, when they always prefer all red, Spartak generally stuck to their traditional red shirt-white shorts combination, and that's a good trend to follow. I hear that next year the stripe will come back. Jolly good, but the LUKOIL logo will only look so much uglier next to it.

Overall, 8

Another penny in the piggybank of the Spartak-haters. Even when the Red-Whites are horrible, they manage to look good.

 

Rostov Rostov-na-Donu



Above are the summer kits: primary blue and secondary yellow. Below are the winter kits.

 

Besides the blue and the yellow, Rostov also wore the usual alternate white, though only once.

* Well, we've got another ugly gradient. I gave 4 to Loko for the same kind of kit and Rostov gets 5 (the vertical sock stripe surely doesn't help, but the much better winter kits do).
* I will take 2 points off for the breach of tradition. Rostov's colors are blue and yellow, yet white and black figure prominently in these uniforms. Early in the season, when the fans saw the winter yellow shirt, they even protested what they saw as the change of official team colors.
* However, I will put 1 point back on, since this year's kits, though gradiated and ugly, are still better than last year's.

The final grade is 4

Nothing to be proud of, but for Rostov, the traditional home of the RPL's ugliest kits, it's an achievement.

 

Rotor Volgograd



* Simplicity goes a long way with this reviewer, and there is never anything wrong with the team name accross the chest. At least, it's better than some company's name. 9.5 based on the look only.
* However, 2 points will be taken off for continuing bastardising of team tradition of wearing all blue as the first kit. For the third straight year, Rotor is wearing white at home. The "ROTOR" letters accross the chest in Latin script are a club staple for the past 13 years.
* Another point off for the logo. This blue and sky blue shield has become real trouble in Volgograd. Apparently, it has lead most of the fans to believe that the team colours are blue and sky blue, while they are actually blue and white. Rotor should do something about this.
* The kit is slightly better than last year's, add a point and a half.
* Add half a point for consistency: no unusual shorts/socks combinations.

Overall: 8.5
Rotor kits have been generally improving lately, while staying true to tradition. That's the winning combination.

 

Spartak-Alania Vladikavkaz



Home red-yellow and road all-white.

* Yellow and red really go well together on striped shirt, but the mostly-red back of the home jersey spoils the look a bit. An overall 7.5
* The tradition of wearing red and yellow at home is back (it was threatenned a bit last year, when they wore white a lot), but the tradition of wearing yellow and black on the road is gone, and that's not necessarily bad.
* The kit is not much different from last year's Adidas effort, but I like the addition of red-yellow to the white jersey. Add half a point.
* And subtract 1 point right back for not knowing what they like: Sp-Al used two different kinds of white shorts and a choice of red, white and black socks with the home jersey.
* And another half a point off for the logo, which was alterred with the name change. The puma looks much worse and the addition of a football is horrendous.

Overall: 6.5
I hope they never get relegated, since they bring so much colour into the glum world of Russian football clothing.

 

Torpedo-Metallurg Moscow



The regular white shirt and the best picture of the secondary green shirt I could find (it had white side panels).

* I don't recognize TorMet's claims to be "the original Torpedo", but I have to admit Eduard Streltsov would look pretty good in this. Even the green jersey isn't as bad as it could've been. 8/10 for the looks.
* This is marginally better than last year's, mainly thanks to the absense of the ZIL logo and the more understated hue of green. Half a point up.
* Half a point down for not being able to deside how they like their green: white shorts and green socks, white shorts and white socks, black shorts and black socks were all used interchangeably.
* The kit is simle, traditional (whatever tradition there is) and good-looking. Not ga-ga over the logo, but it's probably the best they could do under the circumstances.

Overall: 8

If I could take off 2 million points for having a double name, believe me, I would. But it's still better than Torpdeo-Yenisey.

 

Uralan Elista



Two versions of the yellow uniform: the summer kit is on the left picture, the winter kit is on the right. Their secondary kit was all black and to my knowldege was only used once.

* I am not quite sure what the Adidas designers wanted to say with that blue-and-yellow-and white design. Looks to me like there was a mad argument in the end about where to stick the stripes. The yellow/black winter jersey is slightly better and the little-used black one is very good, but it's an overall 6.5 for everything.
* Oi, says the tradition. Blue and yellow are the official colours, but black is used heavily this year. That's a half-point deduction right there.
* Yet, one must add a point to this uninspired effort for being considerably better than last year. Mainly because last year's blue kit had to be seen to be believed, and even then it was a toss-up. People were reported to go blind.

This deserves an overall 7

No, Elista isn't exactly a fashion Mecca (there goes another flashback to 1999), but they try, so help them Bhudda.

 

Chernomorets Novorossiysk




Two versions of the primary white: the summer and the winter kits.

The secondary kits are below.

 

The secondary kit was blue with white trim, the same exact design as the white summer kit. Couldn't find a good picture of it.

Here is the alternate black-and-red:


* Well, the winter white and the black do look good, one must admit. But the primary threads, white and blue, are horrendous. The side stripe is actually more visible from the back! Once again, something was probably smoked at the Adidas Creative Ideas Division when this puppy was born. A 5.5 overall.
* It's probably about time for the Sailors to just come out and say what their club colours are. Is it black and blue? Is it blue and white? Is it white and black? Inquisitive minds want to know. Obviously, inquisitive minds already know that a team called Chernomorets has to wear blue and white, but this knowledge has sadly escaped the Novorossiysk bunch. 2 points off.
* Another point off for having too many damn kits. There was also a simple white shirt-blue shorts combo for the season opener, and blue jerseys were used with white and blue socks. Plus, black and white shorts with the winter jersey. Way too confusing.

An overall 2.5

Yes, I may have been a bit too harsh on them, considering they have no sponsor logo, but sometimes too much effort isn't much better than no effort at all. And nobody has bothered to explain the meaning of that little tricolor on the right side of the chest. Besides, it wasn't even worn by all players!