2011-12 Liverpool FC Third Kit :respect:

[calvoboy]

it has been associated with us. that is a fact. it may not be now and possibly never will be again but those are different to never has.

we wore blue in our first season. its reasonable to say that it was therefore associated with us.

if i said yellow kit or green kit to people it would take a long time till someone said liverpool..

You and I are using entirely different definitions of the word 'associated with', so this is turning into a very pointless and pedantic debate that will never be resolved. Everton wore red for the same period, yet I don't think the overwhelming majority of the population would associate red shirts with Everton.

[Mattshark]

Because your shirt is part of your club identity, and red shirts are as much associated with us as they are with Man Utd. Blue isn't associated with us, never has been, never will be. This kit will be looked back on in years to come as our most terrible...like that chocolate brown one that Coventry had in the 70s is for them.

Not quite true, our first kit was blue.

[RedReet]

[calvoboy]

How hard is it to grasp that you can’t keep saying never or have ever?

Edit: That's the third time in the last 5 mins that I've made the same post as someone but been a minute too slow in posting.

We wore blue. It's never been associated with us though.

Everton wore red. It's never been associated with them though either.

In usual parlance, associated with means that one usually brings to mind the other. Cannon and Ball, rhubarb and custard, coffee and cream, gin and tonic.

You're using a different definition of associated with, that's all. As such, this is becoming the most pointless discussion I think I've ever had.

[CJ]

You and I are using entirely different definitions of the word 'associated with', so this is turning into a very pointless and pedantic debate that will never be resolved. Everton wore red for the same period, yet I don't think the overwhelming majority of the population would associate red shirts with Everton.

i dont think we are using different definitions. I am saying that i bet when we wore the blue shirts we were associated with blue, especially considering it was our first kit.


also i have said that because we are not now associated with blue and also havent been associated with blue for over a hundred years doesnt mean we never have been.

i agree that we are now not associated with blue but then we are not with grey or whatever our second kit is.

[CJ]

We wore blue. It's never been associated with us though.

Everton wore red. It's never been associated with them though either.

In usual parlance, associated with means that one usually brings to mind the other. Cannon and Ball, rhubarb and custard, coffee and cream, gin and tonic.

You're using a different definition of associated with, that's all. As such, this is becoming the most pointless discussion I think I've ever had.

in the year 1892 when we had only ever worn blue i bet we were associated with wearing blue. since then nope but at that time yes. so its not never is it!!!

[BobTheCharmer]

You and I are using entirely different definitions of the word 'associated with', so this is turning into a very pointless and pedantic debate that will never be resolved. Everton wore red for the same period, yet I don't think the overwhelming majority of the population would associate red shirts with Everton.

it's a ****ing 3rd kit, a licence to play around a little, when were we ever associated with wearing black before Reebok came along? although to be fair I do accept that pre 1966 everybody wore black and white.

Ultimately It has the Liverbird on it and it'll have our players in it, good enough for me.

[CJ]

sorry we wore blue for 4 years.

must have been a pisser playin in blue for 4 years and be associated with red.

perhaps thats why they changed the colour of the kit

[Mattshark]

it's a ****ing 3rd kit, a licence to play around a little, when were we ever associated with wearing black before Reebok came along? although to be fair I do accept that pre 1966 everybody wore black and white.

Ultimately It has the Liverbird on it and it'll have our players in it, good enough for me.

I fail to see this is any different to us having 3 away kits in a row ten years ago with blue more predominantly on them (even if it was a darker blue).

[calvoboy]

sorry we wore blue for 4 years.

must have been a pisser playin in blue for 4 years and be associated with red.

perhaps thats why they changed the colour of the kit

Think you'd already said that!

Hadn't realised it was that pedantic a point you were making. I'm happy to concede that we once wore blue and for that short period it was associated with us, so never is a technically incorrect term from a historical perspective if that's what you want?

It's for less than 1% of the games played in our great history though, and you've got to go back at least 4 generations in my family to get to someone who would ever have remembered it. Even in their lifetime they'd have mainly associated us with red.

What a ****ing pointless discussion amazing the stuff you can waste time arguing about on the internet.

[calvoboy]

it's a ****ing 3rd kit, a licence to play around a little, when were we ever associated with wearing black before Reebok came along? although to be fair I do accept that pre 1966 everybody wore black and white..

I'm just a traditionalist - don't see what's wrong with red, white and yellow. I hated the green kits too, and don't really like the black one.

[JBOX]

Its not a blue jersey... its white.
And there's no blue on it... just a bit of 'cyan', a shade of aquamarine.
Its gonna be my excuse for the year!!!

[PTP]

I've done as well as i can, can't quite get the red correct but you get the idea...

i like it -clearly better than the blue

[Assassin]

Its a **** kit. It smacks of Adidas saying **** you, for choosing Warrior

[smu1977]

It's ****ing hideous!

Must be to satisfy ST, but who will buy that?