First off, apologies – we had intended to publish this far sooner, but circumstances dictated otherwise.
At the end of January, we ran a poll, asking users of the site to give their opinions on various match-ups and whether or not they constituted colour-clashes. Now, we will examine the results, with input from Simon Treanor, whose idea the whole thing was. Also, you should check out Simon’s blog, where he has created a version of Championship Manager 01-02 where you can play with the teams from the 1989-90 season.
So, without any further dallying, here is what the people said:
Claret/maroon v red
No clash – 10pc
Clash – 90pc
MOJ says: The most resounding result, and easy to see why. How it was allowed for a brief spell in the mid-90s is mind-boggling.
Claret/maroon v blue
Clash v navy but not royal – 24pc
Clash v navy and royal – 13pc
No clash – 63pc
MOJ says: A bit surprising that this was so lopsided – we certainly wouldn’t be keen on claret v navy, as evidenced by the Arsenal-Sparta Prague game in 2000. What perhaps skews this question is the fact that the most notable wearers of claret in England tend to have sky-blue sleeves, raising the question of sleeve-clashes against blue teams.
ST says: Interesting that red is considered a clash but blue isn’t, against a colour that could be considered a combination of the two. It suggests that we tend to think of dark-coloured teams in terms of red and blue, which is borne out by the result below.
Gold/orange v red
No clash – 45pc
Clash – 55pc
MOJ says: Delightfully inconclusive, which is why – commercial considerations aside – we see such inconsistency. Just this season, Manchester United wore white at Hull City in the EFL Cup semi-final, but the sides’ three other meetings saw home kits worn.
Sky blue v darker blue
Never a clash – 24pc
Always a clash – 21pc
Clash against royal and not navy – 18pc
No clash if shorts/socks different – 37pc
MOJ says: Sky v royal always seemed to be considered a clash in the past, but the last decade or so has seen it allowed. Given that practically everyone has three kits nowadays, we’d avoid it for optimal ease of use.
ST says: Surprised by this outcome, as I find Man City’s use of their home kit against Chelsea/Everton intensely irritating, although this is partly because they’ll change at Watford the following week. Instinctively, it just feels like two shades of the same colour should chas, but it seems like modern orthodoxy considers shade more important. Howver, the result below contradicts that…
Sky blue v white
No clash – 82pc
Clash – 18pc
MOJ says: This is one where the weather conditions can play a part, in our view – the glare caused by sunnier weather would make it difficult. Obviously, there are different shades of sky blue too.
Blue v green
No clash – 89pc
Clash – 11pc
MOJ says: Occasionally, the hues or shades might cause trouble, but once there’s no shorts-clash it should be fine.
Red v green
Always allow – 33pc
Never allow – 20pc
Allow with different shorts – 47pc
MOJ says: This can be troublesome for those who are colour-blind, generally one in 12 men and one in 200 women. Clear distinction of the teams’ shorts the minimum measure.
ST says: One I hadn’t considered, but it’s perhaps the most important of all. It seems like the shorts change is a good compromise.
No clash – 69pc
Clash, one team changes kit – 10pc
Clash, one or both changes shorts/socks – 21pc
MOJ says: The ‘overall clash’ gives a bit of an internal conflict to deal with – we like when away kits are reversals of the home, but such a match-up can prove slightly confusing. Not the worst kind of clash, though.
ST says of the three above: These clashes have been considered the most controversial in recent years, and I’m pleased to see that most people are opposed, even at the risk dismissing modern kit-clash science out of hand, like the luddites that we are.
Stripes matching one solid colour
No clash – 18pc
Clash, one team changes kit – 42pc
Clash, change shorts/socks to aid differentiation – 40pc
ST says: These clashes are the main reason third kits exist, so it’s striking that a (small) majority of people think they’re not needed. We wouldn’t want to lose third kits though, would we?
Stripes v stripes, one common colour
No clash – 15pc
Clash, one team changes kit – 21pc
Avoidance of shorts/socks clash sufficient – 44pc
Clash, except for local derbies – 19pc
MOJ says: A boring answer, but this is one to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Generally, different shorts/socks should be enough.
ST says: This is one where tradition has to outweigh some of the usual considerations – the second option, which won, is perhaps the way to do so. It does look odd seeing Newcastle in white shorts at Sunderland though.
Stripes v solid colour which is a blend of two stripe colours
No clash – 18pc
Clash, change full kit – 40pc
Okay once shorts/socks not worsening clash – 43pc
MOJ says: Worse for spectators and TV viewers than the previous example, this should be avoided and most teams have enough kits to do so.
Never a clash – 49pc
Clash if same colour – 36pc
Clash if similar colour – 15pc
MOJ says: Not a problem for us or referees – rare that that part of the body has to be differentiated. Some competitions mandate the solving of shorts-clashes and that’s fine – it’s nice to see teams change shorts as opposed to full kits.
No clash – 74pc
Clash if same as opposition sleeves – 13pc
Clash if same as opposition body – 13pc
MOJ says: Fairly resounding, but this is another which some authorities seek to avoid, to help referees in dealing with handballs. En route to winning the FA Cup in 1993, Arsenal wore away kits at Leeds and Ipswich, but were allowed to wear their home against both in the Premier League.