All Whites Shirts

323 replies · 97,175 views
6 days ago
Black isnt really our sporting identity from what I can see it was athletics who went to the black in 1890 first though to highlight the silver fern,
with the rugby team in 1893 following, now, ironically has become white instead of silver. Before 1893 rugby wore dark blue and gold.
Crickets has worn all kinds of colours, including beige, teal, grey, only using black in some one day fixtures. The footballers have always worn white shirts and black shorts, wasnt until 1982 when we wore all white and the nickname was used.
from what I can see it was athletics who went to the black in 1890 first though.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
6 days ago
theprof wrote:
Black isnt really our sporting identity from what I can see it was athletics who went to the black in 1890 first though to highlight the silver fern,
with the rugby team in 1893 following, now, ironically has become white instead of silver. Before 1893 rugby wore dark blue and gold.
Crickets has worn all kinds of colours, including beige, teal, grey, only using black in some one day fixtures. The footballers have always worn white shirts and black shorts, wasnt until 1982 when we wore all white and the nickname was used.
from what I can see it was athletics who went to the black in 1890 first though.

 
No. New Zealand in the early days seemed to wear black more often than white. More recently, 1960s on, insistence on referees wearing black (until more recently) meant that white (with black shorts) become the norm. There was a very short time, maybe only one year, in the early seventies that we played in black and white stripes. That would have been cool to have caught on.
Like it or not, black is our predominant international sporting colour (think Olympics, Rugby League, Netball etc, even bloody Yachting), and I feel comfortable that we use combinations of Black and White, but agree that given the last 40 years of history, our 'home' shirt should be white. I have never been a huge fan of the All Whites name, as it is a derivative of rugby's nickname - we don't need them as a reference point, and I prefer the black shorts look (I actually find all the derivative names - Tall Blacks, Black Ferns etc a bit puerile, but that's another matter).
I also wouldn't take much notice of Cricket - they were not allowed to use black in the early one-day fixtures, so came up with biege etc.

I know, I know, its serious!

Permalink Permalink
6 days ago · edited 6 days ago · History
the key message form my post was more about the reason behind black - ie it was all about highlighting the silver fern, not the total blackout of the shirt. Athletics did it first in 1890, rugby followed 2 years later, football coulnd wear black cos thats what the refs wore.
So it's really silver that holds the import, it's just the misheard comment around the NZ team playing like "all backs" that the All Blacks name got coined.

Eitherway, for most of us who have a living memory, NZ football are the All whites, white being our home shirt and the black being an alternate one. That covers at least 50 years of history.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
5 days ago
The "All Backs" story I find unlikely in comparison to the more likely story of they were called "All Blacks" because they played in all black (which they had for years beforehand). It's just that tour is where the nickname caught on. Similar black was in use before that.

The 1922 squad played in black w/ white short, before we had to change to white at some point between then and the 60s because of refereeing rules (I can't find any kits from in between to help indicate when exactly). Slightly off topic, this is also why there's basically no major clubs that play in black (LAFC the biggest? Not sure I could find any in Europe if I tried).

The argument of not wanting to be like rugby I think is more an argument for changing our nickname from "All Whites" to something unique than changing our shirt colours. If we play in black most people are going "classic New Zealand", not "like the rugby team". Meanwhile calling ourselves the All Whites is basically going "like the rugby team, but in white".

Black would make us much more recognisable in the football landscape and I'm not even sure we'd need an away kit. At the current world cup, I believe there are 9 other teams teams in white home kits, with another 4 (Argentina, Croatia, Paraguay & USA) kits having white stripes. None play in black (closest is maybe Scotland).

I think history is the only reason to keep white really. As has been stated, I'd be surprised if there are many people around who remember our home kits not being white. The idea of not being the "All Whites" feels foreign. If you asked me now if I'd want it changed, I'd probably answer I don't know as it doesn't feel right. But if the change was made and you asked me 10 years later (enough time to get used to it), I'd probably wonder why it wasn't done years earlier.
Permalink Permalink