Google+

Roland Garros 2012 Adidas fashion focus

The greatest claycourt event in tennis is soon to start and sports fashion designers are set to show their vision of how tennis fashion should look in order to perfectly fit the spring, the red clay and the big occasion such as Roland Garros. We already showed you what we expect the Nike players to wear - Maria Sharapova in dark, olive  tones, Serena Williams in three shades of green, while Victoria Azarenka will be in colors similar to the clay. Let's see now how Adidas is envisaging the spring look.

Adidas by Stella McCartney is refreshingly abandoning red and moving on to lemon for Caroline Wozniacki. Actually, red migth stay, but in the accessories – wristband and visor.

Ana Ivanovic will stick to the same model of the Adidas Adizero dress she's been wearing this season, just the color combination will switch from orange and red to avocado and red. I love the dress and I absolutely don't mind it that Adidas is always having the same designs for the entire first half of the season, because they make stunning pieces and a change of color is just enough. (source: Down the Line)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

8 thoughts on “Roland Garros 2012 Adidas fashion focus

  1. Liz

    Again yellow for Wozniacki?! When are they trying something new? Good that it's a brighter color shade though….

  2. Tulp

    Oh, well… There used to be one problem with the SMcC line, and now there are two. First there was only the problem of Stella herself, whose greatest part of talent consists of her surname – but it did not matter that much because her creations were worn by Maria Kirilenko, the owner of that rarest of sharp-angled, soft-yet-firm, boyish-girlish figure which can make the badly designed clothes look quite well-done, and any mediocre design look gorgeous. Now, in addition to that first problem, we've got the second one: Caroline W., who also has a perfect build, but of a very different sort: strong and firm, yes, but utterly feminine and quite voluptuously curved and voluminous, which puts special demands on the design so as to avoid the cumulative effect of the whole coming over as overdone, flowery, frivolous, sugary, at best, and soft-porno at worst. Which all brings us back to the first problem: Stella-dear is obsessed with her own "style" (which, to start with, is nothing to rave about), and does not see or appreciate the figure she is dressing up. Also, she probably, and naively, tries to play on W's image of the Sunshine Girl, and uses those warm colours which, again, compete with, and don't complement and thereby set off, the warmth of W's own basic skin-and-hair colour. If you ask me, I'd dress Caroline in clean, plain-cut forms and cool colours, such as sea-green, sapphire-blue, purple… Just imagine. So simple. Yet, meanwhile we'll have to suffer this candy-doll-look for ages, it seems.

  3. Jacob A

    Tulp – Stella is an amazing designer…you've got to be a total fool if you believe she isn't. im the first one to agree that her adidas collab isn't the best, but don't judge her as a designer because of her adidas collaboration.

  4. Tulp

    Jacob A: If "Stella [was] an amazing designer", she'd understand the things I've pointed out in my comment – as would you, if you'd had any clew about what I'm talking about (i.e., the basics of "targeted" design). And as for your "argument" that "you've got to be a total fool…": well, I'll relegate it to the realm of the well-known psychological mechanism of projection. Cheers.

  5. Marine

    I never like McCartney dresses. And this collection doesn't help it, I'm afraid. Caro's dress is OK-ish but they have done a really bad job with Ana's outfit.

  6. Jacob A

    Tulp – you act as though you know fashion, do you? I currently study it at one of the most prestigious fashion schools in Australia. Stella is a wonderful designer, yes we can all agree, her last name helped her a lot with starting her career, however, her designs prove she is an innovative designer, targeting her audience to REAL women and has done quite successfully. I have a "clew" about what you're talking about, in fact i probably understand more about it than you do, but Stella's designs have been approved by Stella herself as well as her team, adidas and caroline – in fact the McCartney/adidas collaboration is extremely successful in terms of marketing and sales. Of course Stella is going to change her designs to suit the needs of each player she works with, for Kirilenko, the designs were more feminine and girly, just like her, for Wozniacki the designs are more cutting edge, more structured…and of course Stella is going to use warmer tones since of course, she is known as "Sunshine"… why wouldn't she? There is no argument, i am simply stating, you've got to be an absolute idiot to think that Stella McCartney is a bad designer…I hardly doubt she would be one of the most successful designers in the UK (if not the leader) if this was the case – oh and lastly, saying – "First there was only the problem of Stella herself, whose greatest part of talent consists of her surname" – i think you've got to be one of the VERY few who think that…After all, she was commissioned to create the ENTIRE British Olympic apparel. Thanks for playing

  7. Tulp

    Jacob A, I have never "acted" as if I "know fashion", did I? But now I see that you claim to currently "study it" as well as that Australia has "fashion schools". Now I'm not going to speculate about the veracity of those facts, but let me point out the following: I was commenting *design* – not fashion. Ring any bells in your expert's ear? Nowhere in your comments can I find anything that points to your ability to distinguish between the two: fashion and design. What I abundantly find, though, is blathering about "marketing", "success", "sales" and unsupported big statements like "cutting edge" and the rest of it (some even in screaming CAPITALS)… Now, speaking of marketing, it exists to sell things, doesn't it? And things it shall sell – regardless of their true or relative quality – for it has techniques of selling, many of which are ethics-wise dubious, to say the least. (Think of the good old term "hype".) And there is also self-marketing, a micro version of the above, pertaining to "professionals" in the business. All those things have little to do with, and therefore prove nothing about, the objective quality of things and people in question. Lastly, I have to say that I'm typing this for the benefit of other readers of this blog who may be interested in the theme – not to a person who's arguments consist of non-arguments, the strongest one being "you've got to be an absolute idiot to think…" So: no need for (oh so shrewdly) thanking me; you're not welcome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *