Canterbury Boots

Since I tried a pair of Predators (TM) (C) (All Rights Reserved.) (please don't sue me) when I was a kid, I've never really stepped (Aha!) outside of Adidas.  They're the right size, but more importantly, the right shape (I have what can generously be described as wide feet) and that counts for a lot when you're running around.

How much does it count for?

The right side has taken a beating

The boots are mostly fine, so I'll just get a set of insoles and re-use them for training or something.

I've had these boots for about a year and this wear and tear is the result of training three times a week with one game a week, which makes these a decent pair of boots in my books.  The shell is fine on both, it's the in-soles that've had it.  I'll replace those in the future, which will give me two pairs of boots because I've now got a shiny new pair of Canterbury something or others (TM) (C) (All Rights Reserved.).

And they actually fit pretty well.  They feel fractionally heavier than the ones you see above, but they have the same wide touch along the balls of the feet and they don't taper too heavily at the toe which is nice for us abnormals.  The stud arrangement seems fine for a hard grass surface, so I expect them to perform well on 3G too.  I haven't tried them on wet ground, but I could see the heels clogging up which is an annoyance, but one shared with all blade designs, (or at least I find it is) so take that as you may.

I did get a small blister on the back of my heels from not tightening them properly.  Whenever I wear a new pair I tend to leave them slightly loose at first, to work out the stiffness in the material, before moving on to proper lacing.  That caused the blister, so don't fret if you're thinking of purchasing them.

Looking good so far.

So would I recommend them?  If you have an Adidas foot (wider feet, wider toe profile, prefer a more supported arch than Nike offer) I would say they're a solid choice.  The arch feels slightly lower than Adidas who tend to offer more support, but they're a world away from the Nike boots I've tried, which have arch support bordering on the masochistic.  Nike shoes are for hooves, not feet.

I can't really comment on their long-term comfiness or their durability yet because I haven't worn them enough, but early indications are good.

Brand loyalty makes sense with boots where it doesn't with other items.  Each manufacturer has a test foot they keep locked away in a vault, that they bring out for new designs.  If their test foot is a plaster mould of a sheep footprint (as is the case with Nike) then your foot is obviously not going to fit.  Internal designs don't change much, so you can be fairly certain a new shoe in the same range will fit if the previous pair did.  At least that's been my experience over the years.

Canterbury have made a smart choice in basing their design off human feet instead of bovine or pachyderm trotters like some of the competition, and these seem to be a pretty decent pair of boots.  If you want to save fifty quid on the Adidas competition, head on down to your local sports shop and try these on.  You might end up liking them!