| 8, 10, 9....etc... 21:18 - Aug 19 with 4910 views | qpr_1968 |
what is all this nonsense....
going back 100 years...
why not say , left back, right back, left midfield , right midfield,
and to top it all, inside right, inside left.
good old positions....centre forward....left wing, right wing...
|  |
| |  |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 09:00 - Aug 20 with 1100 views | Esox_Lucius |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 21:50 - Aug 19 by dmm |
Really gents? I'm guilty I suppose but I thought everyone knew what those numbers mean in terms of positions. I mean, you do know what the number 10 stands for, don't you?! [Post edited 19 Aug 2024 21:51]
|
Adel Taarabt personified. |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 09:52 - Aug 20 with 994 views | terryb |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 07:17 - Aug 20 by stevec |
Agree.
One of the main reasons we spend years speculating over what position is best for a player.
1-11 carried clarity. If the no 6 wasn’t upending forwards he wasn’t doing his job. If the no 10 wasn’t fckin brilliant at everything and scoring loads of goals then he wasn’t doing his job either.
Now, anyone who looks a bit shit keeps his number and just gets shifted to a new spot to be shit in. Which just makes everything even more confusing. |
I think Tommy Smith might have disputed that he wasn't doing his job properly while wearing number 10! He did eventually change to wearing 4 though.
I'm a lot happier when players are referred to by positions rather than numbers as it is far easier for me to understand.
Going back to the Ramsey days of 4-4-2, a lot of clubs had the 2 strikers as 8 & 9 (Hunt, Greaves etc). 4-2-4 was mainly 4 & 10 in midfield, apart from the maverick clubs where 10 was the most important player. | | | |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 11:28 - Aug 20 with 886 views | Dorse |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 08:36 - Aug 20 by ngbqpr |
That’s the one I don’t get.
4 & 8 were the old school midfield numbers, 5&6 always centre backs.
Was there some influential Italian I missed who made 6 a sexy midfielder? |
I saw that video. They were alongside a 9, as I remember. Great positional play. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 11:39 - Aug 20 with 834 views | kensalriser |
The numbers only really make sense in the context of the old 2-3-5 formation where, and I’m assuming here, the numbers simply read from left to right in each row. So the defenders are 2 and 3, the midfield 4, 5 and 6 and the front 7 to 11. That gives us the modern day wingers at 7 and 11, the centre forward at 9, full backs at 2 and 3 (obvs they were central, not wide) and the centre half at 5. So really, the terminology and numbering we use today are directly from that formation. The expression centre half for a defender never made sense to me until I realised its origin - a half is a midfielder and when you have three, one is literally in the centre as opposed to one side of the centre. Similar for the centre forward. [Post edited 20 Aug 2024 11:44]
|  |
| |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 12:01 - Aug 20 with 770 views | PlanetHonneywood |
The only effing numbers that matter, are whether we scored more than whoever we are playing.
Everything else is bullox!!!!!! |  |
| |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 20:26 - Aug 20 with 584 views | Myke |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 23:36 - Aug 19 by daveB |
I'm glad it's not just me, whenever people say he's a 6 i think of Danny Maddix and Terry Fenwick |
Am I right in thinking that No4 was the 'cdm' back in the day and the 2 CB's were 5 and 6? | | | |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 21:40 - Aug 20 with 511 views | hantssi |
| 8, 10, 9....etc... on 20:26 - Aug 20 by Myke |
Am I right in thinking that No4 was the 'cdm' back in the day and the 2 CB's were 5 and 6? |
That’s how I remember it! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
