Using numbers instead of positions

[Lloydystark]

Didn’t schneiderlin wear the number 2 shirt and gallasmat arsenal had number 10m.
For me I like to see the traditional numbering referring to positions

*gallas

 

[ClausThomsen]

Can someone help me here. It seems people think they are cool by referring to positions by a shirt numbers. Fine in concept, but given that there are so many tactical formations now, I really can't get my head around how it works now.

For example, is a "number 10" the same role in a 442 as it is in a 433 or a 4231 or a 343? What about a "traditional number 7". Is that different based on the formation or are we going to shoehorn an obselete position into a modern line up?

Or are people just trying to be hipsters and proving that they don't really understand football at all?

-----------------------------
I can give you more than 10 reasons why a ‘number 10’ does not work in a 4-3-3 system. It does not make you stronger, but weaker.

During the eighties, when I was manager of Ajax, all of our opponents played the 4-4-2 system with two forwards. In order to get an extra tactical advantage, we decided to field three defenders, changing from 4-3-3 to 3-4-3, where our midfield was set up as a diamond.

We did not actually played 3-4-3, but more a 3-1-2-1-3 system, creating two extra lines which made the execution of the positioning play even better. The ‘number 10′ was the player behind the three forwards. At Ajax I chose John Bosman and later at Barcelona, José Bakero.

The past couple of years the opponents have figured out this little trick and decided to once again field three forwards. This often entailed a striker with two wingers, forcing you to use four defenders yet again. Fielding a ’10’ in this situation is risky.

To preserve the right balance, the centre-midfielder should not be fielded in an attacking, but in a defensive position. Thus, a ‘number 6’ instead of a ‘number 10’.

With a ’10’ you will play 4-2-1-3 and with a ‘6’ it will be 4-1-2-3. Taking a good look at the two numbers in the middle, you can see that with a ’10’ two players are behind the ball and one is set up offensively, as with a ‘6’ three (1+2) players are behind the ball of which two are offensive. This is how you kill two birds with one stone: both defensively as offensively you will have an extra player.

By choosing the ’10’ anyway, you will get yourself in trouble as soon as the opponents are pushing forward. In this case, there will be only two midfielders behind the ball, who are also required to give 60 metre passes. This is impossible to do.
------------------------


Johann Cruyff - talking about his days as a modern cool hipster who never really understood football at all.

 

[aglee]

It's the classic positions really but even when shirt numbers were -11 there were exceptions. For us, Lineker was an out and out striker and wore 8. Bracewell was a centre mid and wore 10, Reidy was more box-to-box than just DM and wore 6. Heath was usually 8 or 10, both Sharp and Gray played wearing 8, 9 or 10 but always in the 9 role. Sometimes other teams' centre backs were 4 and 5 and sometimes 4 & 6 (I seem to remember Gary Pallister and Alan Hansen wore 6 and centre midfielders like Ronny Whelan and Jan Molby wore 5). 7 was usually wide right (midfield or wing) but Dalglish and Keegan both wore 7 in more of a 10 role (second striker) whilst Bryan Robson wore 7 as a centre-midfielder for Man Utd. When people refer to 10 role I think of players like Cantona (who wore 10 or 7) Bergkamp, Zola, Sheringham - players who are attackers but played behind a main striker and dropped deeper to influence the play and link with midfield. I still prefer it when players wear their classic position numbers - hated seeing Dunc wear anything other than 9.