deane koontz Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 This thread has gone full Rainman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyther_Matt Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Sweep said: I always thought it was 1 2 5 6 3 7 4 8 11 9 10 With 5 & 6 being centre-back, 2 and 3 being full-back, and 7 and 11 being the wingers.... That's where I'm at. And would suit our non-squad number years in the 90's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2e4 Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) its to do with the old formations morphing into 442 full backs dont play further back than centre halves , and other stuff nowadays, but they did back then.. EG.. Edited July 24, 2020 by e2e4 typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_spencer Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 IIRC AC Milan retired number 3 for maldini, that makes sense club legend and amongst the best LB in the world for years. Not a kid who has potential but as yet has achieved the square root of fuck all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeep Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 53 minutes ago, e2e4 said: its to do with the old formations morphing into 442 full backs dont play further back than centre halves , and other stuff nowadays, but they did back then.. EG.. The 235 is wrong. It was 11 9 7 10 8 4 6 3 5 2 It was known as WM formation..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalcolmW Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 4 was Right Half, 5 Centre Half and 6 Left Half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeep Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 11 minutes ago, MalcolmW said: 4 was Right Half, 5 Centre Half and 6 Left Half. You're right. But you agree about WM formation Malcy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted July 24, 2020 Moderators Share Posted July 24, 2020 30 minutes ago, MalcolmW said: 4 was Right Half, 5 Centre Half and 6 Left Half. Where did rimmer play, malc Pretty sure he was 6 but theres a motd away at preston where he looks like a midfielder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Tonge moor green jacket Posted July 24, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted July 24, 2020 3 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said: That's where I'm at. And would suit our non-squad number years in the 90's. Agree. What number was Robbie Savage when bagging the promotion goal at Wrexham? I've got 4 in my mind and he played wide left, but not so sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2e4 Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 2 hours ago, jeep said: The 235 is wrong. It was 11 9 7 10 8 4 6 3 5 2 It was known as WM formation..... its not, theyre comparing that old 2-3-5 formation with 442 , think WM evolved from that one i posted by inverting the shape of the defence due to the offside rule changing the earlier (earliest ?) pyramid one with the flat forward line of five players looks crazy nowadays. :lol:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2e4 Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said: Agree. What number was Robbie Savage when bagging the promotion goal at Wrexham? I've got 4 in my mind and he played wide left, but not so sure. looks like 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolli Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Casino said: Where did rimmer play, malc Pretty sure he was 6 but theres a motd away at preston where he looks like a midfielder No 6 deffo. John Hulme, or slightly before that Charlie Hurley was centre half. Edited July 24, 2020 by woolli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudy Posted July 24, 2020 Members Share Posted July 24, 2020 3 hours ago, frank_spencer said: IIRC AC Milan retired number 3 for maldini, that makes sense club legend and amongst the best LB in the world for years. Not a kid who has potential but as yet has achieved the square root of fuck all. Him and Baresi conceded 23 goals in 196 games and he bloody gorgeous so that’s fair enough 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolton va va Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Casino said: Where did rimmer play, malc Pretty sure he was 6 but theres a motd away at preston where he looks like a midfielder Just had a rummage through some old (70-71) programmes & remember now that players didn't have a squad number then but could switch between 2 & 11, though some stuck mostly to the same number. Rimmer variously played at 6,8 &10 (at 6 i'd guess he was playing in defence ), Hurley & Hulme were mostly 5 & 6, & Gareth Williams seemed to be 4 every game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Steejay Posted July 24, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted July 24, 2020 Warwick Rimmer was a more defensive midfielder who usually played number 4 or 6. He gave 100% effort every game. Brian Bromley or Freddie Hill were usually the more attacking midfielders in the same team. He had a car repair business next to Bobby Heywood’s park - Warwick Rimmer Autos. I wish more of today’s players had his attitude. Fuckin big girls most of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 7 hours ago, Sweep said: I always thought it was 1 2 5 6 3 7 4 8 11 9 10 With 5 & 6 being centre-back, 2 and 3 being full-back, and 7 and 11 being the wingers.... That's a Bruce Rioch side! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Tonge moor green jacket Posted July 24, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Rudy said: Him and Baresi conceded 23 goals in 196 games and he bloody gorgeous so that’s fair enough 😁 Ey up- the BN's Bolty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter FrancisFogarty Posted July 24, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted July 24, 2020 I recall Roberto Baggio caused a bit of a stir at Milan when he went there. He insisted on the N0 9 shirt so poor old Zamorano the precious 9 changed his number to an eye catching 1+8 To own up, I remembered the incident, but had to look up how the drama unfolded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyther_Matt Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 34 minutes ago, Francis Fogarty said: I recall Roberto Baggio caused a bit of a stir at Milan when he went there. He insisted on the N0 9 shirt so poor old Zamorano the precious 9 changed his number to an eye catching 1+8 To own up, I remembered the incident, but had to look up how the drama unfolded. It was (the original) Ronaldo who wanted number 9, wasn’t it? Baggio was number 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter FrancisFogarty Posted July 25, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted July 25, 2020 This is as I found it. Yes, Bobby Baggio was indeed 10, but because the real Ronaldo already had the 9 Zamorano got bumped out to 18. Who'd ever think an Italian, Chilean and Brazilian could resolve something without diving and writhing in agony? You may remember Ivan Zamorano’s eye-catching ‘1+8’ Inter shirt. Baggio was partially responsible for the unusual digit. When he arrived at the Nerazzurri he requested his trademark No.10, which Ronaldo owned. The Brazilian agreed, but asked for Zamorano’s No.9. That prompted the Chilean to choose a stylised No.18. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escobarp Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 https://mobile.twitter.com/TheOakFC/status/1286583842116116480 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.