Xavier Simons

[Winchester White]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Am I alone in being bored to fck with all the No.10 stuff ?

Now THAT we can definitely agree on 😁

[Tonge moor green jacket]

41 minutes ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Am I alone in being bored to fck with all the No.10 stuff ?

And a six, an eight, and a nine etc.

Unless of course it's two sixes and an eight, with no ten. Or even a six and two eights. 

Both of those are mega interesting!

[Wanderlust]

This is that vid I mentioned the other week

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Somewhat underwhelming!

[gonzo]

10 hours ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Am I alone in being bored to fck with all the No.10 stuff ?

Daddy chill.

[desperado]

10 hours ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Am I alone in being bored to fck with all the No.10 stuff ?

 

10 hours ago, Winchester White said:

Now THAT we can definitely agree on 😁

 

10 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

And a six, an eight, and a nine etc.

Unless of course it's two sixes and an eight, with no ten. Or even a six and two eights. 

Both of those are mega interesting!

You do realise that that conversation took place more than two weeks ago… unless you want us to start talking about it again … 🤣

….So could we theoretically see Simons play as an eight ahead of a base midfielder Saturday? 😂

[W.cramp]

Defenders, midfielders, strikers and wingers.    End of fakin story.

But do we prefer a ball playing keeper who can perform well with his feet and as a sweeper when needs be or a keeper who is more of a shot stopper and commands his box with his height and agility.     Ffs

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, desperado said:

 

 

You do realise that that conversation took place more than two weeks ago… unless you want us to start talking about it again … 🤣

….So could we theoretically see Simons play as an eight ahead of a base midfielder Saturday? 😂

Of course.

It was a load of bollocks then as it is now.

Probably why Winchester said he was bored of it all.

To which we agreed.

Seeing as our wingers are sometimes narrow, are they actually inside forwards, and if so what numbers would they be?

 

[gonzo]

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Of course.

It was a load of bollocks then as it is now.

Probably why Winchester said he was bored of it all.

To which we agreed.

Seeing as our wingers are sometimes narrow, are they actually inside forwards, and if so what numbers would they be?

 

7 & 11

I don't get the outcry. A no10 is just another term for a CAM.

I can't get my head around people not getting their head around it.

CAM/No10/Off the main striker etc etc.

It's all the same.

[frank_spencer]

4 minutes ago, gonzo said:

7 & 11

I don't get the outcry. A no10 is just another term for a CAM.

I can't get my head around people not getting their head around it.

CAM/No10/Off the main striker etc etc.

It's all the same.

CAM just reminded me of last season's best/worst heckle from the loud bugger who sits near me. 'We don't need 2 CDMs at home Evatt!' made my teeth itch with cringe.

[SatanGreavsie]

Fly netters - it's the future! Like in 1984 when we stuffed Plymouth 7-2 and their keeper, Geoff Crudgington, ended up injured and playing up front due to the small number of subs back then having been used up. So just swap shirts and gloves during the match while a team member gets treated for a fake injury. You could then have false fly netters (where you just pretend to have done in, thereby confusing your opponents' game plan - but the two players would have to look like each other, thus performing a "twin pivot") and inverted fly netters (where the replacement keeper puts attackers off by hanging upside down from the bar).

[SatanGreavsie]

5 minutes ago, SatanGreavsie said:

Fly netters - it's the future! Like in 1984 when we stuffed Plymouth 7-2 and their keeper, Geoff Crudgington, ended up injured and playing up front due to the small number of subs back then having been used up. So just swap shirts and gloves during the match while a team member gets treated for a fake injury. You could then have false fly netters (where you just pretend to have done in, thereby confusing your opponents' game plan - but the two players would have to look like each other, thus performing a "twin pivot") and inverted fly netters (where the replacement keeper puts attackers off by hanging upside down from the bar).

Inverted fly netter in action

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 hours ago, gonzo said:

7 & 11

I don't get the outcry. A no10 is just another term for a CAM.

I can't get my head around people not getting their head around it.

CAM/No10/Off the main striker etc etc.

It's all the same.

It is indeed.

So no need to change then.

It's been a relatively new thing, with no substance. 

It could be argued that it removes the detail previously used.

Your own description of central attacking midfielder as a number 10 for instance, has a subtle difference to a second striker playing off the main one.

Illustrated by Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes.

The former very much an attacker, but one who would play off the main one.

The latter very much an attacking midfielder. When tried off the main man he was far less effective. 

I wouldn't describe Scholes' role as a number 10 whatsoever, yet he was a central, attacking midfielder.

All a bit nit picking perhaps, but I much preferred the previous use of nuanced language, to a somewhat clinical use of a number.

 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

2 hours ago, gonzo said:

7 & 11

I don't get the outcry. A no10 is just another term for a CAM.

I can't get my head around people not getting their head around it.

CAM/No10/Off the main striker etc etc.

It's all the same.

They can

They're just pretending not to for effect

[1969]

Prefer a 2&8 or 3&7 personally 

[Alf Hartigan]

Frankie was number 10. JSL.

[Stig]

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It is indeed.

So no need to change then.

It's been a relatively new thing, with no substance. 

It could be argued that it removes the detail previously used.

Your own description of central attacking midfielder as a number 10 for instance, has a subtle difference to a second striker playing off the main one.

Illustrated by Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes.

The former very much an attacker, but one who would play off the main one.

The latter very much an attacking midfielder. When tried off the main man he was far less effective. 

I wouldn't describe Scholes' role as a number 10 whatsoever, yet he was a central, attacking midfielder.

All a bit nit picking perhaps, but I much preferred the previous use of nuanced language, to a somewhat clinical use of a number.

 

Scholes was an 8

[gonzo]

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It is indeed.

So no need to change then.

It's been a relatively new thing, with no substance. 

It could be argued that it removes the detail previously used.

Your own description of central attacking midfielder as a number 10 for instance, has a subtle difference to a second striker playing off the main one.

Illustrated by Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes.

The former very much an attacker, but one who would play off the main one.

The latter very much an attacking midfielder. When tried off the main man he was far less effective. 

I wouldn't describe Scholes' role as a number 10 whatsoever, yet he was a central, attacking midfielder.

All a bit nit picking perhaps, but I much preferred the previous use of nuanced language, to a somewhat clinical use of a number.

 

I think you're creating a problem that isn't there.

A number 10 is a number 10. It's a relatively new description as the game has evolved from 442 but there's plenty over history you'd consider no 10s.

Paul Scholes isn't one of them btw. 

He's an 8

 

[Stig]

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It is indeed.

So no need to change then.

It's been a relatively new thing, with no substance. 

It could be argued that it removes the detail previously used.

Your own description of central attacking midfielder as a number 10 for instance, has a subtle difference to a second striker playing off the main one.

Illustrated by Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes.

The former very much an attacker, but one who would play off the main one.

The latter very much an attacking midfielder. When tried off the main man he was far less effective. 

I wouldn't describe Scholes' role as a number 10 whatsoever, yet he was a central, attacking midfielder.

All a bit nit picking perhaps, but I much preferred the previous use of nuanced language, to a somewhat clinical use of a number.

 

More detailed response is that these numbers for positions are just to more accurately reflect the current formations.

We stopped calling what we know as defenders "fullbacks" and what we call midfielders "halfbacks" as the game changed in the early 1900s because the game changed from launching it to the forwards to more of a passing game, and this has carried on constantly as football has developed.

I grew up with 442 with centre backs, full backs, midfielders, wingers and strikers, but as the game changed in the 2000s to 433/4231 (Big Sam being an early proponent of this) those descriptions became inadequate for the midfielders especially. Hence defensive midfielder and attacking midfielder was needed to differentiate between types of midfielder. You didn't have 2 I'm the middle who were expected to be box to box, you had a Warhurst shielding the defence with a Nolan and Farrelly expected to go forward more. 

Over time and with the way the game is international now those midfield positions got turned into numbers 6 & 8 as common language, with 10 emerging as the description for the central player in the 3 behind a striker (don't think that had a term - maybe support striker?)

That 10 though isn't the same as players who wore 10 and we're up front in a 442. It was different game back then with 1 striker usually being more of a goalscorer and 1 doing a bit more donkey work.

Language of football evolves and it's usually because positions have evolved. Full backs and centre backs for example hasn't changed because the job is the same in a 433 for them. It does change if it's a 5 at the back as you need more information on their role.

So going back to scholes a better answer is that he was a centre mid in a 442. None of the numbers fit for the era he played in

[Stig]

7 minutes ago, gonzo said:

I think you're creating a problem that isn't there.

A number 10 is a number 10. It's a relatively new description as the game has evolved from 442 but there's plenty over history you'd consider no 10s.

Paul Scholes isn't one of them btw. 

He's an 8

 

Wish I'd read this before my long winded response 

[Rival Son]

4 minutes ago, Stig said:

More detailed response is that these numbers for positions are just to more accurately reflect the current formations.

We stopped calling what we know as defenders "fullbacks" and what we call midfielders "halfbacks" as the game changed in the early 1900s because the game changed from launching it to the forwards to more of a passing game, and this has carried on constantly as football has developed.

I grew up with 442 with centre backs, full backs, midfielders, wingers and strikers, but as the game changed in the 2000s to 433/4231 (Big Sam being an early proponent of this) those descriptions became inadequate for the midfielders especially. Hence defensive midfielder and attacking midfielder was needed to differentiate between types of midfielder. You didn't have 2 I'm the middle who were expected to be box to box, you had a Warhurst shielding the defence with a Nolan and Farrelly expected to go forward more. 

Over time and with the way the game is international now those midfield positions got turned into numbers 6 & 8 as common language, with 10 emerging as the description for the central player in the 3 behind a striker (don't think that had a term - maybe support striker?)

That 10 though isn't the same as players who wore 10 and we're up front in a 442. It was different game back then with 1 striker usually being more of a goalscorer and 1 doing a bit more donkey work.

Language of football evolves and it's usually because positions have evolved. Full backs and centre backs for example hasn't changed because the job is the same in a 433 for them. It does change if it's a 5 at the back as you need more information on their role.

So going back to scholes a better answer is that he was a centre mid in a 442. None of the numbers fit for the era he played in

Brilliant. Handy summary of numerical references for positions

1 Goalkeeper 

—-

2 Right back

3 Left back

5 Centre back

—-

4 Defensive midfield

6 Central midfield

8 Attacking midfield

—-

7 Right wing

11 Left wing

—-

9 Centre forward

10 Link/supporting forward

 

[Whitesince63]

5 minutes ago, Rival Son said:

Brilliant. Handy summary of numerical references for positions

1 Goalkeeper 

—-

2 Right back

3 Left back

5 Centre back

—-

4 Defensive midfield

6 Central midfield

8 Attacking midfield

—-

7 Right wing

11 Left wing

—-

9 Centre forward

10 Link/supporting forward

 

Going back I know but I remember them as

1 Goalkeeper

2 Right back

3 Left back

4 Right wing half

5 Centre Half

6 Left wing half

7 outside right

8 Inside right

9 Centre forward

10 Inside Left

11 Outside left

i suppose it depends on your era but the thing it does prove is that titles of positions keep changing.

[wakey]

while we're on position noncery, FIFA can fuck off for having the CF position behind the ST.

Wankers.

(the game, not the other set of wankers)

[deeane Koontz]

22,334

[desperado]

18 hours ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Am I alone in being bored to fck with all the No.10 stuff ?

See what you started, it had all gone quiet for a couple of weeks! 🤣

Crack on I say.

If managers, journalists, coaches, pundits, young uns, commentators and many more fans across a broad range of football followers are using it I’m not sure why we shouldn’t. 

And if you find it boring or annoying just ignore it! 

That’s what I do with the large majority of the behind the stands threads - same old hot air, repetitive arguments under a multitude of different headings. Now that IMO is boring.

Each to their own though.