Jump to content
IGNORED

Bryan 100% going....


BCFC1512

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

wen i played outfield I always played in a number 4 shirt because it was my lucky number, I spent most of my outfield games on the left wing or left back despite being right footed,

the age of positions having numbers has long gone, its down to what number a player wants these days and its normally based on seniority 

Completely understand that aspect of it Monkeh, and that certain players have preferences, I just don't get why they make such a huge deal about it (fans as well). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Woodsy said:

You are taking this very badly

I don't like centre backs wearing 4. I don't care about formations, 1 to 11 or non league football to any great degree. But thanks for your concern

But if you want everyone wearing 1-11 so badly them how would you distribute these to a team playing 352 and 532? I'm intrigued. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TBW said:

But if you want everyone wearing 1-11 so badly them how would you distribute these to a team playing 352 and 532? I'm intrigued. 

I've never actually said that, have I?

Just to it's exceptionally clear for all (I mean you, I think everyone else has cottoned on now) 4 is a number for a tough tackling midfielder as back in the 70s, the era I grew up watching. It's completely irrelevant with the use of squad numbers now

As discussed, I have an aversion to 14, 23 and 32 as well. I have no idea why. I really like 3, 33 and 39 and would be happy for a centre back to wear any of them

If you'd like a full list from 1 to 99 with my thoughts please let me know

I'm not putting them into a 352 or a 532 though. That's obviously your thing, you can work out who goes where

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

I've never actually said that, have I?

Just to it's exceptionally clear for all (I mean you, I think everyone else has cottoned on now) 4 is a number for a tough tackling midfielder as back in the 70s, the era I grew up watching. It's completely irrelevant with the use of squad numbers now

As discussed, I have an aversion to 14, 23 and 32 as well. I have no idea why. I really like 3, 33 and 39 and would be happy for a centre back to wear any of them

If you'd like a full list from 1 to 99 with my thoughts please let me know

I'm not putting them into a 352 or a 532 though. That's obviously your thing, you can work out who goes where

During the 70's Liverpool had Kennedy and a couple of others who played attacking midfield with 5 on their backs, Donnie Gillies played up front for us wearing the number 2. Hardly a new thing really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Port Said Red said:

During the 70's Liverpool had Kennedy and a couple of others who played attacking midfield with 5 on their backs, Donnie Gillies played up front for us wearing the number 2. Hardly a new thing really.

Didn't Ronnie Whelan wear 5 as well at times? Seem to remember that

And to completely disprove my point about tough tackling midfielders wearing 4, I'm pretty sure I remember Hoddle wearing it at the start of his Tottenham career. Wouldn't have fancied a 50/50 with him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

I've never actually said that, have I?

Just to it's exceptionally clear for all (I mean you, I think everyone else has cottoned on now) 4 is a number for a tough tackling midfielder as back in the 70s, the era I grew up watching. It's completely irrelevant with the use of squad numbers now

As discussed, I have an aversion to 14, 23 and 32 as well. I have no idea why. I really like 3, 33 and 39 and would be happy for a centre back to wear any of them

If you'd like a full list from 1 to 99 with my thoughts please let me know

I'm not putting them into a 352 or a 532 though. That's obviously your thing, you can work out who goes where

I think we can both agree we'd like our goalkeeper number to be between #2-11 and an outfield player to have #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

Didn't Ronnie Whelan wear 5 as well at times? Seem to remember that

And to completely disprove my point about tough tackling midfielders wearing 4, I'm pretty sure I remember Hoddle wearing it at the start of his Tottenham career. Wouldn't have fancied a 50/50 with him

Didn’t Gary Shelton wear number 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodsy said:

I've never actually said that, have I?

Just to it's exceptionally clear for all (I mean you, I think everyone else has cottoned on now) 4 is a number for a tough tackling midfielder as back in the 70s, the era I grew up watching. It's completely irrelevant with the use of squad numbers now

As discussed, I have an aversion to 14, 23 and 32 as well. I have no idea why. I really like 3, 33 and 39 and would be happy for a centre back to wear any of them

If you'd like a full list from 1 to 99 with my thoughts please let me know

I'm not putting them into a 352 or a 532 though. That's obviously your thing, you can work out who goes where

I was a CH, so 5 was my number.  In my injury prone days if I was sub, I liked 14 (because it added up to 5) or 15 (because there was a 5 in it).  I did play a bit up front at the end of my playing days and like the no10, stupid thing about having two numbers on my back.  Ridiculous really!

58 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

During the 70's Liverpool had Kennedy and a couple of others who played attacking midfield with 5 on their backs, Donnie Gillies played up front for us wearing the number 2. Hardly a new thing really.

Liverpool numbers were one thing I didn’t like.  CBs wearing 4 and 6....what’s all that about.  6 is ok, but 4!!!

Tottenham were the worst offenders.

1. GK Aleksic

6. RB Perryman

3. CB Miller

4. CB Roberts

2. LB Hughton

7. RM Ardiles

10. CM Hoddle 

5. CM Hazard

9. LW Galvin

8. CF Archibald

11. CF Crooks

Someone ought to have checked Keith Burkenshaw’s hard-drive, but they didn’t have ‘em back then!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TBW said:

I think we can both agree we'd like our goalkeeper number to be between #2-11 and an outfield player to have #1.

I really couldn't care, I just hate centre backs wearing 4. I see that and I immediately think 'here's one who thinks he can play a bit'. Head it, tackle it, pass it 5 yards. That's your job!

1 hour ago, Red Army 75 said:

Didn’t Gary Shelton wear number 4

Seem to remember Shelts wearing 6 more often than not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

I really couldn't care, I just hate centre backs wearing 4. I see that and I immediately think 'here's one who thinks he can play a bit'. Head it, tackle it, pass it 5 yards. That's your job!

Seem to remember Shelts wearing 6 more often than not?

Long time ago . Expect I’m wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

I'll bite.  Why? Seriously, why?  What's wrong with the nos 14, 23 and 32?  What have they done to you, @Woodsy

 

Ha, I can't explain it! 14, God knows. 23 I always think that the player thinks he's post United Beckham and 32 I have never liked Theo Walcott or Carlos Tevez. That's the best I got. Actually, 14 may have been a Thierry Henry / Theo Walcott thing as well. Walcott went from 32 to 14 when TH left Arsenal

Not keen on Arsenal or Argentina. Maybe that's the bigger issue here!

5 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

Back in the day, Glyn Riley liked to wear 6, so Dave Harle in CM wore 9 - @woodsy would have had a fit

 

As I've said elsewhere on this thread, GR could have worn any number and he'd still have been a hero (with the exceptions of 14, 23 and 32, obviously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TBW said:

Didn't John Atyeo generally wear number 8?

Somebody will correct me, but I think when Atyeo was playing, there were inside forwards half backs and that kind of jazz.

I guess those numbers relate to that?

I have filed that information under 'we used pounds shillings and pence in my day'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lordofthebling said:

Somebody will correct me, but I think when Atyeo was playing, there were inside forwards half backs and that kind of jazz.

I guess those numbers relate to that?

I have filed that information under 'we used pounds shillings and pence in my day'

Maybe the #4 arguement should be filed in the same place then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/07/2018 at 13:22, Woodsy said:

I've never actually said that, have I?

Just to it's exceptionally clear for all (I mean you, I think everyone else has cottoned on now) 4 is a number for a tough tackling midfielder as back in the 70s, the era I grew up watching. It's completely irrelevant with the use of squad numbers now

As discussed, I have an aversion to 14, 23 and 32 as well. I have no idea why. I really like 3, 33 and 39 and would be happy for a centre back to wear any of them

If you'd like a full list from 1 to 99 with my thoughts please let me know

I'm not putting them into a 352 or a 532 though. That's obviously your thing, you can work out who goes where

Yes please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Woodsy said:

Ha, I can't explain it! 14, God knows. 23 I always think that the player thinks he's post United Beckham and 32 I have never liked Theo Walcott or Carlos Tevez. That's the best I got. Actually, 14 may have been a Thierry Henry / Theo Walcott thing as well. Walcott went from 32 to 14 when TH left Arsenal

Not keen on Arsenal or Argentina. Maybe that's the bigger issue here!

As I've said elsewhere on this thread, GR could have worn any number and he'd still have been a hero (with the exceptions of 14, 23 and 32, obviously)

Think the vogue for 14 is/was because Johann Cruyff wore it at major tournaments, 23 originally relates to Michael Jordan, I believe, Beckham then wore it as a result and numerous others copied.

Think Argentina & Brazil had some weird method of numbering their defenders in domestic football (in the 1-11 days), pretty sure that 5 is the LB for one of them, with 3 & 4 as the CBs. 6 is always a defensive midfielder in those 2 countries..

Think I’ll pass on no.32 though..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Yes please.

Always one, isn't there :facepalm: :laughcont:

14 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Think the vogue for 14 is/was because Johann Cruyff wore it at major tournaments, 23 originally relates to Michael Jordan, I believe, Beckham then wore it as a result and numerous others copied.

Think Argentina & Brazil had some weird method of numbering their defenders in domestic football (in the 1-11 days), pretty sure that 5 is the LB for one of them, with 3 & 4 as the CBs. 6 is always a defensive midfielder in those 2 countries..

Think I’ll pass on no.32 though..

Guessed 14 and 23 may have had Cruyff / Jordan connotations. Too young to remember Cruyff in his pomp, and basketball bores me

If you had the choice, don't try and be anyone else, start your own legacy with your own number

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Think the vogue for 14 is/was because Johann Cruyff wore it at major tournaments, 23 originally relates to Michael Jordan, I believe, Beckham then wore it as a result and numerous others copied.

Think Argentina & Brazil had some weird method of numbering their defenders in domestic football (in the 1-11 days), pretty sure that 5 is the LB for one of them, with 3 & 4 as the CBs. 6 is always a defensive midfielder in those 2 countries..

Think I’ll pass on no.32 though..

In South America the numbering system came about differently as formations (which ones were the prominent ones, etc) evolved differently over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

Always one, isn't there :facepalm: :laughcont:

Guessed 14 and 23 may have had Cruyff / Jordan connotations. Too young to remember Cruyff in his pomp, and basketball bores me

If you had the choice, don't try and be anyone else, start your own legacy with your own number

Yep, year of birth is a good one, though scarily a lot of them would be 90-99 now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...