Today’s press conference

[chinapig]

Just now, Robbored said:

Absolutely right. Scott is a CM who can play anywhere across the engine room. Using dark age positional numbers to describe his position is pretty meaningless.

AW wears number 14 so he wouldn’t have got a game in the old days………..I rest my case……………

It is entirely the norm these days to use 6, 8 and 10 to refer to 3 different midfield roles. It's useful shorthand and not difficult to understand.

The point with Alex, like Bellingham, is that he is equally good in every role. A rare thing.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

‘Passengers’ is just another word for dead wood and that’s probably what Nige thinks but wouldn’t say that in a press conference.

Yea I get that. What I mean is his use of words was interesting. He said "We don't really have any passengers" which suggests to me that we have one or two left but that's it. We now have a hungry, driven squad that want to be here.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

18 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Absolutely right. Scott is a CM who can play anywhere across the engine room. Using dark age positional numbers to describe his position is pretty meaningless.

AW wears number 14 so he wouldn’t have got a game in the old days………..I rest my case……………

In the old days no one would have worn number 14………

[Leveller]

57 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It is entirely the norm these days to use 6, 8 and 10 to refer to 3 different midfield roles. It's useful shorthand and not difficult to understand.

The point with Alex, like Bellingham, is that he is equally good in every role. A rare thing.

Robbored is clearly years behind on this, and yet I have some sympathy for his views.

Whilst everybody else is aware that 10, 8 (and perhaps 6) are used now to describe different midfield roles, it’s hard to understand why. They don’t  actually tally with the positions associated with the 1-11 numbers when players didn’t wear squad numbers, which I suppose is his point.

Back in the day, 10 was an inside left in 235, but became either an attacking midfielder or a striker in modern formations. No 8 was inside right in 235 and could also be an attacking midfielder or striker (alongside No 9 as target man). Jimmy Greaves or Allan Clarke would have worn 8 or 10.
 

No 6 was not a midfielder but the centre back  alongside your 5.

Defensive midfielder was No 4 (eg Bremner at Leeds).

The issue is, it’s hard to see where these modern shorthands have come from.

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Leveller said:

Robbored is clearly years behind on this, and yet I have some sympathy for his views.

Whilst everybody else is aware that 10, 8 (and perhaps 6) are used now to describe different midfield roles, it’s hard to understand why. They don’t  actually tally with the positions associated with the 1-11 numbers when players didn’t wear squad numbers, which I suppose is his point.

Back in the day, 10 was an inside left in 235, but became either an attacking midfielder or a striker in modern formations. No 8 was inside right in 235 and could also be an attacking midfielder or striker (alongside No 9 as target man). Jimmy Greaves or Allan Clarke would have worn 8 or 10.
 

No 6 was not a midfielder but the centre back  alongside your 5.

Defensive midfielder was No 4 (eg Bremner at Leeds).

The issue is, it’s hard to see where these modern shorthands have come from.

Robbo is certainly stuck in the distant past when numbers 1-11 referred to fixed positions but that was decades ago and long since replaced by squad numbers. So looking for some equivalence with today's shorthand for particular roles is a red herring. 4 could have been used instead of 6 perhaps but the meaning would be the same regardless.

Even in the past you would get for instance Ray Kennedy wearing 5 but played in midfield. Further back in our case Gordon Low wore 6 but was a midfielder with Gordon Parr in defence wearing 4.

[spudski]

Coaches still use numbers to describe a players position. As it's so ingrained.

A couple favs...

A false nine is a centre-forward who repeatedly moves towards the ball in deeper positions from a high starting position, often dropping to receive centrally. The main intention is to get on the ball away from the opposition centre-backs – and, in doing so, to draw players out of position and disrupt the defence.

A false number ten is fielded in the central attacking midfield like a traditional number ten. However, other than the more old-fashioned number tens, he is barely involved in combination plays and does not show any superior creativity. In contrast, he opens holes and behaves intelligently off the ball. Another form of a false number ten is called central winger. He, unlike a traditional playmaker who stays behind the striker in the centre of the pitch, drifts wide when in possession of the ball to overload the flanks.

[Riaz]

Compare the press conferences to the clubs interview!

I remember watching another teams press conference a number of years ago and at the time we didnt publish ours at the time. So i asked adam baker on twitter if we could start putting ours out and he duly obliged.

The interview by the club, asks really lame questions - which is to be expected i guess.

I find the press conferences have much better questions and answers. Far more interesting and you get more detail.

[Leveller]

22 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Robbo is certainly stuck in the distant past when numbers 1-11 referred to fixed positions but that was decades ago and long since replaced by squad numbers. So looking for some equivalence with today's shorthand for particular roles is a red herring. 4 could have been used instead of 6 perhaps but the meaning would be the same regardless.

Even in the past you would get for instance Ray Kennedy wearing 5 but played in midfield. Further back in our case Gordon Low wore 6 but was a midfielder with Gordon Parr in defence wearing 4.

I don’t quite understand your “red herring” point. The use of these numbers must derive from the “traditional” roles in 1-11 numbering. Surely there is no other rationale for it? It can’t relate to squad numbering. 
 

I accept there were variations when numbering a 442 but there were norms and No 6 was usually a centre back (eg Geoff Merrick and Norman Hunter). Similarly 7 and 11 were usually right and left wingers/midfielders respectively, so 8 and 10 would be (interchangeably) a striker and an attacking midfielder. The defensive midfielder was commonly a 4. 
 

The current usage seems to hark back to those positions but rather inaccurately in my memory.

[spudski]

18 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

False ten describes Andi perfectly 

On reading it back...it pretty much does

[Robbored]

45 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Robbo is certainly stuck in the distant past when numbers 1-11 referred to fixed positions but that was decades ago and long since replaced by squad numbers. So looking for some equivalence with today's shorthand for particular roles is a red herring. 4 could have been used instead of 6 perhaps but the meaning would be the same regardless.

Even in the past you would get for instance Ray Kennedy wearing 5 but played in midfield. Further back in our case Gordon Low wore 6 but was a midfielder with Gordon Parr in defence wearing 4.

That’s was my original point about journalists asking if Scott was a 10………….

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

That’s was my original point about journalists asking if Scott was a 10………….

It's certainly a daft question since everybody knows he can play in all 3 positions. Plus wing back!

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Leveller said:

I don’t quite understand your “red herring” point. The use of these numbers must derive from the “traditional” roles in 1-11 numbering. Surely there is no other rationale for it? It can’t relate to squad numbering. 
 

I accept there were variations when numbering a 442 but there were norms and No 6 was usually a centre back (eg Geoff Merrick and Norman Hunter). Similarly 7 and 11 were usually right and left wingers/midfielders respectively, so 8 and 10 would be (interchangeably) a striker and an attacking midfielder. The defensive midfielder was commonly a 4. 
 

The current usage seems to hark back to those positions but rather inaccurately in my memory.

I guess you'd have to ask whoever first used the current shorthand since I'm in no position to say why!

[Major Isewater]

15 hours ago, Super said:

RWB for me.....

I think Goalkeeper. 

[Major Isewater]

2 hours ago, Leveller said:

The issue is, it’s hard to see where these modern shorthands have come from.

maybe from this short hand? 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Leveller said:

Robbored is clearly years behind on this, and yet I have some sympathy for his views.

Whilst everybody else is aware that 10, 8 (and perhaps 6) are used now to describe different midfield roles, it’s hard to understand why. They don’t  actually tally with the positions associated with the 1-11 numbers when players didn’t wear squad numbers, which I suppose is his point.

Back in the day, 10 was an inside left in 235, but became either an attacking midfielder or a striker in modern formations. No 8 was inside right in 235 and could also be an attacking midfielder or striker (alongside No 9 as target man). Jimmy Greaves or Allan Clarke would have worn 8 or 10.
 

No 6 was not a midfielder but the centre back  alongside your 5.

Defensive midfielder was No 4 (eg Bremner at Leeds).

The issue is, it’s hard to see where these modern shorthands have come from.

Thank you, so agree.

[James54De]

3 hours ago, chinapig said:

It is entirely the norm these days to use 6, 8 and 10 to refer to 3 different midfield roles. It's useful shorthand and not difficult to understand.

The point with Alex, like Bellingham, is that he is equally good in every role. A rare thing.

4 

[Phileas Fogg]

2 hours ago, Leveller said:

I don’t quite understand your “red herring” point. The use of these numbers must derive from the “traditional” roles in 1-11 numbering. Surely there is no other rationale for it? It can’t relate to squad numbering. 
 

I accept there were variations when numbering a 442 but there were norms and No 6 was usually a centre back (eg Geoff Merrick and Norman Hunter). Similarly 7 and 11 were usually right and left wingers/midfielders respectively, so 8 and 10 would be (interchangeably) a striker and an attacking midfielder. The defensive midfielder was commonly a 4. 
 

The current usage seems to hark back to those positions but rather inaccurately in my memory.

It's not really worth replying when he does this - it's his forum party trick.

1. State an opinion which is technically true and always fundementally flawed - but is at least plausible to argue.
2. Ensure this opinion factors in 0 nuance and 0 context.
3. When you are inevitably picked up on it, use reductio ad absurdum exclusively.
4. Repeat this reductio ad absurdum argument, rearranging the words slightly, to any subsequent replies. Ensure you miss their point and refuse to elaborate further.

The best example is the ludicrous "I didn't see that on the OS........" routine.

[DaveInSA]

So, based on all of this, back in my playing days, I was a false 4, who often played as a number 2.

[HiddenGem7]

3 hours ago, Riaz said:

Compare the press conferences to the clubs interview!

I remember watching another teams press conference a number of years ago and at the time we didnt publish ours at the time. So i asked adam baker on twitter if we could start putting ours out and he duly obliged.

The interview by the club, asks really lame questions - which is to be expected i guess.

I find the press conferences have much better questions and answers. Far more interesting and you get more detail.

Pearson has, over the period of a year or more, trained local journalists to become better at their own jobs using Pavlov's techniques to punish poor questions and reward good ones. 

[Port Said Red]

56 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

So, based on all of this, back in my playing days, I was a false 4, who often played as a number 2.

"False" is my answer to the question, "You were good at football as a young man, true or false?"

[DaveInSA]

58 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

"False" is my answer to the question, "You were good at football as a young man, true or false?"

False. .

[Leveller]

23 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It's not really worth replying when he does this - it's his forum party trick.

1. State an opinion which is technically true and always fundementally flawed - but is at least plausible to argue.
2. Ensure this opinion factors in 0 nuance and 0 context.
3. When you are inevitably picked up on it, use reductio ad absurdum exclusively.
4. Repeat this reductio ad absurdum argument, rearranging the words slightly, to any subsequent replies. Ensure you miss their point and refuse to elaborate further.

The best example is the ludicrous "I didn't see that on the OS........" routine.

Except that I was replying to Chinapig!

[Lanterne Rouge]

On 15/03/2023 at 13:34, DaveInSA said:

So, based on all of this, back in my playing days, I was a false 4, who often played as a number 2.

In the opinion of my teammates I played very much like a great steaming number 2............................................

Edited March 16, 2023 by Lanterne Rouge