With alese, seelt, triantis we wouldn’t be leaving ourselves short. Hume can cover alese at left back and pembele could come in on the right. We aren’t gonna find out if any of the young lads can cut it if we don’t give them the chance
I know Langstaffs dad, hes from Stockton on tees where i live and often turns up to watch Stockton town play. For sentimental reasons id like him to sign, but in reality its hardly a signing of ambition is it.
6 generally. Even though it's more traditional in this country for 5 and 6 to be the centre backs. Using '10' for a central attacking midfielder is an Italian/Spanish/Latin American thing.
I agree with this. Or 3 centre backs in a 3 4 3 but we’d need a lwb for that and as you say it would miss Pritch playing where he does best.
Exactly. I think its because we've borrowed foreign terminology and in some places they traditionally numbered their back four 2, 3, 4, 5 from left to right (or right to left maybe). Obviously we do 3, 5, 6, 2 because it's adapted from the 235/WM
Not convinced this lad will be of Championship standard, watched him a few times and not sure his all round game is good enough for the championship
I expect it would be hoped that Roberts, Clarke, Pritchard, etc, would provide enough service ... ... I'm sure they'd welcome Hemir/Mayenda on loan as px. That would benefit us as they'd have the chance to gain experience and come back better players.
Is Langstaff better than those 2 though? He’s been playing in the lower leagues for a team that have been favourites for the title 3 years running and create any amounts of chances for him
And then alexander arnold goes and wears number 66! The idea of using numbers to articulate positions was fine up until we introduced squad numbers. Now it is a bit of a nonsense to be honest. Even back in the old world you had Bryan Robson wearing 7. Mind you I dont recall calling him an 8, but he was the very epitome of a box to box midfielder.
I believe it started with the Victorian 235 formation being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Which is was the most common formation when shirt numbers were introduced (or rather that was the way that all teams were drawn on published team sheets when shirt numbers were introduced) This became in Herbert Chapman's WM 1 2 5 3 4 6 8 10 7 9 11 Which is why some times refer to centre backs as Centre Halfs because the traditional central half back was dropped back between the two full backs. And then it became 1 2 5 6 3 7 4 8 11 9 10 In the 442. Another half back was dropped back between the full backs and that was the 6. Edit: bloody numbers haven't come out they way I typed them but you get the idea.
I'm glad someone asked about the numbers, I was thinking about the terminology today 1 - Easy...keeper 2 - LB 3 - RB 4 - CD 5 - CD 6 - CDM 7 - ? 8 - box to box midfielder 9 - out and out striker 10 - player behind striker 11 - winger That about right?
