He's talking in the language of football cliché and making out he's some form of tactical expert, when the reality is he doesn't have a clue.
Cheers. I don't mind insults when its friendly banter as you know but this is getting a little heated so trying to calm the storm a little. I'll be ****ing off shortly though so...
Dont worry, someone will be along to call you spineless for not banning me and tobes and defending the hinour of a LFC fan Im off back in 2 minutes. Pile of complaints to respond too all afternoon
Two typical statements from the shi*house. The former... claims Sherifu*kingham was a number 10. The latter... a trademarked platitude.
I like my 10's as players that will take the ball from CM's and look to use skill to send a deadly pass towards the strikers. Often it is their job to unlock the defence or hold up play. As opposed to a CM who is meant to do the midfield running and getting into position to make the 10's job easier. (Also taking the ball off defence and giving it to the 10 when he needs it). Of course each player is different. For me Rooney is too direct for the 10 role. He isn't a second striker there and he isn't the actual striker either. He does assist well but his primary instinct is to take the chance himself. That is a skill that a 10 would do well to have, but not one that is good to have at EVERY chance. As a result it looks like he is holding himself back at the detriment to himself and his teammates. When he decided to shoot he often picks the perfect moment that a striker would take - except he's out of position and in that moment whoever is in front of him IS the striker thinking the same thing. I like Rooney as a player despite him playing for the dark side. For England though he hasn't performed. Sturridge and Rooney up front with Sterling behind in the 10 could be good. This does mean dropping Welbeck and playing a midfield 3 of Gerrard/Henderson/(Barkley or Lallana). The lack of width would have to be supplemented by the fullbacks being on the top of their game. Shaw/Baines and anyone but Johnson.
sheringham... no 10.... nah he was just so slow he looked like he played there... its like donkey carroll so slow he never makes it tohe box unless he's given a 60 yard head start and a long ball. Zidane.. he always wore the no 10 shirt but look at 1998... where did he play? is it no 10 or not... it depends how you consider it cos they played the donkey guivarche up fornt and djorkaeff behind was he the ten or was zidane... it goes back to how many no 10s can one side have! in any event we can all say that zidane wass the total central force to their size and playmaker.. whatever else we say... well... shrugs..
To me, a number ten is someone that links midfield and attack. They can do this by playing in midfield, attack or in the hole as we see nowadays, it doesn't really matter. The role is linking up play.
I believe there is a fundamental difference between the standard attacking midfielder and the 10. Zidane played in both. And in between. The attacking midfielder sits in front of standard midfielders and behind the strikers, exactly like a 10. But their duties include more tracking back defensively and being more direct in attack. They aren't providers as much as attacking players in that third of the pitch. Lampard is an attacking midfielder but not a 10. Second strikers are also more direct than 10's and have more offensive goalscoring duties during a play. You rarely have a 10 AND a SS. You can have a SS and an AM though because the AM takes on more defensive duties. A true 10 is often a luxury position to be used when the rest of the system is very practiced and well drilled. In the modern game though there are no limits and precise positions. Innovation is at its peak and what we see is not necessarily what will be reflected next season. So what I'm saying that what in saying could be all wrong tomorrow or next week.
It was so much easier back in the day when the number on the shirt told the role being played - none of these fancy 20 and 30 somethings
i have a question. is this an era of innovation OR is it all finely tuned derivitives of 4-4-2. after all... just asking but the biggest innovation in football must have been moving from WM to 442 type formation with flat back 4. Right now just about everyone... bar argentina at this world up plays a back 4. you've a choice of 2 up like messi and aguero or one up like most sides. so if we write 442, 433, 4-1-2-1, 4-5-1 4-2-3-1 or whatever its just moving one or two players into the gaps between lines. its adjusting the thing rather than taking a whole new approach... what is opinions on that... i just thought 'd ask rather than say its my opinion rather its a question.
He was probably a 10 when Torres was playing but you could argue that his role included both AM against most opposition and SS when we had no one else under Rafa. He did most of the roles of the 10 but from a bit further back sometimes. As for an age of innovation I think that we are in one. Minor variations of 4-4-2 are highly effective. I like the 4-4-2 diamond with overlapping wingback play but it is hard to do. Playing with 4-3-3 formations as well can provide with many tactical answers to other 4-4-2 variations. 3-5-2 is more common today and that has many variations (5-3-2, 3-4-3, etc). In the end you can slap any name or number on it, the only thing that really defines a tactic is the way it performs on the pitch. Modern coaches don't even use numbered formations with rigid roles, its more of a guideline with individualised duties for each player.
