[ynwaquakes]

Does anyone know what the traditional numbering system is for a 4-4-2 formation? Here's what I have so far:

GK=1
RB=2
LB=3
RCB=4
LCB=6
RM=7
RCM=10
LCM=6
LM=11
LF=8
RF=9

[RichardL]

It varied. Traditional numbering dates back to the 1930s when the W formation was all the rage.

essentially is was

7...8...9...10...11

....4....5....6

......2......3

..........1


generally 2 and 3 stayed as the numbers for the full-backs, then it varied, but commonly 5 & 6 dropped back as centre-backs, 7 & 11 dropped onto the wings and 10 became centre-midfield with 4.

.....8...9

7...4..10...11

2...5...6...3

.......1

[Mac_Howard]

I think you're right RichardL that the "W" formation is what defined the number system still used though I would distribute it like this:

11........9........7

.....10.......8

......6........4

3.........5........2

...........1

The term "W" comes from the shape of the five front men - right wing (7), inside right (8), centre forward (9), inside left (10) and left wing (11).

I'm not sure if I'm right about the back three. In my experience the "centre half" has always been a centre back in reality but it may be that you go back further than I do and was indeed originally a true half back and therefore 5. That would certainly make sense and explain why 5 was used.

The system as shown above has five attackers and five defenders distributed so that there's one defender allocated to each attacker in a strict one on one man-marking system. I think that was the system used by most British teams until the "continentals" got hold of the game and demonstrated how the game should be played

[ynwaquakes]

Excellent info... sure is nice having you old timers around to tell how things used to be (:

[Roonaldo]

It varies a lot nowadays, 1,2 and 3 are pretty much a given, as are 7 and 11 being the wingers, but the number 10 can circulate from players such as van Nistelrooy and Owen to the likes of Zidane (with France) and Rivaldo, not out-and-out strikers or central midfielders, just a general playmaker. Two out of 4, 5 and 6 tend to make up the centre backs now, usually 5 and 6, with holding players such as Gerrard wearing 4. 8 is sometimes a holding midfielder in the case of players like Butt for Man Utd, sometimes an attacking mid like Scholes for England, and sometimes a forward, like Heskey for Liverpool (so should that be "forward"?). With the introduction of squad numbers things have changed so much its difficult to assign a regular numbers system - the only certainties nowadays are that 1 will be the goalie and 9 will be the centre forward. You even get players like Emre for Turkey (left winger) wearing 2, or Tugay for Blackburn wearing 3 (centre mid), its crazy!

[AvidSinger]

I'm not at all a traditionalist in this regard. IMHO, player numbers have only one purpose -- to identify the player. There's really no need to require that players' positions and uniform numbers have any correlation.

[n00bie deluxe]

Total newbie question, but if you have a really high number(beyond 1-11, in the 20s), does that necessarily mean you, at one time in your career, were warming the bench?

[lanman]

Originally posted by machoward
I think you're right RichardL that the "W" formation is what defined the number system still used though I would distribute it like this:

11........9........7

.....10.......8

......6........4

3.........5........2

...........1

The term "W" comes from the shape of the five front men - right wing (7), inside right (8), centre forward (9), inside left (10) and left wing (11).

I'm not sure if I'm right about the back three. In my experience the "centre half" has always been a centre back in reality but it may be that you go back further than I do and was indeed originally a true half back and therefore 5. That would certainly make sense and explain why 5 was used.

The system as shown above has five attackers and five defenders distributed so that there's one defender allocated to each attacker in a strict one on one man-marking system. I think that was the system used by most British teams until the "continentals" got hold of the game and demonstrated how the game should be played

I think it was Herbert Chapman who was responsible for this formation taking hold. It is a fairly simple modification of the 2-3-5 RichardL mentioned.
Traditionally, the left and right halfs (4 and 6) would mark the opposition wingers (7 and 11), and the full backs (2 and 3) the two inside forwards (8 and 10). Chapman dropped his centre half (5) back to man-mark opposition centre forwards (9), the full backs took over marking the wingers moving into their now common wide positions. The two inside forwards played deeper, becoming the playmakers and generally found themselves up against the half-backs.
This formation was standard in England (and much of the world) until Hungary started playing with their number 9 deep and 8 and 10 as the strikers. As you can imagine this caused havok with opposing sides who were playing the w-formation. This formation was further developed (mainly in Brazil by an exiled Hungarian) into the classic 4-2-4.



Also, the first time numbered shirts were worn in the FA Cup final (in 1933), Everton wore 1-11 and Man City 12-22. Everton's keeper wore 1, and Man City's 22.

[Mac_Howard]

Didn't Man City take up this "deep lying centre forward" system with Don Revie in the role?

[comme]

Originally posted by n00bie deluxe
Total newbie question, but if you have a really high number(beyond 1-11, in the 20s), does that necessarily mean you, at one time in your career, were warming the bench?

Not necessarily, someone such as Ginola always wore 14, I would assume in homage to Cruyff. The Dutch had a bizarre system in the 70s with most of their top players wearing 11+ numbers and the goalkeeper wearing 8.