With squad numbers only being a relatively recent thing, I'm not sure that many do. The only one I can think of for sure off the top of my head is Manchester City and the number 23 in honour of Marc Vivien Foe. I'm pretty sure United haven't had a number 36 since Jimmy Davis died whilst on loan to Watford but am less certain that the number was officially retired. I think it was but am not positive.
#13 for Reading is "retired" in the sense that no player can wear that number now, as the number has been registered with "Reading Fans" since Keith Scott's departure in 2001.
I hope Man United don't have any retired numbers forever. We keep guessing which player will wear no.11 after Giggs retired, just like Ronaldo wears that famous no.7 shirt.
Think about it, how many great players have worn such numbers as 10, 11, and 1 for their teams? It would be tough assigning lower numbers over time. Maybe teams could honor numbers instead. This is what the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team does. They honor a player by raising a banner with their name and number on it, but the team still uses the number for its current players. Only two players had their number retired by the team and they paid a hefty price. Ace Baily's #6 was retired after he suffered a life threatening and ultimatly career ending injury. And Bill Barilko's #5 was retired after he disappeared in a plane crash just weeks after scoring his team's championship clinching goal.
Not that i know of. Up until recently and you still see this to some degree in International football, Shirt numbers had more to do with your position on the field.
Numbers in baseball used to be assigned based on the batting order, but that has changed. But I don't think I would support retiring numbers at Newcastle. I like the idea of seeing great strikers over time all wearing 9. It is a nice connection to the clubs past that would be missed.
? They still do. Most centre-halves are 4/5/6, most fullbacks are 2/3, midfielders 4/6/8/10, wingers 7/11 and strikers 8/9/10. Obviously squad numbers have changed things slightly, but if you buy a star striker and your #9 is open, you give him #9 usually.
Not really. They give new players the numbers that are available to choose from. That player then has the number for his term with the club. Tevez is 32 for example and wanted to be 10 but Marlon has it. Dailly has been our number 7 for years even though he rarely is in the first team. Look at your team, is'nt one of your defenders number 10? was it cole?
This may have been discussed several times, before, so pardon me if it has been. But am I the only one who sees the issue of retiring numbers as a travesty and a needless nod to American sporting culture? Why is this necessary at all? The numbers, particularly 1 thru 11 have always been sacred in soccer. Pele was a '10'. Maradona was a '10'. Paolo Rossi was a '9'. Bobby Moore was a '6'. These numbers have meaning for football fans. What is the point of retiring a number? If a club wants to honor a players uniform, why not raise up the uniform with the player's name and number and honor it. If another player later wears the same number and is to be honored, simply put up their uniform with ther name and number and honor it too. Where does it say that the number then has to be done away with for all future players at the club? The number in football is more important than the player. It is an iconic part of the game and I'm not sure why the football public has allowed this Americanism which is absolutely unnecessary. But I'm in the US so maybe I missed arguments going back and forth and the rationale that finally convinced the sport to accept this. I'd appreciate someone sharing some insight into this. Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retired_Numbers_in_Football_%28Soccer%29 That's what Wikipedia has listed for retired numbers.
Why does this necessarily have to be an "Americanism"? If I understand things correctly, assigned numbers weren't used until the 90's, generally. Why THAT change? Do you really think the powers that be in European football sat down one day and said "let's copy the way the Americans do things" and started assigning permanent numbers to players, just so they could later retire them?
no, cole is a midfield and forward player, you're thinking of arsenal with william gallas, he wears 10. Also normally number 7 is given to a long serving star midfielder, yet stalteri, (a canadian defender who rarely gets played and gets injured quite often) wears the 7 jersey for spurs
Bouhlarouz is 9 - I guess he wanted a #1-11 but he's a (shit) defender. I'm right though, I know I'm right because football's a massive part of my life. If you buy a new star striker/centre half/winger then IF no other player at the club already has that number then USUALLY you would give the traditional number to that player. HENCE Joe Cole wears #10, Cech #1, Ashley Cole #3, Sheva #7, Lampard #8.
At one time, numbers in general were seen as needless. Things change somewhat. Nobody forces anyone to retire a number and as far as I'm aware, only City in the EPL have actually come out and said they'll never give a certain number to another player, which is their way of respecting a man who collapsed and died on the pitch, which I'm sure you'll agree is pretty rare.
You make your point and then contradict in in the next sentence. I am fully aware of the traditional number / position, look at England, Smith yesterday was wearing number 9. However NOW in all clubs they have squad numbers not position numbers. Joe Cole always 10, he did not give up his number for the person that took his place while he was injured did he? Clearly if you play a CF and the number is available you are of course going to take that number, same goes with any position. But regardless of personal preferences its still a squad number
No ********ing shit, Sherlock. 1. Get some English comprehension lessons. 2. Re-read my posts. 3. Learn what 'contradict' means. 4. Do one!
Don't need the lesson and i am fully aware what "contradict" means, maybe you can ask your teacher when you go back to school. Lets say in the off season Chelski sign Kaka, what number is he going to be? 9? 10? no because they are taken, he will choose from what is available. Why? because they are SQUAD numbers. You can't change that fact regardless of how much you "love" football. Clubs now work off squad numbers, but you still see to some degree the positional numbering system in International football, as i posted in my first post in this thread, to which you disagreed. ohh yeh now go "do one"
Your post suggested that position now has no bearing on shirt numbers which is palpably untrue. "You still see this to some degree in international football". Well, you still see it to some degree in domestic football, squad numbers or otherwise.
Retiring numbers is a bad idea. What the Maple Leafs do is smart. They honour players by raising their name and number to the rafters, but they dont take the number out of circulation (with the exceptions of 5 & 6 which are retired because they died while members of the team). What the Montreal Canadiens do is completely insane. The Habs have retired the numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 twice, (proving it is stupid), 16, 18, 29, and pretty soon, 33. Only 2 players on the team wear a single digit and only 5 players wear a number smaller than 20! Retiring numbers is shortsighted. I am so glad the Leafs can still give their stars (lol) numbers like 7, 9, 10 and other traditional and distinctive numbers. I really wished the Toronto crowd would have booed Moreno for wearing the number 99 though.
That's why the Leafs rule and the Habs.... Watch out for #10 Mr. Steen, that guy could be something special. As for Moreno, I've supported DC United since the MLS started, he wore #9 at first but changed to #99 when he retured to DC. Adu's got #9 now, and I think, but I'm not 100% sure that Hristo Stoichkov had #9 for DC at the time Moreno returned.