Squad numbers gone mad

Xavi6

Not sure if anyone saw Australia v Indonesia, but squad numbers hit triple figures.

Here's the gist of it -

http://backpagefootball.com/info/spain/and-replacing-number-121/

When Australia took on Indonesia in an Asian qualifier this week, youngster Tommy Oar made quite the impression with an outstanding debut performance. However, it was his shirt that was just as big a talking point amongst the game’s purists.




The days of teams stepping out in numbers 1 to 11 look to be truly gone as the modern game now seemingly requires shirt numbers that are in triple figures.

Tommy Oar’s number 121 shirt, simply put, looked ridiulous, and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) are to blame, according to Simon Hill of Fox Sports.

“The AFC demands that players are given a number that they keep throughout the qualifying campaign,” he says.

“So I can only surmise that Pim was thinking Tommy was well down the pecking order when he got 121!”

Oar wasn’t the only player to be handed a shirt that would be more at home in the NFL. Shannon Cole wore number 60 alongside fellow centre half and number 61, Simon Colosimo, while Scott Jamieson (66) and David Williams (89) also got in on the act.

Article continues

Absolutely ridiculous at this stage really. Bring back 1 to 11.

_blank_

I also hate when players have a squad number, and insist on a little "+" between the numbers.

For example, a striker moves to a club and wants the number 9 shirt, but someone else already has it, so he wears 18, like this

1+8

But yeah, triple digit numbers are retarded.

It's weird though, in a "normal" 1-11 4-4-2, the positions of each number are fairly retro too

---

1

2

---

4

---

5

---

3

7

---

6

---

8

---

11

---

9

---

10

---

Mitch Connor

kinda related, but it is a pethate of mine when players wear numbers that aren't 'traditional' to their position. Such as Gallas wearing 10. remember there being a few cases of this in the last few years but can't bring it to mind.

bobbysands81

Des wrote: »

I also hate when players have a squad number, and insist on a little "+" between the numbers.

For example, a striker moves to a club and wants the number 9 shirt, but someone else already has it, so he wears 18, like this

1+8

Please tell me that doesn't happen???

Xavi6

Mitch Connor wrote: »

kinda related, but it is a pethate of mine when players wear numbers that aren't 'traditional' to their position. Such as Gallas wearing 10. remember there being a few cases of this in the last few years but can't bring it to mind.

Boulahrouz

(See rest of article for more examples )

stovelid

It'd be pretty funny if a player in the mould of Roy Keane or Marco Materazzi ended up with 666 though.

Xavi6

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Please tell me that doesn't happen???

Frisbee

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Such as Gallas wearing 10.

Gallas got ten as Wenger didn't want to give him #3 as that would be seen as a traditional left backs number and the whole reason he wanted out of Chelsea was because he was being played at left back.

Then Wenger gave him 10 as he didn't want to give it to a striker and put loads of pressure on them having Bergkamps number.

Knowledge Bomb - Dropped.

_blank_

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Please tell me that doesn't happen???

No, you're right, I made it up:rolleyes:

Mitch Connor

Frisbee wrote: »

Gallas got ten as Wenger didn't want to give him #3 as that would be seen as a traditional left backs number and the whole reason he wanted out of Chelsea was because he was being played at left back.

Then Wenger gave him 10 as he didn't want to give it to a striker and put loads of pressure on them having Bergkamps number.

Knowledge Bomb - Dropped.

I knew that already.

I don't care WHY he has the number, it simply annoys me that he does.

Mitch Connor

Xavi6 wrote: »

<morrison pic>

Frisbee

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I knew that already.

I don't care WHY he has the number, it simply annoys me that he does.

Ah right, was just saying is all.

Players having the number as their year of birth does my head in too.

_blank_

Frisbee wrote: »

Ah right, was just saying is all.

Players having the number as their year of birth does my head in too.

Jesus, are there players around at the minute with squad numbers 80-94?

Also, in six or ten years time, will it still annoy you

Frisbee

Des wrote: »

Jesus, are there players around at the minute with squad numbers 80-94?

_blank_

Ah, Ronaldinho.

Maybe he asked for 80 because the "normal" squad number he wanted was unavailable (did he wear 80 at Barca), and 80 is no more ridiculous than 27 or 19 or 33, imo

edit, no, he wore 10 at Barca, and that was already gone at Milan

Iago

lame

Footballers are superstitious types though.

I always had to wear 6 when I was playing regularly, had myself convinced for years that if I wore 6 I'd score and if I didn't I wouldn't.

/lame

Galvasean

While I definately don't think players should have to be fielded as 1-11 based on their position having a triple digit number is taking the mick. The + thing is ridiculous too.

everdead.ie

Thats also a Huge pet Hate of mine I wish they'd bring back 1-11 I know Wenger had his reasons and I don't know why but it does irk me think maybe i'm just a lil OCD

Frisbee

Iago wrote: »

lame

Footballers are superstitious types though.

I always had to wear 6 when I was playing regularly, had myself convinced for years that if I wore 6 I'd score and if I didn't I wouldn't.

/lame

I always had to wear number 9. And If I was a sub number 13.

At my club now you keep your jersey and 9 and 19 were gone when I joined so took number 29 :pac:
Guy who wears 9 might be retiring at the end of the season though so will be ready to make my move.

_blank_

Iago wrote: »

lame

Footballers are superstitious types though.

I always had to wear 6 when I was playing regularly, had myself convinced for years that if I wore 6 I'd score and if I didn't I wouldn't.

/lame

And we've since learned that no matter what number you wear, you still won't score.

ZING!:D

Also, I'm hiding the 9 and 13 shirts for next season

Iago

Des wrote: »

And we've since learned that no matter what number you wear, you still won't score.

ZING!:D

Also, I'm hiding the 9 and 13 shirts for next season

Only for your lot Des, I just don't get the service/minutes on the pitch to make an impact :P

12 in 10 games for Ravenhill though

_blank_

Must be the Brazil jersey

MY lot?

Boardeaux is every boardsie's team

Support your local club rabble rabble rabble

s_carnage

Des wrote: »

Ah, Ronaldinho.

Maybe he asked for 80 because the "normal" squad number he wanted was unavailable (did he wear 80 at Barca), and 80 is no more ridiculous than 27 or 19 or 33, imo

Well anything up to about 40 isn't to bad when you consider the size of some squads these days.

Another daft example of Bendtner this season changing to 52. It's probably in there heads when they have a squad number in the high 20s or 30s that it might be perceived that they are on the fringe of the team but when they have a ridiculous number like 52 or 87 they are perceived as a more important player in the squad whos just so damn "cool".

Iago

Des wrote: »

Must be the Brazil jersey

MY lot?

Boardeaux is every boardsie's team

Support your local club rabble rabble rabble

I knew that'd get your goat

It's the difference between being the focal point and being a bit part player. Mickey Owen would understand where I'm coming from.

back on-topic though I think clubs should be restricted to a given set of squad numbers. First team squad should have to wear 1-25 with new players/reservese subject to 26-50.

Xavi6

Des wrote: »

Jesus, are there players around at the minute with squad numbers 80-94?

Tis all in the article. Flamini wears 84 for Milan, Sheva wore 76 when he went back, and Ventola was one of the first for Inter with 78.

_blank_

Iago wrote: »

back on-topic though I think clubs should be restricted to a given set of squad numbers. First team squad should have to wear 1-25 with new players/reservese subject to 26-50.

I'd agree with that, but it's down to marketing isn't it.

Also, "new player"?

Would you have Owen in 33 and no number 7 (or move someone like gibson to the 7)

_blank_

Xavi6 wrote: »

Tis all in the article

Pffft, I didn't read the article, just had a rant.

DazMarz

Some players use their birth year as their squad numbers (Flamini, Shevchenko (during his second stint at Milan), Ronaldinho, (is it just me or is it something of a Milan phenomenon!:D) and so on.) if their 'chosen' number is unavailable. For a pisstake when I was getting a jersey and I wanted a number on the back, I got my name and 88 on the back, just for the hell of it. And some of the less educated fans behind me in the Bridge actually asked me who this new lad was...........Oh dear.....:o

TonyD79

Well Beckham started it all off with his move to Madrid and getting the Michael Jordon number! Sure Owen has number 7 yet is not a starter. Whats annoying is when the goalkeeper doesnt have the number one shirt. Think it happened at United before VDS came along.

_blank_

Has a goalie ever worn 2-11 I wonder.

I seem to recall an Argentina team wearing numbers allocated on a second name alphabetical basis in a WC (possibly 86), am I misremembering?

No, I'm not

Did Sergio Almiron get game time in 86?

Iago

Des wrote: »

I'd agree with that, but it's down to marketing isn't it.

Also, "new player"?

Would you have Owen in 33 and no number 7 (or move someone like gibson to the 7)

What I mean is that you have a squad of say 22. They get the numbers of their choice, within the 1-25 limitation.

You then sign Owen, and he can choose one of the 3 remaining numbers.

The first team squad shouldn't be anymore than 25 tbh, so everyone after that is a reserve/youth player.

HalloweenJack

Mitch Connor wrote: »

kinda related, but it is a pethate of mine when players wear numbers that aren't 'traditional' to their position. Such as Gallas wearing 10. remember there being a few cases of this in the last few years but can't bring it to mind.

There's an Italian keeper, think it's Antonio Chimenti, who wears (or at least, used to) number 10.

Also, midfielder Pantelis Kafes of AEK Athens wears 1 and did at other clubs before.

Dont be at yourself

I couldn't really give a fiddlers.

pickarooney

Squad numbers - where it all started to go wrong, IMO.
All marketing guff aside, why does a player need a squad number?

As for the + things, more ludicrous behaviour condoned by clubs.

eZe^

Mitch Connor wrote: »

kinda related, but it is a pethate of mine when players wear numbers that aren't 'traditional' to their position. Such as Gallas wearing 10. remember there being a few cases of this in the last few years but can't bring it to mind.

Maybe it's a French thing. Lassy for Madrid wears 10 too.




It annoys me too.

Seaneh

Des wrote: »

I also hate when players have a squad number, and insist on a little "+" between the numbers.

For example, a striker moves to a club and wants the number 9 shirt, but someone else already has it, so he wears 18, like this

1+8

But yeah, triple digit numbers are retarded.

It's weird though, in a "normal" 1-11 4-4-2, the positions of each number are fairly retro too

---

1

2

---

4

---

5

---

3

7

---

6

---

8

---

11

---

9

---

10

---

4 = centre mid.

6 = centre back.

Always.

eZe^

Seaneh wrote: »

4 = centre mid.

6 = centre back.

Always.

Baresi being the perfect example.

GLaDOS

Seaneh wrote: »

4 = centre mid.

6 = centre back.

Always.

Retro Championship manager says otherwise

brick tamland

I remember United playing against Charlton about 10-12 years ago and they had they're number in aplhabetical order similar to how Argentina did in that world cup. No 1 playying outfield ect

Pro. F

The argument about traditional position numbers is one thing but at least the large squads and rotation these days gives an excuse for first team players wearing numbers up to 25 or so.

But what's the point in having number 80 or whatever if there aren't 80 shirt numbers issued in the squad? If I was a player I couldn't sleep at night if my number wasn't part of a numerically consistent squad sequence.

I mean what's the point of anything if the squad numbers don't run in a continuous sequence? Might as well just issue the players with emblems on their backs' at this stage. Next stop mythical creature symbols for player identification. Anelka: ''I picked the unicorn because it represents my indomitable spirit.'':rolleyes:

/rant

leninbenjamin

Tbh, I'm the opposite, I tend to prefer more unconventional numbering. For a variety of reasons.

I like numbers, particularly odd numbers and primes.

The traditional 4-4-2 is dead in the strict sense, the old associations are meaningless.

Also I hate seeing players being pigeon holed, i.e. he's a number 9, number 10. I think wearing an unconventional number for a particular role can help remove the stereotypes that may naturally follow it.

Numbers always seem to harbour some sort of association with us, we associate particular events and happenings with dates etc. So if a player wants to wear a particular number I don't see a problem with it, better than him being reminded of something good than negative every time he pulls on the shirt.

In the same sense as the above, some numbers are just lucky or unlucky for some people. For example, for me the only time I've ever won anything significant has been wearing the numbers of a player associated with the right side of the pitch (I'm a utility man though so I've played on the left and central just as much). So I like 2 and 7 (and 13 in GAA).

Xavi6

Des wrote: »

Has a goalie ever worn 2-11 I wonder.

Again, it's in the feckin story! Luca Bucci wore 5 and 7 at Parma. Lupatelli wore 10.

Pro. F

Xavi6 wrote: »

Again, it's in the feckin story! Luca Bucci wore 5 and 7 at Parma. Lupatelli wore 10.

Tis a good article by the way. Very enjoyable read.

_blank_

Pro. F wrote: »

If I was a player I couldn't sleep at night if my number wasn't part of a numerically consistent squad sequence.

weirdo

fullstop

Seaneh wrote: »

4 = centre mid.

6 = centre back.

Always.

Incorrect IMO

aidan24326

Seaneh wrote: »

4 = centre mid.

6 = centre back.

Always.

No, not always. Not even usually in fact. The way Des laid it out was the traditional lineup. Some teams varied from this in the way you've said. The 4 and 6 were sometimes swapped. I think Pallister wore 6 at United.

Seaneh

No, I'm right.

4 = ball playing centre mid.

6 = ball playing centre back.

so, 4 = pirlo, 6 = nesta.

4 = carrick, 6 = rio

4 = ballack/obi, 6 = carvalho

4 = Xavi, 6 = Militto

bobbysands81

Des wrote: »

No, you're right, I made it up:rolleyes:

Wasn't accusing you of making it up, just had never heard of it before.

Relax pal.

Xavi6

Seaneh wrote: »

4 = Xavi,

:eek:

Blasphemy

:mad:

_blank_

Seaneh wrote: »

No, I'm right.

4 = ball playing centre mid.

6 = ball playing centre back.

so, 4 = pirlo, 6 = nesta.

4 = carrick, 6 = rio

4 = ballack/obi, 6 = carvalho

4 = Xavi, 6 = Militto

That looks like some weird continental system.;)

Carroller16

Seaneh wrote: »

No, I'm right.

4 = ball playing centre mid.

6 = ball playing centre back.

so, 4 = pirlo, 6 = nesta.

4 = carrick, 6 = rio

4 = ballack/obi, 6 = carvalho

4 = Xavi, 6 = Militto

4 = Hargreaves, 6=Brown