That’s why you need to reconcile definitions. Which is why I thought CMs who were not the 2nd forward in a 2, ie CMs playing centrally behind a 2, was a good definition, (but I recognise that can get definitionally fuzzy as well because sometimes these players were playing on the left more like a 7 or an 11–though that’s the point of the centrally stipulation).
You’ll have really hardcore old school people here in Spain tell you that Lampard or other “box-to-box” midfielders are 7s. In the end you have to try and make some interpretive decisions between eras.
I’ll simply it for you. The number 10 is the offensive midfielder who plays ‘in the hole’ behind the striker(s). Be it a 1 or 2 striker system or in a 4-3-3.
Fact of the matter is for Fabregas and Gerrard is has been fluid. Cesc started out as cm, went to number 10 and back at Chelsea was used a cm again. Gerrard started out as centre midfielder, but as his career progressed moved in an more advanced role. For the majority of players it’s more clear-cut. Zidane without any question is a number 10.
I like this definition, but it’s still got problems, because sometimes the main player playing ‘in the hole’ is a striker himself. ie Bergkamp, Totti, Baggio, Raúl much of the time with Zidane, the list goes on. How to decide which is the 10 and which is the other thing, then? Hence, again, why I made the stipulation of playing centrally behind two strikers, because if you’re doing that it’s probably in a diamond or some type of 4-4-2/5-3-2, and those 10s were ultimately doing midfield things and for me more classifiable as a CM than as a ST.
That is where the distinction of the number 10 and shadow/second/support (whatever your preference) striker comes in. The guys you mentioned fall in the latter category. Guys like Zidane, Ozil, Riquelme etc in the former.
From 1996 to 2009 Arsenal didn’t play with a number 10 in that flat 4-4-2. But with Bergkamp and van Persie in as second strikers.
Bergkamp was a 10 there. Just like Baggio or often Totti, or Del Piero, even if his characteristics were a bit different.
As coatmaker says, depending on your definition, a second striker is indeed a 10, and is in fact the strict definition of 10. A mediapunta, what we call Özil, Siva, etc. etc., is nothing more than a 10–and means literally mid-point (basically, 2nd striker–the 9 is the punta, the ultimate reference point, to the mediapunta’s mid reference point). It’s just mediapunta has evolved to mean different things with the years, just as 10 has. To give another example, some old school Madridistas will insist on calling Benzema a mediapunta, even if he is just a modern 9 with mediapunta-ish characteristics.
The problem he has is that Raúl and Del Piero do in fact fit the bolded of his definition
and Zidane or other players discussed were behind them or behind another striker of their characteristics, making it hard to decide who’s the 10 and how to define 10, and making the definition very hazy.
I think there is a clear distinction between those players and a number 10. Players like Bergkamp and Del Piero are much more offensive minded, play a lot more in the box than a number 10, which translates to those guys being more involved and having more goals. If anything those guys fill in the striker role different rather than them being a number 10. Zidane and Raúl playing together just underlines that imo.
Because he’s confusing 10s with 8s. A 10 plays directlly behind the striker. So Bergkamp, Baggio, Zola etc are obvious 10s where as the others are not.
You can not be a 10 playing behind 2 centre forwards, makes no sense
You literally can not have Gerrard as an 8 and eliminate the rest. Gerrard was a 10 in his prime.
Absolutely mate, there’s a clear distinction between Bergkamp and Baggio and Zidane and Laudrup, which is why it was easy to say Bergkamp and Baggio are included, Zidane and Laudrup aren’t. What’s hard to say is the distinction between Zidane and Laudrup and Xavi, Gerrard, Lampard, etc. etc. even if we sense that there is. That’s what the discussion is about…
I think perhaps the only way to frame this discussion rigidly is, were they the 3rd highest player?
Zidane-- usually
Özil-- yes
Kaka-- yes
Riquelme-- usually
Iniesta-- yes
Silva–almost always, except for very end of career for City
Laudrup–usually
So if you can answer no or only sometimes to this question, they’re included, which is why we want to include Gerrard or Xavi or Lampard or even Seedorf and not the others.
The only way to do so that I can see is the above, but I agree, it feels a bit cheap to include Gerrards, Fàbregas, and Sneijders of the world and leave out Zidanes, Laudrups, Riquelme’s, because we’re talking about a bit of a strange, fuzzy definition (nothing that clear about Zidane being the 3rd highest player–yeah, that will mostly be true, but who was higher, Zidane or Figo? I’m not really sure).
Lol this is absolute nonsense. Del Piero was not the number 10 at Juventus. Zidane was.
He lined up behind the two strikers, as a number 10 every single time Juventus played 3 at the back and he lined up at the tip of a diamond in a 4-4-2.
They then signed Nedved as his DIRECT replacement at 10.
For someone who likes to tell people they’re wrong a lot - you get an awful lot wrong.
You guys are just using different definitions, it’s a bit petulant on both sides to tell the other person they’re wrong. By coatmakers (strict, classical) definition he’s quite right that Del Piero was the #10, and by yours you’re right that Zidane/Nedved was.
Either way none of you guys are arguing about the distinction between a central attacking midfielder and a #10 at all lol, but rather what’s a #10 and what’s a second striker, and even then it’s just you guys arguing with different dictionaries atm.
If we follow his definition Yorke or Cole was a #10 too. Since in a 2 striker system the two upfront are the #9 and #10. You see how that strict definition doesn’t make sense, don’t you?
My original number 10 is Cruijff. It can’t get any more old school than that…he cares only for the number on the back that is correlated with the area they occupy on the pitch.
Fine, then, call it strict numerical positional definition versus more interpretational positional characteristic definition. But he’s certainly not wrong, there’s plenty of people, plenty of coaches who will call Del Piero a 10, who are using the former definition. To say he’s wrong is petulant.
I thought that the spanish translation would illuminate things a bit…but
This is just fervent constitutionalists screaming at fervent constitutional interpreationalists. Pretty silly.