I remember that run he went on at OT in 2000 that tore United apart 
.
1 Like
This would mean that every team which played 4-4-2 in the late 90s, early 2000s, and there were a lot, played 4-4-1-1 in stead of 4-4-2 ;)? Except the ones like United.
Yeah class player haha. Wish this thread was more about what I intended it to be about—Redondo vs Seedorf vs Modric vs Xavi vs Lotthaus vs Gerrard, then “my semantics for describing a 10 ARRR”’ vs “my semantics for describing a 10 ARRRR”
@SDGooner not at all. What does it have to do with formations? Again, you guys are literally just arguing about what you call a 10. The second striker would be the 10 in the 4-4-2 and the first 1 in the 4-4–1-1.
1 Like
How about re-branding it best CM of 1995? 
Paul Ince at Inter Milan
1 Like
@Pires here’s Redondo vs. Valencia in the 2000 CL final.
Reminds me of why he stood out so much to me as a kid, that tall elegance in the pivot, literally ahead of his time, exactly the type of player I like
2 Likes
A diamond would have been a better formation to define roles and see if they count as midfielders or not.
I guess we will not agree on this. Because in a (flat) 4-4-2 you don’t play with a number 10.
Nah, mate that is not how a flat 4-4-2 works. The second striker would play just in behind the striker and would never be as heavily involved in orchestrating attacks as a classic number 10.
Zidane is a number 10. He occupied the space directly BEHIND the 2 strikers (Del Piero and Inzaghi for example) and Del Piero would play just off Inzaghi as a second striker.
Bergkamp in a 4-4-2 is not a number 10, he was a second striker to Thierry Henry.
1 Like
I know how a flat 4-4-2 works lol and you both are still totally arguing semantics and missing the point.
Based on coatmakers definition, quite literally you do. And he’s the second in the 2. You both just keep insisting on your (conceptual) definition while ignoring the fact that a 10 was first defined as a player next to or just behind the striker who doesn’t sit quite as much on the “point” (ie, the end, last defender) as the other.
Coatmakers definition (which is very valid, if different than yours)----> 4-4-2 = 2nd striker is a 10.
Let’s see if we get this now lol.
1 Like
This stricter definition makes striker pairings like Yorke/Cole or Inzaghi/Shevchenko classify one of them as a number 10. In that sense that stricter definition is simply wrong.
1 Like
Salma Hayek is a 10.
7 Likes
How can a definition be wrong, lol?
You’re just insisting on your version at all costs.
Once again, 10, in its inception, and according to some outlooks =
We associate a 10 nowadays more with Cruyff, Zidane, Totti, etc. but that number was given to/who was the 2nd highest player, whether he happened to have the characteristics you associate with a 10 or not.
Some people think you have to be a Bergkamp to be 10. Some people thought Jack Wilshere was a 10.
For me a 10 is someone who sits behind the striker and attacks and isn’t considered vital to the defensive work but if needs must he’ll pranny about trying to make himself useful. Mesut Oezil in a nutshell.
Cazorla is the Lahm of midfield. (Swiss Army knife-player.)
No.10 has a different meaning around the world. Different cultures have different roles in a formation specific to their language and understanding of football strategy.
E.g Bergkamp, Zidane and David Silva are 10s, but completely different players with their own delegated roles.
1 Like
Was it? Because when we go back to the origins/introduction of squad numbers, which you are of doing with this logic, teams played with 4 or 5 forwards.
In its very essence a 10 is the second highest player (centrally), one who’s not doing much defensive work as you say. That’s why definitionally you can see why the confusion about what Zidane was at Juve or Madrid, because he was not that, but we certainly associate him with being a 10 in the modern day.
Sure, but I’m not going back that far, haha, I’m only going back as far is relevant.
1 Like
You mean, you are going to a reference point that fits your narrative.
I don’t have a narrative, I accept both definitions. But obviously we’re not going back as far as the beginnings of football to find even older definitions, because they’re even less relevant.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to accept that a definition of the 10 was what coatmaker is saying. Because you’re just arguing against facts. It was indeed a definition of the 10, even if you like a different definition. What’s so hard about that?
1 Like
You never really answered the question. Yorke/Cole/Inzaghi/Shevchenko. You would agree, according to facts/that definition, that two of those four players are number 10s?
Because I wouldn’t. That is also why I think that definition is wrong. Then we would have to agree to disagree.
In the old days players were numbered 1-11 and nearly everyone played a variation of 4-4-2. So:
2-3 =fullbacks
4-5 CBs
6 CM/DM
8 CM/CAM
7/11 - wingers
9/10 - strikers
One of the front 2 would get number 10 nearly always. Linekar was a 10 despite being a 9, so was Owen, so was Robbie Keane, so was Les Ferdinand, so was Van Nistelrooy, so was Rooney. Del Piero wore the number 10 shirt. The only player who got number 10 who wasn’t a forward that I remember was Barnes and he was a left winger who drifted in.
However this is partly due to Liverpool having a relationship with the number 7 shirt. Kevin Keegan was bought as midfielder and got number 7. He transitioned to a CF and kept the same shirt. Daglish was his replacement so picked up the same shirt number. There after it became the thing for Liverpool strikers to be number 7s
BACK ON TOPIC
When teams started to overload the midfield to control games with one up top. This meant that the number 10 would now drop back deeper to fit into build up play. This is when a 10 became a CAM but it never was before that.
So a 10 traditionally is the second highest positional player
2 Likes