What's new

Marcus Edwards

dtxspurs

Welcome to the Good Life
Dec 28, 2017
11,234
46,574
There's all sorts of fancy modern names for what he does but I would suppose he's most commonly referred to as an "inside forward" or wide AM of some sort. A winger stays out wide and looks to put crosses in, Lamela stays further in, cuts inside and looks to play through balls and get shots away. Completely different role if you ask me.
Fair enough, I was more responding to the original guy saying we only had one winger on the team now. Not sure how Son could be classified as a winger and not Lamela. Unless I'm blanking on someone else he could be talking about.
 

Johnny J

Not the Kiwi you need but the one you deserve
Aug 18, 2012
18,117
47,876
Is Lamela not a winger anymore?
Lamela has never been a winger IIRC. He's a wide forward, just like Son. Tho Lamela can also play a central forward role, and Son can also play up top. But not left back.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Fair enough, I was more responding to the original guy saying we only had one winger on the team now. Not sure how Son could be classified as a winger and not Lamela. Unless I'm blanking on someone else he could be talking about.

I don't class Son as a winger either to be honest. he either does the same sort of thing as Lamela or plays off the striker. We don't really have any old-school wingers in the team because none of the formations we play uses them. Our width comes from wingbacks overlapping rather than midfield wingers.
 

dtxspurs

Welcome to the Good Life
Dec 28, 2017
11,234
46,574
I don't class Son as a winger either to be honest. he either does the same sort of thing as Lamela or plays off the striker. We don't really have any old-school wingers in the team because none of the formations we play uses them. Our width comes from wingbacks overlapping rather than midfield wingers.
I agree I just figured in the sense of our team and how we play those two would be what I would think people consider the "wingers" in the squad.
 

tiger666

Large Member
Jan 4, 2005
27,978
82,214
Traditional wingers have fallen out of fashion with the rise of the attacking full or wing back. Width usually comes from there now unless you play with the full backs cutting in like City often do.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
I don't class Son as a winger either to be honest. he either does the same sort of thing as Lamela or plays off the striker. We don't really have any old-school wingers in the team because none of the formations we play uses them. Our width comes from wingbacks overlapping rather than midfield wingers.
Son is the closes thing we have to a winger - he does cut inside, but he prefers to set up out wide. He is better suited to a 4231 formation, because when we play with wingbacks in the 3421 formation, the left wingback and Son tend to crowd each other out on the left side. There is not enough space for them both to play wide, and its easier to mark both of them.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Son is the closes thing we have to a winger - he does cut inside, but he prefers to set up out wide. He is better suited to a 4231 formation, because when we play with wingbacks in the 3421 formation, the left wingback and Son tend to crowd each other out on the left side. There is not enough space for them both to play wide, and its easier to mark both of them.

Closest thing we have, maybe, but IMO he's still not a winger in the traditional sense. Like I say, we don't play a formation that uses wingers. In a 4231 obviously 2 of the 3 AMs are wider, but still not really wingers hugging the touchline and looking to put crosses in.
 

WexfordTownSpur

preposition me arse
Aug 2, 2007
2,615
653
Fair enough, I was more responding to the original guy saying we only had one winger on the team now. Not sure how Son could be classified as a winger and not Lamela. Unless I'm blanking on someone else he could be talking about.
I think we can all agree that he is an attacking player! And I find it hard to see that he could not get time in our side this season if fit. Everyone agrees we need to sign attacking options, so it seems strange that we would loan him out unless we had some other attacking option in mind? Or maybe I should say a little foolish. For me, he has as much potential as a lot of players we have been linked with, or in reality, can afford!
 

Dan Yeats

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2011
2,796
2,911
I think we can all agree that he is an attacking player! And I find it hard to see that he could not get time in our side this season if fit. Everyone agrees we need to sign attacking options, so it seems strange that we would loan him out unless we had some other attacking option in mind? Or maybe I should say a little foolish. For me, he has as much potential as a lot of players we have been linked with, or in reality, can afford!
I don't see how he could possibly get any minutes on the pitch whilst we have world class talents like Sissoko on the books.
 

Dan Yeats

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2011
2,796
2,911
I'm a bit surprised tbh. I thought with GKN going out to Burnley then Edwards was liable for more minutes with us. I expected one or other of them to go out on loan, but not both.
Okay, this has just been rated as funny for the second time now. Whilst my jawdropping comic genius is in no doubt, someone's going to have to explain this one to me.

Or am I just the only one that still thinks GKN has talent worth developing?
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
the term "winger" is almost an anachronism anymore. when I think of a winger I think of a 4-4-2 10-15 years ago.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
the term "winger" is almost an anachronism anymore. when I think of a winger I think of a 4-4-2 10-15 years ago.

In my head i can see the difference between winger and inside forward and left back and wing back. Still can't for center back and center half though.
 

tiger666

Large Member
Jan 4, 2005
27,978
82,214
In my head i can see the difference between winger and inside forward and left back and wing back. Still can't for center back and center half though.

Centre half is just an old position that became the centre back.

With the help of "Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Football Tactics" by Jonathan Wilson which everyone on here should read:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inverting-Pyramid-History-Football-Tactics/dp/1409128644

Centre half used to play in midfield, much like a modern defensive mid, in the old pyramid formations before tactics was even a thing:

LW-----IF-----CF-----IF-----RW

-----HB-------CH------HB------

---------FB---------FB---------

---------------GK--------------

Then Herbert Chapman ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Chapman ) came up with the idea of dropping the centre half back in to defence:

LW---------CF----------RW

-------IF----------IF-------

------HB----------HB------

-FB--------CH-----------FB

Chapman was supposedly the first major tactician to realise the potential of direct counterattacking, and his first innovation was to move the centre half back into defence. Hence the oddity of calling a centre back a "centre half". It comes from moving the central halfback, a defensive midfielder, back into central defence. Thus, the original two defenders, the fullbacks, were moved wide, and when an additional central defender was added in the 60's to create a back four, the fullbacks became the wide defenders. The WM formation was originally designed to add some solidity to defence, lure the opposition forward, and use the space to create scoring chances with a quick transition game often based on vertical passing to pacey wingers.
 
Top