gazzeh
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2011
- 2,144
- 5,085
No one will have 26.
Squad numbers
- Thread starter Tonif
- Start date
KalSpur
Active Member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 352
- 89
Has it been retired?
sundanceyid10
Well-Known Member
- Aug 22, 2013
- 3,379
- 8,319
Im quite OCD about numbers 
I like the first team with 1-11 as much as possible, tradition I guess. not keen on players wearing 38 and 42 and so on
I like the first team with 1-11 as much as possible, tradition I guess. not keen on players wearing 38 and 42 and so on
chrissivad
Staff
- May 20, 2005
- 51,646
- 58,072
- Staff
- #44
No, but im sure the club said, or hinted that it wont be used for a while.
Syn_13
Fly On, Little Wing
- Jul 17, 2008
- 14,852
- 20,661
Wasn't it said that they'd reserve it for Ledley's son? Don't even know if he has a son but I'm sure I heard words to that effect.
chrissivad
Staff
- May 20, 2005
- 51,646
- 58,072
- Staff
- #46
Not sure they said its reserved, but they did say something along those lines that his son could one day have that number as to why its not been retired.
DJS
A hoonter must hoont
- Dec 9, 2006
- 31,274
- 21,772
No.26 is outside of 1-25, which I would consider to be main squad numbers so no harm in just leaving it vacant.
I would t be stupid like the spammers retiring their no.6, how is the legend supposed to continue for 1-11 numbers if you do that? They could sign a really classy centre back who should be entitled to wear no.6.
No.26, whilst a nice neat number for a centre back is dispensable.
I would t be stupid like the spammers retiring their no.6, how is the legend supposed to continue for 1-11 numbers if you do that? They could sign a really classy centre back who should be entitled to wear no.6.
No.26, whilst a nice neat number for a centre back is dispensable.
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
Syn_13
Fly On, Little Wing
- Jul 17, 2008
- 14,852
- 20,661
5 and 6 for centre backs. 4 is usually a holding midfielder nowadays. It's a moot point really, since people choose whatever number nowadays. Dempsey at 2 and Bentley at 5.
scat1620
L'espion mal fait
- May 11, 2008
- 16,383
- 52,868
Im quite OCD about numbers
Syn_13
Fly On, Little Wing
- Jul 17, 2008
- 14,852
- 20,661
I wonder if any outfield players have ever insisted on the #1 jersey?
chrissivad
Staff
- May 20, 2005
- 51,646
- 58,072
- Staff
- #52
Edgar Davids did when he was the player/manager of what ever lower league team he played for in North London(?)
Ironic, as he played as a deuce-bag in our colours.
DJS
A hoonter must hoont
- Dec 9, 2006
- 31,274
- 21,772
4 and 5 or 5 and 6.
In englund, 5 and 6 usually with 4 as holding midfielder.
Personally I prefer 5 and 6 as mabbutt wore 6
(aside from that season when razor ruddock wore it and mabbutt wore 5).I wish King had taken 6 really.
DJS
A hoonter must hoont
- Dec 9, 2006
- 31,274
- 21,772
scat1620
L'espion mal fait
- May 11, 2008
- 16,383
- 52,868
Agree, but I always had King as a #5 in my head rather than a #6. In my idealised fantasy #1-#11, I like the #5 to be your footballing centre-half and your #6 to be your physically dominant stopper of a centre-half. Hence I always wished King had our #5 shirt. But yep, in a general 4-4-2 formation it should definitely be:4 and 5 or 5 and 6.
In englund, 5 and 6 usually with 4 as holding midfielder.
Personally I prefer 5 and 6 as mabbutt wore 6
I wish King had taken 6 really.
1 - GK
2 - RB
3 - LB
4 - DM
5 - CB
6 - CB
7 - RM
8 - AM
9 - ST
10 - CF
11 - LM
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
This was from wiki, but this is what I envisioned:
Last edited:
Dempsey is such a heel and i love it. Its hilarious. The whole ripping up the ref book a few weeks ago played RIGHT into his character. Couldnt script it better
I was just thinking, it wouldnt surprise me to see Townsend take #7 and Yedlin take #17. Eriksen take #10, and Pritchard take #23.
FreddieYid
Well-Known Member
- Aug 1, 2011
- 1,369
- 4,020
spurious1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 20, 2005
- 994
- 848
Since the "traditional" squad numbers came from the 2-3-5 system which was played for about the first 50 years of football, they don't make perfect sense anyhow in the systems played nowadays, which are about the opposite.
For the central defenders (called centre-halves, from their original vocation as halfbacks), I'd say one should be 5, as historically what happened was that the central halfback dropped back to be a central defender. Whether the other is 4 or 6 is arbitrary, either the left or right halfback who became a central defender, while the other hung around in his old position to become a central midfielder with a more defensive role, as the old inner forwards 8 and 10 dropped back to become the more attacking midfielders.
It's also bizarre that the numbers went in order from right to left, like reading japanese or hebrew. (i.e., rfb is 2, lfb 3, rw 7, lw 11), but also from bottom to top, unlike any language of which I am aware. Can someone explain that?
Old 2-3-5 numbering system:
11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7
6 - 5 - 4
3 - 2
1
For the central defenders (called centre-halves, from their original vocation as halfbacks), I'd say one should be 5, as historically what happened was that the central halfback dropped back to be a central defender. Whether the other is 4 or 6 is arbitrary, either the left or right halfback who became a central defender, while the other hung around in his old position to become a central midfielder with a more defensive role, as the old inner forwards 8 and 10 dropped back to become the more attacking midfielders.
It's also bizarre that the numbers went in order from right to left, like reading japanese or hebrew. (i.e., rfb is 2, lfb 3, rw 7, lw 11), but also from bottom to top, unlike any language of which I am aware. Can someone explain that?
Old 2-3-5 numbering system:
11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7
6 - 5 - 4
3 - 2
1
