GarethRDR Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 There are one, maybe two exceptions to that that I can live with. Campos wearing #9 and Vitor Baia wearing #99. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 ---------1------- 2-----5-----6-----3 11---8-----7-----7 -------10--------- ------------9------ Seemples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 ---------1------- 2-----5-----6-----3 11---8-----7-----7 -------10--------- ------------9------ Seemples. Wouldn't it be a bit confusing with two number 7s? :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I hope that was deliberate Wainy ? :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted April 28, 2011 New fangled nonsense. ...........1............ 2......................3 4..........5..........6 7....8....9...10...11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 dont turkish players wear their postcode hence stupid numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted April 28, 2011 Moderator Share Posted April 28, 2011 ---------1------- 2-----5-----6-----3 11---8-----7-----7 -------10--------- ------------9------ Seemples.Apart from (as spotted earlier), two 7's, no 4, the 6 out of place and the wingers the wrong way around. Other than that, perfick! Ye Olde School 1 2 5 4 3 7 8 6 11 10 9[/code] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted April 28, 2011 Ye Olde School? **** that modern shit, see my post above for the correct formation and numbering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted April 28, 2011 Author Share Posted April 28, 2011 Stoke numbering ---------------1-------------- 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 3 --------------9--------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 ---------1------- 2-----5-----6-----3 11---8-----7-----7 -------10--------- ------------9------ Seemples. Oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Stoke numbering ---------------1-------------- 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 3 --------------9--------------- Scotland under Craig Levin ---------------1-------------- 2-----3------4------5-----6----7 8----9----10----11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Any team with Andy Goram in goal: -(1)-(1)-(1)-1-(1)-(1)-(1)- ----2-----3-----4-----5----- ----6-----7-----8-----11--- ----------9-----10---------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Any team with Andy Goram in goal: -(1)-(1)-(1)-1-(1)-(1)-(1)- ----2-----3-----4-----5----- ----6-----7-----8-----11--- ----------9-----10---------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted April 28, 2011 4 should definitely be a CB. The original CBs were number 4s being played deeper and deeper until they were defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I've always learnt: 1 2 5 6 3 7 4 8 11 10 9 10 being the link. 8 being more attacking CM. 4 holding. 9 target man/goalscorer. we never had squad numbers, numbers were based on who was starting and in what position, so those numbers been put into my head for 7/8 years so that'll always be my way of thinking when it comes to it. Only debatable point is 4&6 ....everything else is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted April 28, 2011 Yeh I think I had it wrong. ----1 ---2-3 --4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11 Was the original set up using the 2-3-5 formation. NUmber 5 evolved to being a CB as the position was played deeper and deeper in the move to the W-M formation. Then another halfback joined him and the original fullbacks (2 and 3) were pushed out wider, so I guess the 4 or 6 as CB is up for debate, but I think it was traditionally 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted April 28, 2011 Yeh I think I had it wrong. ----1 ---2-3 --4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11 Was the original set up using the 2-3-5 formation.Did nobody notice my post on the previous page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted April 28, 2011 Ah, sorry MIke. I did look at it briefly but the lack of the pyramid threw me off so I didn't pay attention. You had it correct all along! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Evrything, grrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Evrything, grrrr tits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts